From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 00:00:17 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA23013;
	Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:59:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:59:29 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: Questions on vortex subsciptions
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:04:35 -0400
Message-ID: <19990701070435781.AAA269 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"gd1Zg.0.Qd5.G7nUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28814
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace wrote:
If you are subscribed to the vortex digest, can you send emails to
><vortex-l eskimo.com>?
>
>I know <vortex-digest eskimo.com> is a separate list, but it gets all the
>posts made to <vortex-l eskimo.com>.  Is it true vice versa?  Do digest
>readers post to <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <vortex-digest@eskimo.com>, or do
>they have no ability to post at all?

You might want to write directly to Bill Beaty on that one, Horace.  I don't
think he monitors this list much.  I always put HEY BILL!! in the subject
line the subject line to get his attention, because he has so many lists
that he can't possibly read them all.

Knuke

Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 01:15:23 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA02899;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 01:14:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 01:14:13 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b3a0c5433ac8 [12.21.211.103]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:18:00 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
Resent-Message-ID: <"a6Opc.0.Dj.LDoUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28815
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:23 PM 6/30/99, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:17:21 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>The use of an AC electrolytic cell in a resonant circuit, primarily as the
>>capacitance, be it in series or parallel resonance, achieves an efficient
>>high energy flux through the cell, especially when operated at a high Q.
>>For convenience, let's call such a cell a resonant electrolytic cell (REC).
>
>Hi Horace,
>
>I may well be wrong, but I have a feeling that the AC "current" that
>goes through the capacitance of the cell doesn't actually count as
>electrolysis current (at least not in the normal sense of electrolysis).
>I.e. I don't think it comprises ionic current, and hence doesn't result
>in a transport of charges to electrodes, and thus also not in the
>formation of gas at electrodes.
>(There may however be some phenomenon whereby gas is formed in the fluid
>itself).


First, let me note that in an AC cell no ionic current is necessary.  In an
ordinary DC cell the ionic current is actually provided not by the
electrostatic gradient, which is nominal at points away from the
interfaces, as much as by ordinary diffusion due to concentration
gradients.  This concentration equilibration need not occur in an AC cell
because H and O are consumed at the stoichometric ratio at every
electrolysis surface.

I think you need to look at the electrolyte as a lattice where each element
is a resistor in parallel with a capacitor.  An equivalent way to look at
it is that it is a resistive lattice and capacitive lattice joined at every
corresponding nodal point.  In this model it doesn't matter what
combination of paths the current uses to get to an element, the current
simply is there.  As the frequency goes up, the resistive lattice is less
important.

Secondly, at the entry to the cell at a metal plate, there is a major
potential barrier.  This barrier is circumvented by whatever current is
passed capacitively.  No impact at that (entry) end, but you can not tell
one kind of current from the other on the opposite end, the impedence is
less going through the cell, so there IS a net reduction in energy for
passing the current through the cell.  Capacitive linkage may be an
efficient way to get AC current into a cell, especially for catalytic or
other non-electrolytic purposes.   This also applies, I think, to surface
reactions that might be created on dielectric catalysts.

The current that arrives at the opposing plate is also utilized in some
percentage, and some flows unproductively on, as "pass through" energy.
The net effect is, as you say, the capacitively linked current that flows
across the interface is not involved directly in the electrolysis.
However, when you have a myriad of plates, and when you operate in
resonance, the "pass through" energy is once again (later) utilized.  It is
recycled at every plate and every oscillation.  The net effect is to reduce
the resistance of the electrolyte and improve Q.  In addition, the energy
flux in the electolyte is greatly increased, so electrochemical activity,
as in sterilization, should be greatly increased.  the energy delived to
any one point is increased.  The potential drop across small objects should
also be increased.  If you are operating an AC cell anyway, it seems the
efficiency should be greatly improved by placing the cell in a resonant
circuit, and by utilizing capacitive linkage and isolation.

One caveat: the rotation of the water molecules in an AC cell causes heat.
This is bad and one reason why I suggest use of dielectric granules in
slurry.  However, I think this torquing has a very positive effect by
statistically increasing the H2O-(H+) bond length.  This increases the
electron tunneling probability to H3O+ ions at the interface and thus the
efficiency of the electronation process by using some of the "pass through"
energy for this process.

The pass through energy is much more directly focused at the H2O-(H+) bond
length separation by torqueing than by linear excitiation.  I think this
can cause spontaneous hydrogen formation in the electrolyte itself, but
massively more so at dielectric boundaries,  where van der Walls forces can
pin down one end of the H3O+ molecule as the other end rotates.  The
problem is getting enough energy flux into the electrolyte without losing
it to heat.  The strategy I have suggested is to eliminate as much of the
volume of electrolyte as possible while maximizing the available surface
area while maintaining a high dielectric constant.


>[snip]
>>Second, the prospect of high electrolytic efficiency raises the frequently
>>discussed possibility of further attack on the Second Law of Thermodynamics
>>by using ambient heat to add to electrolysis efficiency, and thus produce a
>>COP over 1.  It is well known that energy from ambient heat contributes to
>
>I also thought for some time that this would be so, however one needs to
>also take the other half of the cycle into consideration. I.e. the part
>where the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined to form water and
>electricity. I fear that the fact that one can get about 1/6 of the
>total energy input from the environment in an electrolysis cell may also
>mean that one loses at least 1/6 of the energy to heat in a fuel cell.
>Ergo, no net gain.


Uh, no, this is good to produce the heat, because it is in the second
compartment.  It is not wasted.  The idea is the old two compartment model.
The electrolysis compartment cools down spontaneously, the recombination
compartment heats up, a heat engine uses the evolved energy difference to
drive the process.  The problem is to make the heat engine using the left
over fuel cell heat efficiently enough to drive the process and avoid
entropy.  There is also the problem of H2 and O2 separation.


>
>>electroylsis and use of this fact is made by modern electrolysis units by
>>operating at a high temperature. The heat energy is contributed at the
>>electrodes in the form of vibration of the (H+)-H20 bond in the H3O+
>>molecules in close proximity to the cathode.  A high temperature REC,
>>operated in a closed highly insulated environment, with the electrolyte
>>acting as a heat dump for a heat engine, might close the energy loop.
>
>Thus, I suspect that at best one would break even under this scenario.


I suspect you are right.  However, if it is more efficient than prior
schemes, it is maybe worth looking at that aspect.  Wouldn't be the first
time!  8^)

I think the major problem with using these concepts for electrolysis lies
in the high recombination that will occur using AC.  I am hoping vigorous
bubble scrubbing action in the slurry will remedy that problem.

Recombination may not only not be a problem, but the primary functional
mechanism in other applications like sterilization, sonoluminescence, etc.
The energy goes unused in the electrolyte until it hits a reactive target.
At some density and frequency, it may be a magic bullet for bacteria etc.

I also like the aspect of opening up new domains for CF, and access to
highly acidic electrolytes.  It has always struck me that acids, having a
high PH, should be more useful for hydrogen based LENR.  The problem is
eliminating metal lattices, since they tend to dissolve in strong acids.
Maybe carbon or silicon lattices, combined with other elements in the
lattice, can provide a new regime for LENR research.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 01:27:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA05317;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 01:21:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 01:21:20 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530504b3a0d6263290 [12.21.211.103]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:25:12 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: HEY BILL BEATY!  Questions on vortex subsciptions
Cc: billb eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"Vphxr.0.yI1.0KoUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28816
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

If you are subscribed to the vortex digest, can you send emails to
<vortex-l eskimo.com>?

I know <vortex-digest eskimo.com> is a separate list, but it gets all the
posts made to <vortex-l eskimo.com>.  Is it true vice versa?  Do digest
readers post to <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <vortex-digest@eskimo.com>, or do
they have no ability to post at all?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 04:09:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA28487;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:08:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:08:12 -0700
Message-ID: <19990701111541.23683.rocketmail web116.yahoomail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: ron kita <tekcorman yahoo.com>
Subject: Project Green Glow
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"ukZbu3.0.1z6.SmqUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28817
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The official internet site for the British Aerospace Corp
ANTIGRAVITY research center is
http://www.greenglow.co.uk

Enjoy!

Best,
Ron Kita
Antigravitics_R_US


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 04:23:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA01402;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:22:07 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:22:07 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: Case & Arata
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:27:17 -0400
Message-ID: <19990701112717531.AAA269 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"KWoPA3.0.lL.VzqUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28818
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>This simply is not true, as the literature shows.
>
>Dozens of demonstrations of successful production of excess energy,
>including the very careful work of McKubre under EPRI sponsorship with
>unequivocal results. This also ignores the work of Arata and Zhang, which
>showed robust energy generation of megajoules per gram of nanopowder Pd,
>accompanied by the production of 4He.

Like I said, I'm about six months behind on my reading, but this is
interesting.  I've got all the stuff on my harddisk, so I'll go through it.
Thanks,

Knuke


Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 06:00:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA21815;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 05:59:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 05:59:18 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990701080115.00ad8748 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 08:01:15 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <377fe9b8.706786186 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990630150804.00acc9c8 mail.eden.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990630150804.00acc9c8 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7dZva3.0.nK5.cOsUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28819
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:11 7/1/99 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

>Would it be possible to include a graph of the total energy in and out
>(i.e. cumulative "power" graphs)?
>(Or is it there already, and I just missed it?)

No, you didn't miss it.  I've been leaving those traces off the final plots
for clarity.  Just for you, Robin, I have replotted Run 8's data with the
energy traces...and the power traces for reference.

It's just a stand alone .gif file (i.e. no explanation).  The energy scale
is 0 to 1,500,000 joules.  The cyan trace is Ein, the red trace is Eout.

http://www.eden.com/~little/Inc-W/2ndtry/run8energy.gif

The grand totals are 1,252,366 joules in and 1,239,260 joules out.  That's
just the nominal observed heat output.

The combined effect of cooling and escaping gases is around +2 watts.
Integrating over the 3 hours that power was on, that gives 21,600 joules
which brings the Eout up to 1,260,860... 1.007 times Ein.  Hey! that looks
a little better than my power balance...but we're probably just playing
games with the numbers now.



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 Jul  1 07:37:03 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA28139;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:34:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:34:48 -0700
Message-ID: <000801bec3cd$ebb0d820$958f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Break-Through Propulsion Physics
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:27:53 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC39B.9D7CC6A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"J-UA82.0.bt6.7otUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28820
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_0005_01BEC39B.9D7CC6A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Updated 6/16/99,and they changed the name of NASA LEWIS to GLENN RESEARCH
CENTER,  in honor of astronaut John H. Glenn.

Does this mean that Frank Stenger will get his check with a big glenn?  :-)

FJS

 http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC39B.9D7CC6A0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Break Through Propulsion Physics.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Break Through Propulsion Physics.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/
Modified=80B19ADDCCC3BE01F6

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC39B.9D7CC6A0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 08:57:57 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA26662;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:55:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:55:51 -0700
From: BriggsRO aol.com
Message-ID: <ef04b9a7.24ace83d aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:50:21 EDT
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 246
Resent-Message-ID: <"5rsTr2.0.LW6.6-uUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28821
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 7/1/99 6:00:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, little eden.com 
writes:

<< The combined effect of cooling and escaping gases is around +2 watts.
 Integrating over the 3 hours that power was on, that gives 21,600 joules
 which brings the Eout up to 1,260,860... 1.007 times Ein.  Hey! that looks
 a little better than my power balance...but we're probably just playing
 games with the numbers now.
  >>

Hi Scott,

I agree with your last remark.  It is probably fun science to chace down the 
last 0.7% error but that is so far below the noise level.  That divergence is 
probably the result of sums and differences among a raft of small errors and, 
for practical (engineering) purposes, equal to zero.  As I recall, you are 
looking for ~ 150% o-u - - and it's obviously not there.  

I don't think that, by any stretch, your instrumentation is responsible for 
your difference with Mizuno's results which is, of course, what you are 
looking for. 

Does Mizuno have any thoughts on the difference or suggestions as to where to 
go next?
As I recall, you still have two more Mizuno cathodes to try and possibly a 
different brand of water.  I wish I could think of something constructive to 
suggest besides some westward flight time.

Keep smiling,

Bob

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 09:19:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA02126;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:18:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:18:24 -0700
Message-ID: <377B3250.49C0D7F0 cwnet.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 09:18:15 +0000
From: Jones Beene <jonesb9 cwnet.com>
Reply-To: jonesb9 cwnet.com
Organization: IdeaWorks Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Resonant electrolytic cell (REC)
References: <v01530504b3a085d0b414 [12.21.211.62]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RLS4o3.0._W.EJvUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28822
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace, Very Interesting concept, your REC.

Do you know if anyone has every disproved the OU claims in the Puharich concept?
He supposedly used resonant AC with a week electrolyte. As I recall, the best
results were at 600 Hz, but other reports in the press have mentioned resonances
up to 40000 K (or was that Keely?).

In checking some old notes just now I see that Puharich in one patent used a
complex alternating current output consisting of an audio frequency (range 20 to
200 Hz) amplitude modulation of a carrier wave (range - 200 to 100,000 Hz).
Also, it seems he discovered his electrolysis concept as an MD, when he
mistakenly ran AC through blood - only to find an enormous amount of explosive
gas.

Thankfully Puharich abandoned blood as his primary focus but your slurry
comprised of dielectrics mixed with conductor might even be better.

Let me suggest one further enhancement that might be of benefit, even though I
realize that your objectives go beyond the production of H2 as a fuel.

If, for your dielectric, you used a proton conductor, and for the conductor an
oxygen affinity material, Then you might be able to continually recycle the
slurry to lessen the problem of "recombination" in the output gas flow.

Polysulfone, in a powdered form, would serve nicely as the dielectric; and a
nickel alloy would do very well as the conductor. I believe that there are even
some nickel alloys specifically designed to attach to and OH ion and then give
it up easily, somewhat in the same manner as hemoglobin does with O in blood.

However, I suspect that Puharich's OU claims are overblown, as someone would
surely have commercialized the system by now. But, who knows?
And certainly there is still the CF angle.

Regards.
Jones Beene

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 09:31:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA06147;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:29:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:29:52 -0700
Message-ID: <377B9791.8A731435 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 10:30:17 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Case & Arata
References: <v04011700b39eebc85672 [207.8.61.95]>			
	 <v04011700b39992b75000 [207.8.61.10]> <3773B60C.DA440429@ix.netcom.com>		
	  <19990625101957796.AAA165 mail.lcia.com@lizard>		
	 <v04011700b39fe6e9bb97 [207.8.61.95]>	
	 <v04011701b3a0156aafce [207.8.67.26]>
	 <v04011703b3a042413e33 [207.8.67.26]> <v04011700b3a097fa2c77@[207.8.67.26]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"dzE4Z3.0.zV1.0UvUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28823
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell,

Let me make one last stab at the problem.  You, like most skeptics of
CANR,  feel that the phenomenon is so improbable that you feel justified
in rejecting the claims using very improbable conventional explanations.
In addition, you believe you are open minded because if one of your
speculations is shot down, you will admit you were wrong and move on.
However, this is a never ending process. It is the nature of the human
mind to find explanations.  It is also the nature of intelligence to
find reasons to  accept or reject absolutely anything.  Because you do
not believe CANR is real, you will seek increasingly implausible prosaic
explanations until Hell freezes over.  I just do not have the time nor
can some of your speculations even been addressed quantitatively.
Furthermore, you do not do your homework, relying instead on someone to
do the correct calculations and show your speculations to be wrong.
When these calculations are done correctly, you quarrel over
insignificant details, thereby requiring more wasted time.

I happen to believe CANR is real based on an extensive examination  of
the literature and personal experience.  Therefore, I find my time is
better spent trying to understand how the process works and how it can
be made more reproducible.  I believe such efforts are more useful in
converting skeptics than answering each and every speculation.  This is
not to say that all speculations are useless.  However, the useful ones
generally come from people with extensive scientific background after
considerable thought.  I do not see you applying such resources to your
speculations.

So, I hope you will forgive me if I wait until you come up with better
ideas in the future to continue this debate.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 09:59:35 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA00869;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990701123854.00885a60 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 12:38:54 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <ef04b9a7.24ace83d aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7qCGm3.0.ND.9jvUt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28824
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 




At 11:50 AM 7/1/99 EDT, BriggsRO aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 7/1/99 6:00:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, little eden.com 
>writes:
>
><< The combined effect of cooling and escaping gases is around +2 watts.
> Integrating over the 3 hours that power was on, that gives 21,600 joules
> which brings the Eout up to 1,260,860... 1.007 times Ein.  Hey! that looks
> a little better than my power balance...but we're probably just playing
> games with the numbers now.
>  >>
>
>Hi Scott,
>
>I agree with your last remark.  It is probably fun science to chace down the 
>last 0.7% error but that is so far below the noise level.

  


  Neither an impulse response, nor noise spectrum were demonstrated or
given, so this is conjecture.

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

>   That divergence is 
>probably the result of sums and differences among a raft of small errors
and, 
>for practical (engineering) purposes, equal to zero.  As I recall, you are 
>looking for ~ 150% o-u - - and it's obviously not there.  

  The conclusion is possibly likely but irrelevant until the operational
manifold is explored, after calibrations, thermal and chemical, and noise
measurement.  

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


>I don't think that, by any stretch, your instrumentation is responsible for 
>your difference with Mizuno's results which is, of course, what you are 
>looking for. 

  Except for perhaps fundamental wiring differences, or interal impedances,
which are quite relevant.

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


>Does Mizuno have any thoughts on the difference or suggestions as to where
to 
>go next?
>As I recall, you still have two more Mizuno cathodes to try and possibly a 
>different brand of water.  I wish I could think of something constructive to 
>suggest besides some westward flight time.

   Science rules.  and is always constructive.


      Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 10:14:19 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA23125;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:12:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:12:31 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990701121428.00adb25c mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 12:14:28 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <ef04b9a7.24ace83d aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"m-9Az2.0.Ef5.-5wUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28825
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:50 7/1/99 EDT, BriggsRO aol.com wrote:

>Does Mizuno have any thoughts on the difference or suggestions as to where
to 
>go next?

Here is a direct quote from him...from a message received last night:

>I have no idea why you can not obtain the excess heat.

BTW, I've been doing a little digging into the literature on glow discharge
electrolysis and I am surprised to find that this phenomenon has been so
extensively investigated!  The long article by A. Hickling in Vol 6 of
Modern Aspects of Electrochemistry (edited by Bockris) is entitled,
"Electrochemical Processes in Glow Discharge at the Gas-Solution Interface"
and it has 46 references dating back to the work of Gubkin in 1887!!!

Realization:
If 2:1 heat production was commonplace in such experiments, it would have
been noticed long ago.  In view of my failure to observe the excess heat in
a deliberate replication attempt, this means either (1) Mizuno's cell is
really special in a fairly subtle way, or (2) there really is no excess
heat in this 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  Thu Jul  1 11:14:05 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15918;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:11:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:11:47 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v04011700b3a15e949a2f [207.8.67.186]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:09:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Contaminants of Geological Origin
Resent-Message-ID: <"gAp3b1.0.Su3.MzwUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28826
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{I just posted the following article in spf, and am also posting it
here, to give you guys a shot at it. --Mitchell Jones}***

In article <7l4c11$kbf$1 eskinews.eskimo.com>, lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen
Lajoie) wrote:

> 1) Leaks tend to go from high pressure to low pressure. The vessel is
> presurized to 3.4 atm. This is a major problem with your leak theory. Any
> "leak" would have to be diffusive.

***{Correct. Just as water does not run uphill, so helium doesn't leak
against a pressure gradient. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 2) We went over the possibility of a diffusive barrier. You still can't
> get 11 ppm He into 3.4 atm at 200 C from a 5.22 ppm He in 1 atm at room
> temp.

***{Russ George calculated that the maximum concentration due to diffusion
under these conditions would be 1.2 ppm. --MJ}***

> 3) The shape of the curve optained is not characteristic of a diffusion
> leak. Diffusion leaks tend to start out with a high slope and level off as
> they reach equilibrium. The obtained curve does just the opposite - start
> off with a low slope and increases with no leveling off to reach
> equilibrium.

***{The best fit to the curve I saw (see http://www.rsrch.com/saturna/)
would require treating it as a composite of two linear functions, with a
slope increase on day 5. The slope change was probably due to He that was
entrained either in the carbon catalyst or in a chunk of contaminant
finally reaching the surface. What must be remembered here is that
atmospheric and subsurface He levels are radically disparate. While 5.22
ppm is fairly representative of atmospheric helium levels, subsurface
levels can be *enormously* higher. There are some North Texas oil wells,
for example, where the byproduct gases are in excess of 50% helium. If a
chunk of crude oil, or coal, or of just about any mineral that originated
in such an area were to somehow find its way into Russ George's
experimental cell, there would be a short delay while the adsorbed He
worked its way to the surface of the chunk, followed by a lengthy period of
roughly linear increase, followed by a gradual leveling off as the He
entrained in the contaminant particle was exhausted. This is exactly what
these experimental data suggest to me.

The impure nature of the carbon catalyst has already been demonstrated by
Tom Claytor and Ed Wall, who separately and independently were able to find
chunks of iron--probably from rusty pipes somewhere in the manufacturing
process--by simply passing a magnet over the catalyst material. Given that
state of affairs, who is to say that a chunk of grease, oil, coal, mica,
etc., from a helium rich North Texas oil field did not make its way into
the catalyst due to a leaky seal somewhere in the manufacturing process?

Another possible line of contamination by geological materials would
originate on-site. Remember, these experiments use vermiculite for thermal
insulation. The 50 ml stainless steel flask which George used for his
experimental cell was placed inside a 2 liter dewar and vermiculite was
then poured in as filler. (See
http://rsrch.com/saturna/APSpapers_1998_1999.htm.) Result: the CF cells
were completely surrounded by particles of this silicaceous mineral, which
is extracted from the earth by mining. Silicon is similar to carbon in many
of its properties, and if the stranded structure of vermiculate allows it
to entrain large amounts of He, then a contaminant no larger than a grain
of sand could account for the excess He in these results.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> 4) Since the control and the experiment were of similar construction, any
> material used that would allow helium diffusion would be present in both.
> The control cell had no helium beyond background levels.

***{The diffusion argument is a non-starter, as are all lines of attack
based on atmospheric contamination. Arguments which posit that the
contamination came from subsurface geological sources, however, are quite
another matter. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 5) The argument for random error producing a fusion like He curve (15
> measurments all of increasing value) and getting 15 null measurments in
> the control cell are about the same as drawing 3 straight flushes followed
> by flipping heads 15 times in a row. So the "error" theory is right out.

***{Agreed. The observed data are not due to chance. I would note, however,
that when the "control" cell was drained of H2 and refilled with D2, it did
*not* thereafter begin to produce He. This result is strongly supportive of
the contamination hypothesis, and is *not* supportive of the CF hypothesis.
--MJ}***

> 6) The He background level was measured to be 5.22 ppm. Presumptions that
> it was something else are completely wild and unfounded.

***{Yup: contaminants of geological origin are the only shot here, so far
as I can see at the moment. If that hypothesis fails, the CF hypothesis
probably wins. --MJ}***

>
> [snip creationist like argument]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 12:17:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA05351;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:11:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:11:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199907011911.PAA15406 ns.cancom.net>
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Chris Arnold / George Wiseman / Evan Soule
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 99 12:18:00 -0600
x-sender: wiseman pop.cancom.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v2, June 6, 1997
From: George Wiseman <wiseman eagle-research.com>
To: "vortex-L" <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"xvxsT.0.PJ1.VrxUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28827
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>From: Mike Carpenter <mcarp mindspring.com>
>George Wiseman reply:
>
>Mr. Wiseman has not seen fit to post in public his replies to me and has not
>given me permission to repost his private replies on this list, so I shall 
>not
>post them. However I shall relay basicly what has been stated to me.  His web
>page is:  http://www.eagle-research.com 

I am George Wiseman.  I just subscribed to this list to participate in 
the Brown's Gas discussion.  I have not reviewed conversations prior to 
this date and won't be able to very soon as I'm traveling for the next 
month, but I do pick up my emails.

I thank Mike for not posting without permission, I like that kind of 
integrity.

>
>He says he knows Paul Pantone personally, has ridden in his vehicles and
>claims
>to verify that Pantone's devices do indeed triple the mileage of some
>vehicles.

Actually, though I've seen Paul's vehicles run, I've never actually riden 
in one.  From my own (independent and advanced) research, I know how his 
vehicles would handle in traffic conditions; at least the ones I saw.  
His mixture controls were very inadiquate, really requiring a co-pilot to 
operate properly.  He needed to develope a proper computerized system to 
handle the variables of a vehicle.  However, I also know that his 
technology is valid, given a proper system, he can triple the mileage of 
most vehicles.

>He doesnt buy products from Pantone because he says HIS products are much
>better.  He's told Pantone what his problems are and Pantone has supposedly
>admitted them.  Bottom line seems to be that I am now supposed to buy
>Wiseman's
>products instead of Pantone's.

I do produce the best there is, and even my products can be improved; 
which we are constantly doing.  I now have enhanced the fuel mileage 
(average gain of 25%) on over 50,000 vehicles.

>
>Gentlemen:  MY bottom line is if it works, lets use it.  Do not sell me
>videos.  If I could build anything that actually worked, I'd be using it.  
>I'd
>then build anothor one, sell it, take that money, and build 2 more, sell 
>them,
>take that money and build 4 more etc etc.  You may notice that I repeat 
>myself
>at this point, but Im guessing nobody noticed it b4.  If it works, and you
>build it, you have no need to scam for investors.

Several people have bought manuals from me, and retired on the income 
installing fuel savers.  I made the profit on one book.  I don't patent 
my stuff, I try to help the technologies reach the actual users.



George Wiseman <wiseman eagle-research.com>

http://www.eagle-research.com


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 12:41:08 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA12741;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:31:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:31:08 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b3a16909e284 [12.21.208.23]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:34:49 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Resonant electrolytic cell (REC)
Resent-Message-ID: <"7Yacz3.0.w63.w7yUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28828
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:18 AM 7/1/99, Jones Beene wrote:
>Horace, Very Interesting concept, your REC.
>
>Do you know if anyone has every disproved the OU claims in the Puharich
>concept?
>He supposedly used resonant AC with a week electrolyte. As I recall, the best
>results were at 600 Hz, but other reports in the press have mentioned
>resonances
>up to 40000 K (or was that Keely?).


Puharich, noted in US Patent 4,394,230 that he found resonances in pure
water at 3,980 Hz, and octaves 7,960, 15,920, 31840, and 63,690 Hz.  It has
been conjectured that is why Stanley Meyer operated at around 16,000 Hz.
Also, running all those octave overtones gives a lazy (triangular half
cycle) sawtooth wave.

BTW, I just got those numbers directly from the patent and did not recall
the noting the one at 3,980, which may be very useful.  It is "hidden" in
the text a bit, hidden from one quickly glancing at it for reference that
is.



>In checking some old notes just now I see that Puharich in one patent used a
>complex alternating current output consisting of an audio frequency (range
>20 to
>200 Hz) amplitude modulation of a carrier wave (range - 200 to 100,000 Hz).


Yes, and he made a big deal about it, but I remember when reading it
thinking that it may have simply been a byproduct of a circuit he found
convenient to use.  Also, the low frequence stuff may have produced a hum
that helped with bubble detachment, IMHO. I wouldn't  know for sure without
replicating.


>Also, it seems he discovered his electrolysis concept as an MD, when he
>mistakenly ran AC through blood - only to find an enormous amount of explosive
>gas.


Interesting!!  This is the first I've heard of this, I think.  Certainly
the first time I can see the significance.  Rich information for
speculation!


>
>Thankfully Puharich abandoned blood as his primary focus but your slurry
>comprised of dielectrics mixed with conductor might even be better.
>
>Let me suggest one further enhancement that might be of benefit, even though I
>realize that your objectives go beyond the production of H2 as a fuel.
>
>If, for your dielectric, you used a proton conductor, and for the conductor an
>oxygen affinity material,


Yes, proton conductors may have some advantage there, as applied to
maintaining isolation until processing in the gas separator.  Howver, a
much larger advantage may be in achieving direct electronation from
hydroxyl radicals at the proton conductor surface upon charge reversal,
thus eliminating the need for conductor particles in the electrolyte at
all.  However, lots of dielectics might play this role as catalyst, since
it is a only surface effect that is desired.  Large surface area certainly
plays a role.

Since the moving electrolyte slurry of the REC changes the electrolysis
modality into more of a an industrial process plant, maybe there are
intermediate chemcical reactions that could be used as well. The output of
the electrolyser might even be in the form of a liquid fuel to later be
separated.  If the resoance mode of operation realy does improve
electrolysis efficiency as much as hoped, then who knows what kind of
chemical processes might benefit from this principle?  For example, ammonia
production, critical to fertilizer production, requires hydrogen which in
many cases is produced by electrolysis.  That process may benefit by short
circuiting some steps and producing the ammonia directly.



>Then you might be able to continually recycle the
>slurry to lessen the problem of "recombination" in the output gas flow.
>
>Polysulfone, in a powdered form, would serve nicely as the dielectric; and a
>nickel alloy would do very well as the conductor. I believe that there are even
>some nickel alloys specifically designed to attach to and OH ion and then give
>it up easily, somewhat in the same manner as hemoglobin does with O in blood.

Interesting.  Also of interest in breaking the O-H bond in the OH- radical.
Binding one end of the OH- to a catalyst prior to rotation might
facilitate this, and thus help electronation of H3O+ radicals in the
vicinity, insted of recycling the energy back through recombination. (Wild
speculation.)


>
>However, I suspect that Puharich's OU claims are overblown, as someone would
>surely have commercialized the system by now. But, who knows?

Yes.

>And certainly there is still the CF angle.
>
>Regards.
>Jones Beene


Yes, and nickle plated polysulfonated beads do ring a bell there, don't
they?  BTW, I still have a complete CETI type cell with Pd over nickel
beads and platinum anode around somewhere.

Also, as mentioned earlier, I really like the idea of nickel granules plus
K2CO3 electrolyte as an attempt to get a CF "chaser" to provide free excess
heat to drive the electrolysis.   Most of the CF regimes could use a shot,
including glow discharge and electrospark.

BTW, did you get all 6 of those isotope separation methods I speculated up
for you working yet?   8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 12:54:35 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA16532;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3a160720a92 [207.8.67.165]>
In-Reply-To: <377B9791.8A731435 ix.netcom.com>
References: <v04011700b39eebc85672 [207.8.61.95]>				
 <v04011700b39992b75000 [207.8.61.10]> <3773B60C.DA440429@ix.netcom.com>		
   <19990625101957796.AAA165 mail.lcia.com@lizard>			
 <v04011700b39fe6e9bb97 [207.8.61.95]>		
 <v04011701b3a0156aafce [207.8.67.26]>	
 <v04011703b3a042413e33 [207.8.67.26]>
 <v04011700b3a097fa2c77 [207.8.67.26]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 14:37:15 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Case & Arata
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zaucf2.0.E24.MIyUt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28829
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell,
>
>Let me make one last stab at the problem.  You, like most skeptics of
>CANR,  feel that the phenomenon is so improbable that you feel justified
>in rejecting the claims using very improbable conventional explanations.
>In addition, you believe you are open minded because if one of your
>speculations is shot down, you will admit you were wrong and move on.
>However, this is a never ending process. It is the nature of the human
>mind to find explanations.  It is also the nature of intelligence to
>find reasons to  accept or reject absolutely anything.  Because you do
>not believe CANR is real, you will seek increasingly implausible prosaic
>explanations until Hell freezes over.

***{Not so. If you will check the spf archives, you will find that when I
first posted on that group, about 5 years ago, I argued against CF. But
then, after Jed shot me down a few times, I decided that the case *for* CF
was stronger, and so I switched sides. In the ensuing 3 years or so, I
argued for CF, but with increasing difficulty. (The experiments that I
conducted to determine whether the Power Gen demo was capable of
dissipating the heat which Jed claimed it was producing marked the first
such difficulty.) Finally, less than a year ago, I decided that the
opponents seemed to have the stronger arguments, and so I switched sides
again. Bottom line: I do not persist with a position "until Hell freezes
over," but rather until I am convinced that the other side has the stronger
arguments. The reason I do this is philosophical: I am an objectivist, and
it is only by means of equating belief with the conclusion of the strongest
argument that objectivity can be attained.

Incidentally, the theory that I have evolved to explain CF is what I term
the experimental persistence theory--to wit: there exists a class of
researchers who simply will not give up in their efforts to validate their
scientific beliefs, thereby guaranteeing that they will eventually make an
error that seems to support what they believe, even when the belief is
false. If such a researcher believes in CF, then he may persistently cook
palladium in a dewar with other materials until he hits on a material, or
accidentally introduces a contaminant, which offgases He, after which he
will rush forth gleefully to publish his revolutionary "result." Or he may
persistently perform electrolysis with a Pd cathode, using various
electrolytes, voltages, currents, etc., until he finally hits upon a spiky
waveform that will fool his power meter, after which he will, again,
gleefully rush forth to publish his revolutionary "result."

To me, this phenomenon is just a scientific variation on the type of
thought process by which people adopt socially expedient beliefs: they
persistently search for refutations of beliefs they do not want to hold,
until they make an error and think they have found such a refutation, after
which they discard the socially inexpedient truth and move on. Result: like
magic, their skulls fill up with socially expedient nonsense, and they
assume the protective coloration that enables them to "fit in" within a
laughably irrational, cruelly authoritarian society. The trick is simple:
you persist in your search for arguments that support what you want to
believe, and immediately suspend your thought process when you find them.
The result is a population that will condone any atrocity and support any
tyrant, if doing so will enable them to blend smoothly into the mindless
herd. If the nation is Germany in the 1930's, such people will cheer for
Adolph Hitler and look the other way while Jews are slaughtered, because by
such a policy they will be enabled to "fit in." And if the nation is
America in the 1990's, they will cheer for Bill Clinton and look the other
way while he runs roughshod over the Constitution and takes their rights
away.

The way to avoid such outcomes is to focus on the strength of the arguments
that support a position, and always strive to argue from strength. By doing
so, you convert persistence from a curse into a virtue, because a
persistent search for the strongest arguments leads inexorably toward the
truth, whereas a persistent attempt to validate what one happens to
believe, or what one perceives to be socially expedient, leads to falsehood
and, eventually, to evil.

--Mitchell Jones}***

I just do not have the time nor
>can some of your speculations even be addressed quantitatively.
>Furthermore, you do not do your homework, relying instead on someone to
>do the correct calculations and show your speculations to be wrong.

***{Actually, I made no public comments about the uranium contamination
theory, which, if memory serves, was introduced by Rich Murray. Thus when I
admitted that your posted calculations had affected my opinion on the
subject, all I was saying was that I had considered Rich's hypothesis to be
more plausible than I should have. (I am very appreciative, by the way, of
the fact that you posted those calculations. I love math, and I had great
fun hacking my way through your comments and filling in the missing
details.) Bottom line: you can't accuse me of not doing my homework on that
topic because I hadn't said one word about it prior to the day when you
posted your calculations. --Mitchell Jones}***

>When these calculations are done correctly, you quarrel over
>insignificant details, thereby requiring more wasted time.

***{I didn't "quarrel." My comments were politely stated and on topic. As
for whether the details were significant, well, as I noted previously, if
you don't shake a tree, there is no way to know what will fall out. --MJ}***

>
>I happen to believe CANR is real based on an extensive examination  of
>the literature and personal experience.  Therefore, I find my time is
>better spent trying to understand how the process works and how it can
>be made more reproducible.  I believe such efforts are more useful in
>converting skeptics than answering each and every speculation.  This is
>not to say that all speculations are useless.  However, the useful ones
>generally come from people with extensive scientific background after
>considerable thought.  I do not see you applying such resources to your
>speculations.

***{If that's your personal opinion, why tell me? From my perspective,
anything you say that is not presented in the form of a logical argument is
simply irrelevant. All I am interested in here is determining where the
strongest arguments lie, nothing more, and nothing less. --MJ}***

>
>So, I hope you will forgive me if I wait until you come up with better
>ideas in the future to continue this debate.

***{What's to forgive? You are just one source of reasoning about this
topic among many. As for your hint that my ideas are of too poor quality to
merit a response, again, why are you conveying such an opinion to me? For
the record: your unsupported subjective judgments are of no more interest
to me than the sound of the wind blowing. (And no insult is intended: I say
that because it is a literal truth which you do not seem to understand.)
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 13:09:50 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA25315;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:08:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:08:34 -0700
Message-ID: <377BCB91.7E403720 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 13:12:01 -0700
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: PLEC: Run 8
References: <3.0.1.32.19990701121428.00adb25c mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Nk2bm2.0.TB6.2hyUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28830
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 1, 1999

Vortex  -- Scott,

Is Mizuno et al familiar with your website to see your lab setup and results
announced?
Or, maybe exchanges of JPEG's of each other's work may help to see what may be
the difference.

-AK-


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 13:26:41 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA30505;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:25:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:25:10 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990701162736.00c27980 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 16:27:36 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990630150804.00acc9c8 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"VNH292.0.ZS7.cwyUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28831
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:08 PM 6/30/1999 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
>Same day service on Run 8!

>We used 0.2M K2CO3 and explored all the way down to 70 volts in 6 plateaus.
> Despite correcting for obvious errors and staying on top of the flow rate,
>there's a 1-2% unexplained excess showing.  Could be real excess
>heat...probably is just other errors not corrected yet.

    Don't get discouraged.  Let me suggest a new way to analyze the data,
and as an alternative, a different protocol.

    First, if the cell is in equilibrium at the beginning of the first
marked portion, and also at the end of the sixth, then you should get less
uncertainty, and less subjectiveness if you compute one Pout/Pin figure for
the entire range.

    If you are uncomfortable with this, or didn't keep all the data, then
repeat the experiment at one voltage set point, or maybe two, say 90 and 85
volts.

    Finally, let the experiment run.  If there is any sort of loading
phenomena, you will get a better signal the longer you operated.  (Also,
one of the observations from the original P&F experiments was that you
needed a "dirty" electrode.)  I'm not saying that you shouldn't clean the
electrode between experiments, but that you should run for 6 to 8 hours if
possible.

   Finally, on the downside, you really need to find out what is in that
gas.  I am more convinced than ever that some, or even a significant
portion of the gas is CO2.  If so, this will significantly affect your
power computations.  (Well, significant compared to the amount of excess
you think you are measuring.)

                                        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 Jul  1 13:55:10 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA07191;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:53:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:53:25 -0700
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:55:17 -0400
Message-ID: <01bec404$063459c0$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: <"tfvGO2.0.Dm1.4LzUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28832
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Scott wrote:

Here is a direct quote from him...from a message received last night:
>I have no idea why you can not obtain the excess heat.
-
Could atmospheric pressure be an important variable
in this experiment? Gas discharges are strongly
influenced by the gas pressure, and here, even the
effective electrode spacing is influenced by the
ambient pressure.
It is hard for me to believe that Mizuno could be making the
required huge errors in calorimetry or input power measurement
that would be required to explain his results. 
The only reasonable alternative seems to be some significant
but unrecognized difference in the experiments.
Regards,
George Holz                    Varitronics Systems
732-356-7773                   george varisys.com
1924 US Hwy 22 East            Bound Brook NJ 08805

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 14:14:15 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA12374;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 14:06:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 14:06:36 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990701160833.00ae940c mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 16:08:33 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <377BCB91.7E403720 ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990701121428.00adb25c mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"GhGLp1.0.C13.QXzUt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28833
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 13:12 7/1/99 -0700, Akira Kawasaki wrote:

>Is Mizuno et al familiar with your website to see your lab setup and results
>announced?

After each run, he gets a personalized email containing the web address
with pertinent comments and specific requests for review of my results.  So
far, he's been pretty good at responding to me.

At 16:27 7/1/99 -0400, Robert I. Eachus wrote:

>First, if the cell is in equilibrium at the beginning of the first
>marked portion, and also at the end of the sixth, then you should get less
>uncertainty, and less subjectiveness if you compute one Pout/Pin figure for
>the entire range.

That's essentially what the energy totals for the whole run do, which Robin
requested.  They show about the same balance as the shorter intervals.

>Finally, let the experiment run.

The cathode is about half gone after Run 7 and 8.  It can't run too much
longer.

>Finally, on the downside, you really need to find out what is in that
>gas.  I am more convinced than ever that some, or even a significant
>portion of the gas is CO2.

My primitive analysis procedures on Run 6 indicated that 98% of the excess
gas was stoichoimetric-ratio H2 and O2 as if excess dissociation was
occurring.  
This was also the observation of Sengupta in "Contact glow discharge
electrolysis: a study of its chemical yields in aqueous inert-type
electrolytes", S. Sengupta and O. Singh, Journal of Electroanalytical
Chemistry, 369 (1994) p. 113-120.

At 16:55 7/1/99 -0400, George Holz wrote:

>Could atmospheric pressure be an important variable
>in this experiment?

Pressure can be used to control the glow discharge effect ("Cathodic
contact glow discharge electrolysis under reduced pressure", S. A.
Campbell, V. J. Cunnane, D. J. Schiffrin, Journal of Electroanalytical
Chemistry, 325 (1992) 257-268).  However, I think that I can compensate by
getting the cell a little hotter.

>It is hard for me to believe that Mizuno could be making the
>required huge errors in calorimetry or input power measurement
>that would be required to explain his results. 

I would tend to agree...if it weren't for the painful experience of
confronting numerous serious calorimetry errors made by myself and by other
researchers in this field.



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 Jul  1 14:48:28 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA24776;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 14:44:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 14:44:59 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3a1911b0471 [207.8.67.71]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:43:08 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Side Splitting Headlines
Resent-Message-ID: <"Nvxbd2.0.-26.R5-Ut" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28834
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> BEST NEWSPAPER HEADLINES OF 1998
> 1.	Include Your Children When Baking Cookies
> 2.	Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Experts Say
> 3.	Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers
> 4.	Drunks Get Nine Months in Violin Case
> 5.	Iraqi Head Seeks Arms
> 6.	Prostitutes Appeal to Pope
> 7.	Panda Mating Fails; Veterinarian Takes Over
> 8.	British Left Waffles on Falkland Islands
> 9.	Teacher Strikes Idle Kids
> 10.	Clinton Wins Budget; More Lies Ahead
> 11.	Plane Too Close to Ground, Crash Probe Told
> 12.	Miners Refuse to Work After Death
> 13.	Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant
> 14.	Stolen Painting Found by Tree
> 15.	Two Sisters Reunited after 18 Years in Checkout Counter
> 16.	War Dims Hope for Peace
> 17.	If Strike Isn't Settled Quickly, It May Last a While
> 18.	Couple Slain; Police Suspect Homicide
> 19.	Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge
> 20.	New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group
> 21.	Astronaut Takes Blame for Gas in Space
> 22.	Kids Make Nutritious Snacks
> 23.	Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half
> 24.	Typhoon Rips through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 15:49:14 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA15412;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 15:47:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 15:47:54 -0700
Message-Id: <v0153050bb3a19ecbb57b [12.21.211.13]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 14:51:42 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Chris Arnold / George Wiseman / Evan Soule
Resent-Message-ID: <"uh8pz1.0.jm3.O0_Ut" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28835
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:18 PM 7/1/99, George Wiseman wrote:
[snip]
>I am George Wiseman.  I just subscribed to this list to participate in
>the Brown's Gas discussion.  I have not reviewed conversations prior to
>this date and won't be able to very soon as I'm traveling for the next
>month, but I do pick up my emails.

Welcome to the list.


>I thank Mike for not posting without permission, I like that kind of
>integrity.


Personally, I prefer the opposite approach.  For me it next to impossible
to remember or decide what I should or should not say.  Also, I think it is
unreasonable to email someone unsolicited information and then expect to
suddenly have their rights to free speech and idea generation and sharing
impaired by no act of their own.  This is an area of frequent
miscommunication however.  It has occurred to me that this is really a
problem of mixed expectations, a communication problem.  As an attempt to
remedy this, I have modified my signature block as below.

Comments anyone?  Is his reasonable?

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 15:57:54 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02554;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 15:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 15:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:52:05 -0400
Message-ID: <01bec414$571e34e0$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: <"CftPS3.0.md.C3_Ut" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28836
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott wrote:
>At 16:55 7/1/99 -0400, George Holz wrote:
>
>>Could atmospheric pressure be an important variable
>>in this experiment?
>
>Pressure can be used to control the glow discharge effect ("Cathodic
>contact glow discharge electrolysis under reduced pressure", S. A.
>Campbell, V. J. Cunnane, D. J. Schiffrin, Journal of Electroanalytical
>Chemistry, 325 (1992) 257-268). 
> However, I think that I can compensate by
>getting the cell a little hotter.
-
I think that the gas pressure around the cathode is
primarily controlled by atmospheric pressure. When
you vary the temperature, you are varying the gas
evolution rate and the consequent cathode to liquid
discharge gap. The effect on the voltage at which
discharge takes place across the gap can be compensated
and brought into the same range, but many other
gas discharge parameters are essentially pressure
dominated.
-
Have you seen examples of calorimetry errors large enough
to explain Mizuno's results, in cases where the calibration
runs show only small errors?
-
Regards,
George Holz                    Varitronics Systems
732-356-7773                   george varisys.com
1924 US Hwy 22 East        Bound Brook NJ 08805  

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 15:57:33 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA17865;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 15:54:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 15:54:48 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990701184951.0088e6d0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 18:49:51 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990701160833.00ae940c mail.eden.com>
References: <377BCB91.7E403720 ix.netcom.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990701121428.00adb25c mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"oF7xw1.0.2N4.u6_Ut" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28837
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:08 PM 7/1/99 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
>At 13:12 7/1/99 -0700, Akira Kawasaki wrote:
>
>>Is Mizuno et al familiar with your website to see your lab setup and results
>>announced?
>
>After each run, he gets a personalized email containing the web address
>with pertinent comments and specific requests for review of my results.  So
>far, he's been pretty good at responding to me.
>
>At 16:27 7/1/99 -0400, Robert I. Eachus wrote:
>
>>First, if the cell is in equilibrium at the beginning of the first
>>marked portion, and also at the end of the sixth, then you should get less
>>uncertainty, and less subjectiveness if you compute one Pout/Pin figure for
>>the entire range.
>
>That's essentially what the energy totals for the whole run do, which Robin
>requested.  They show about the same balance as the shorter intervals.

  The suggestion is reasonable, and energy totals may not do so unless
long calibrations are used, several  hours, and the energy is checked
by a second method.

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

>>Finally, let the experiment run.
>
>The cathode is about half gone after Run 7 and 8.  It can't run too much
>longer.
>
>>Finally, on the downside, you really need to find out what is in that
>>gas.  I am more convinced than ever that some, or even a significant
>>portion of the gas is CO2.
>
>My primitive analysis procedures on Run 6 indicated that 98% of the excess
>gas was stoichoimetric-ratio H2 and O2 as if excess dissociation was
>occurring.  
>This was also the observation of Sengupta in "Contact glow discharge
>electrolysis: a study of its chemical yields in aqueous inert-type
>electrolytes", S. Sengupta and O. Singh, Journal of Electroanalytical
>Chemistry, 369 (1994) p. 113-120.


   CO2 plays a role surprisingly often.  We covered that in
two issues of the Cold Fusion Times.

    Mitchell Swartz


    
    

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 16:47:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA03879;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:46:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:46:06 -0700
Message-ID: <377BFE4B.2D1A6C7F ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 16:48:28 -0700
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: PLEC: Run 8
References: <3.0.1.32.19990701121428.00adb25c mail.eden.com> <3.0.1.32.19990701160833.00ae940c@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9p3Nr1.0.Sy.-s_Ut" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28838
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 1, 1999

Vortex, -- Scott,

Scott Little wrote:

>After each run, he gets a personalized email containing the web address
>with pertinent comments and specific requests for review of my results.  So
>far, he's been pretty good at responding to me.

You're not exactly answering my question.
I assume your e-mails  to Mizuno (et al) has the same ending just as your Vortex
posts are 'personalized' with your highlighted web address.

However, have you specifically invited him to visit your website or has he
commented on what he has seen there? Or for that matter, has his e-mails
contained any attachments of graphics? Maybe he is not Internet literate beyond
typing e-mails, typewriter fashion. I do not think he has the time or inclination
to learn.

I have visited Kojima and Takahashi's website awhile back but they were
constructed by their grad students. And I do not think they have the foggiest
notion of maintaining a website --- as it "befits" their elevated academic status
(as is the 'custom' in Japan). It was interesting that Kojima's website had links
to other sites connected with cold fusion studies. Many of the links listed were
inactive as n construction. Like the one to Arata for instance. I doubt Mizuno
has a website similar to yours.
Why, if he does, then he could show you his and you could show him yours. : )

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 17:18:57 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA13972;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:18:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:18:14 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Chris Arnold / George Wiseman / Evan Soule
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 20:23:22 -0400
Message-ID: <19990702002322625.AAA281 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"D56b02.0.BQ3.6L0Vt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28839
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace wrote:
>Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
>                       information emailed to me will be treated as
>Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.

Looks good to me, Horace.  It's good to get the ground rules established
up-front.

Knuke
Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 18:26:51 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA28307;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:22:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:22:09 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 20:26:31 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <01bec414$571e34e0$0c6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7lce_.0.Dw6.1H1Vt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28840
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 06:52 PM 7/1/99 -0400, George Holz wrote:

>....but many other
>gas discharge parameters are essentially pressure
>dominated.

It would not be extremely difficult to vary the pressure somewhat.  What's
the altitude of Sapporo, Japan?
-
>Have you seen examples of calorimetry errors large enough
>to explain Mizuno's results, in cases where the calibration
>runs show only small errors?

Yes.  But usually it's only 20-50% relative and due to problems with the
sensing of the true heat flow.  I know of one case where gains of 300% were
observed and supported by apparently sound calibrations.  However, proper
input power measurement revealed that the original method was highly flawed.

At 04:48 PM 7/1/99 -0700, Akira Kawasaki wrote:

>You're not exactly answering my question.

Sorry.  Yes, Mizuno has visited my site and looked at every report I've
posted. 
I can tell from his comments that he has looked at the images and graphs I
post.

But that doesn't mean that we have perfectly good communication.  For some
time now, I've been trying to get him to comment on the apparent problems I
noted with the Pout response in his own data and he has never directly
addressed my concerns.  I'm going to try again tonight with a real simple,
direct question.

At 06:49 PM 7/1/99 -0400, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>CO2 plays a role surprisingly often.

If I was splitting CO2 from K2CO3, that would leave K2O...which seems like
it would react promptly with 2H2O to make 2KOH and H2.  What's the heat of
that reaction?  Endothermic, I'll bet.  I'll check the pH of new and used
solns to see if its getting alkaline.


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 18:56:05 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01179;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:44:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:44:50 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990701213946.0088f970 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 21:39:46 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>
References: <01bec414$571e34e0$0c6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3rD-c2.0.LI.Ic1Vt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28841
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:26 PM 7/1/99 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
>At 06:49 PM 7/1/99 -0400, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>>CO2 plays a role surprisingly often.
>
>If I was splitting CO2 from K2CO3, that would leave K2O...which seems like
>it would react promptly with 2H2O to make 2KOH and H2.  What's the heat of
>that reaction?  Endothermic, I'll bet.  I'll check the pH of new and used
>solns to see if its getting alkaline.

  You should describe what you observe on the electrodes etc. (which
you are doing quite well).  

  BTW, carbonate is probably quite solvated in water
(especially when you get some contamination Zinc  ;-)X).

  I meant the materials that are observed to plate/deposit on the cathode
as mentioned in the post, but there are also effects with the system
that Tom Claytor has examined as well.

  CO2 plays a role surprisingly often.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 21:25:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA20956;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 21:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 21:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:15:57 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <377bf788.59901069 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990630150804.00acc9c8 mail.eden.com> <3.0.1.32.19990630150804.00acc9c8@mail.eden.com> <3.0.1.32.19990701080115.00ad8748@mail.eden.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990701080115.00ad8748 mail.eden.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id VAA20936
Resent-Message-ID: <"OgySW2.0.J75.mw3Vt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28842
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 01 Jul 1999 08:01:15 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
[snip]
>No, you didn't miss it.  I've been leaving those traces off the final plots
>for clarity.  Just for you, Robin, I have replotted Run 8's data with the
>energy traces...and the power traces for reference.

Thanks. I was initially surprised to see how smooth they were, though
upon consideration, it appears the "glitches" in the power are
relatively quite small.
[snip]
>http://www.eden.com/~little/Inc-W/2ndtry/run8energy.gif

>The grand totals are 1,252,366 joules in and 1,239,260 joules out.  That's
>just the nominal observed heat output.
>
>The combined effect of cooling and escaping gases is around +2 watts.
>Integrating over the 3 hours that power was on, that gives 21,600 joules
>which brings the Eout up to 1,260,860... 1.007 times Ein.  Hey! that looks
>a little better than my power balance...but we're probably just playing
>games with the numbers now.

You mentioned earlier, that you included a 96% efficiency factor for the

calorimeter that you were going to consider making temperature
dependant. Have you already done that in these figures?
[snip]

Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 21:39:32 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA09496;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 21:37:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 21:37:06 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990701234130.0092f8f0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 23:41:30 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <377bf788.59901069 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990701080115.00ad8748 mail.eden.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990630150804.00acc9c8 mail.eden.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990630150804.00acc9c8 mail.eden.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990701080115.00ad8748 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lEXK5.0.HK2.n74Vt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28843
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:15 AM 7/2/99 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

>You mentioned earlier, that you included a 96% efficiency factor for the
>calorimeter that you were going to consider making temperature
>dependant. Have you already done that in these figures?

The correction factor for the 96% has been applied...but as a constant, not
a function of room temp.  I still need to look at that.  It won't be a big
correction...maybe as much as 1% relative.


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 22:47:23 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA22084;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:41:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:41:33 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b3a201581c4a [12.21.208.91]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 21:45:27 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Resonant electrolytic cell (REC)
Resent-Message-ID: <"egDTm3.0.vO5.D45Vt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28844
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:18 AM 7/1/99, Jones Beene wrote:
>Horace, Very Interesting concept, your REC.
>
>Do you know if anyone has every disproved the OU claims in the Puharich
>concept?
>He supposedly used resonant AC with a week electrolyte. As I recall, the best
>results were at 600 Hz, but other reports in the press have mentioned
>resonances
>up to 40000 K (or was that Keely?).


I wrote: "Puharich, noted in US Patent 4,394,230 that he found resonances
in pure water at 3,980 Hz, and octaves 7,960, 15,920, 31840, and 63,690 Hz.
It has been conjectured that is why Stanley Meyer operated at around
16,000 Hz.   Also, running all those octave overtones gives a lazy
(triangular half cycle) sawtooth wave."

I should have also noted that Puharich lists many resonant frequencies,
depending on the condition of the drop of water he was working with.
Frankly, I wonder about his conclusions and also his calorimetry.  Knowing
how hard it is to gain energy balance in calorimetry, it is difficult to
imagine Puharich having error less than 15% in calorimetry on a drop of
water.  His COP was about 115%.

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 22:49:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA24663;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:48:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:48:45 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 05:48:09 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37804b1b.81303071 mail-hub>
References: <v01530502b3a0c5433ac8 [12.21.211.103]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b3a0c5433ac8 [12.21.211.103]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 WAA24647
Resent-Message-ID: <"d1wsa.0.H16.zA5Vt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28845
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:18:00 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote:
[snip]
>The current that arrives at the opposing plate is also utilized in some
>percentage, and some flows unproductively on, as "pass through" energy.
>The net effect is, as you say, the capacitively linked current that flows
>across the interface is not involved directly in the electrolysis.
>However, when you have a myriad of plates, and when you operate in
>resonance, the "pass through" energy is once again (later) utilized.  It is
>recycled at every plate and every oscillation.  The net effect is to reduce
>the resistance of the electrolyte and improve Q.  In addition, the energy

I have a feeling that Q is precisely a measure of the degree to which it
is not utilised. I.e. the more you use, the greater the damping of the
oscillation, and the lower the Q value.


>flux in the electolyte is greatly increased, so electrochemical activity,
>as in sterilization, should be greatly increased.  the energy delived to
>any one point is increased.  The potential drop across small objects should
>also be increased.  If you are operating an AC cell anyway, it seems the
>efficiency should be greatly improved by placing the cell in a resonant
>circuit, and by utilizing capacitive linkage and isolation.
>
>One caveat: the rotation of the water molecules in an AC cell causes heat.
>This is bad and one reason why I suggest use of dielectric granules in
>slurry.  However, I think this torquing has a very positive effect by
>statistically increasing the H2O-(H+) bond length.  This increases the
>electron tunneling probability to H3O+ ions at the interface and thus the
>efficiency of the electronation process by using some of the "pass through"
>energy for this process.
>
>The pass through energy is much more directly focused at the H2O-(H+) bond
>length separation by torqueing than by linear excitiation.  I think this
>can cause spontaneous hydrogen formation in the electrolyte itself, but
>massively more so at dielectric boundaries,  where van der Walls forces can
>pin down one end of the H3O+ molecule as the other end rotates.  The
>problem is getting enough energy flux into the electrolyte without losing
>it to heat.  

Yes, this is an example of the sort of thing I referred to before, when
I mentioned gas forming in the electrolyte. Interesting perhaps also is
that water molecules tend to aggregate into multi-molecular groups and
"cages". The rotational frequencies of whole groups of molecules will
lie much lower than those of individual molecules, perhaps going some
way toward explaining purported sonic resonances of water. Perhaps if
any H in such a group is "bound" to multiple other O's, the total energy
of the hydrogen bonds for that one H might be greater than the strength
of the covalent bond joining it to the OH. In that case rotating the
whole cluster fast enough, might preferentially break the H-OH bond.

>The strategy I have suggested is to eliminate as much of the
>volume of electrolyte as possible while maximizing the available surface
>area while maintaining a high dielectric constant.

Now you're on Stan's turf! ;). 
[snip]

Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 23:26:20 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA32491;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:19:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:19:21 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b3a2035d95d6 [12.21.208.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:23:13 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Resonance with ordinary DC electrolysis
Resent-Message-ID: <"H3yZa3.0.bx7.fd5Vt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28846
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

It may be of interest to try to use resonance to attempt to improve
exisitng ordinary DC electrolytic cells.  This posting is just food for
thought.   The method may also work for driving slurry type cells, but only
with metal electrodes due to the use of DC, and it is difficult to achieve
the necessary operating voltages.   I don't know how well this suggestion
will work, but it may be useful to try, to play around with it and to make
either C1 or L1 variable so as to look for water resonance by examining the
phase shift across the the electrolytic cell, as per Puharich.

Fig. 1 is the circuit proposed for utilizing resonance in an ordinary
stacked plate electrolysis cell.


          I1
    ---------------  V1
    |             |
    |       -------------  I2
    |       |           |
    |       |           C1
    AC      L1          |
    |       |        -------- +
    |       |        |Bridge|--------Cell------
    |       |        |Recti-|                 |
    |       |        | fier |------------------
    |       |        -------- -
    |       |           |
    |       |           |
    |       | I3        R1
    |       |           |
    |       -------------
    |             |
    --------------- Ground

    AC - AC source
    L1 - The tank inductance (choke)
    C1 - The tank capacitance
    R1 - The net tank circuit resistance
    I1 - Input current (rms)
    I2 - Cell current  (rms)
    I3 - Inductor current (rms)
    V1 - supply voltage = cell voltage
    Xl - Reactance of L1
    Xc - Reactance of C1
    Cell - electolytic cell
    Cell2 - second electrolytic cell

   Fig. 1 - Resonant circuit for DC electrolysis cell(s)

When the operating frequency is at the resonant frequency for the tank
circuit L1, C1, R1, the net impedence of the tank circuit is maximum to the
AC source, thus the current through the cell I2 is at a maximum with
respect to the input current I1.  In fact,

    I2 = Q * I1 = I3

Where Q is given by:

    Q = Xl/R1

and is a measure of the sharpness of the resonance peak.  Since values of Q
over 100 are not uncommon in ordinary resonance circuits, this is
fascinating, and hints at ou behaviour all by itself, assuming the cell can
be made efficient enough that heat from ambient becomes a large contributor
to the splitting reaction.

The main difficulty with this approach is it imposes the diode drop of the
rectifier bridge into the circuit, which reduces Q.  Also, the rectifier
bridge must be capable of handling the full resonant voltage and current,
I2 = Q*I1.  There is also the added expense of a high frequency AC supply,
a choke and capacitor.  The choke L1 and capacitor C1 can be easily home
made if the frequency is high enough.  The problem might be the HF AC
source, but even that should be had fairly cheaply if home built.  It need
not even produce sine waves, as its only purpose is to stimulate the tank
circuit.  Frequency of the oscillator can be driven by feedback from the
tank circuit.

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  1 23:38:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA04263;
	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:35:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:35:57 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530503b3a20c8fbf00 [12.21.208.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:39:50 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
Resent-Message-ID: <"Uy-Ln3.0.X21.Dt5Vt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28847
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:48 PM 7/1/99, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:18:00 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote:
>[snip]
>>The current that arrives at the opposing plate is also utilized in some
>>percentage, and some flows unproductively on, as "pass through" energy.
>>The net effect is, as you say, the capacitively linked current that flows
>>across the interface is not involved directly in the electrolysis.
>>However, when you have a myriad of plates, and when you operate in
>>resonance, the "pass through" energy is once again (later) utilized.  It is
>>recycled at every plate and every oscillation.  The net effect is to reduce
>>the resistance of the electrolyte and improve Q.  In addition, the energy
>
>I have a feeling that Q is precisely a measure of the degree to which it
>is not utilised. I.e. the more you use, the greater the damping of the
>oscillation, and the lower the Q value.

Yes, absolutely.  The higher Q is the less energy is used in the cell. If
the cell impedence changes, Q automatically adjusts so that minimum energy
is wasted, it is just stored and recycled.

What I think you have overlooked, however, is that as the cell frequency
goes up, the cell resistance itself goes to zero.  The net effect is to
eliminate the electrolyte resistance.


>
>
>>flux in the electolyte is greatly increased, so electrochemical activity,
>>as in sterilization, should be greatly increased.  the energy delived to
>>any one point is increased.  The potential drop across small objects should
>>also be increased.  If you are operating an AC cell anyway, it seems the
>>efficiency should be greatly improved by placing the cell in a resonant
>>circuit, and by utilizing capacitive linkage and isolation.
>>
>>One caveat: the rotation of the water molecules in an AC cell causes heat.
>>This is bad and one reason why I suggest use of dielectric granules in
>>slurry.  However, I think this torquing has a very positive effect by
>>statistically increasing the H2O-(H+) bond length.  This increases the
>>electron tunneling probability to H3O+ ions at the interface and thus the
>>efficiency of the electronation process by using some of the "pass through"
>>energy for this process.
>>
>>The pass through energy is much more directly focused at the H2O-(H+) bond
>>length separation by torqueing than by linear excitiation.  I think this
>>can cause spontaneous hydrogen formation in the electrolyte itself, but
>>massively more so at dielectric boundaries,  where van der Walls forces can
>>pin down one end of the H3O+ molecule as the other end rotates.  The
>>problem is getting enough energy flux into the electrolyte without losing
>>it to heat.
>
>Yes, this is an example of the sort of thing I referred to before, when
>I mentioned gas forming in the electrolyte.

Yes. Puharich observed this phenomenon.  I have seen bubbles form and stay
on dielectics as well.


>Interesting perhaps also is
>that water molecules tend to aggregate into multi-molecular groups and
>"cages". The rotational frequencies of whole groups of molecules will
>lie much lower than those of individual molecules, perhaps going some
>way toward explaining purported sonic resonances of water. Perhaps if
>any H in such a group is "bound" to multiple other O's, the total energy
>of the hydrogen bonds for that one H might be greater than the strength
>of the covalent bond joining it to the OH. In that case rotating the
>whole cluster fast enough, might preferentially break the H-OH bond.

That is more or less Meyer's and Puharich's approach - breaking the H-OH
bond.  I have focused more on the electonation of the H3O+ molecule as
Bockris attributes that to the fundamental cathode reaction.  THe H2O-(H+)
bond is weak, and when a proton is electronated, water will spontaneously
produce another H3O+ to take its place, and nicely do so while reducing the
water temperature.


>
>>The strategy I have suggested is to eliminate as much of the
>>volume of electrolyte as possible while maximizing the available surface
>>area while maintaining a high dielectric constant.
>
>Now you're on Stan's turf! ;).

I don't understand that.

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 00:03:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA09027;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 00:02:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 00:02:53 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 07:02:18 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37826345.87490980 mail-hub>
References: <v01530503b3a20c8fbf00 [12.21.208.198]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530503b3a20c8fbf00 [12.21.208.198]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 AAA09005
Resent-Message-ID: <"boGi32.0.uC2.SG6Vt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28848
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:39:50 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote:
[snip]
>>>The strategy I have suggested is to eliminate as much of the
>>>volume of electrolyte as possible while maximizing the available surface
>>>area while maintaining a high dielectric constant.
>>
>>Now you're on Stan's turf! ;).
>
>I don't understand that.
I just meant that you were getting closer to Stan's setup. I.e. at the
end he was concentrating on spark-plug replacements that were supposed
to split water in the plug - i.e. small electrolyte volume, and maximal
surface area, while using distilled water -> high dielectric constant.
[snip]
Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 04:31:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA09236;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 04:25:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 04:25:35 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990702072035.00897840 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 07:20:35 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
In-Reply-To: <37804b1b.81303071 mail-hub>
References: <v01530502b3a0c5433ac8 [12.21.211.103]>
 <v01530502b3a0c5433ac8 [12.21.211.103]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"qGXEG.0.EG2.l6AVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28849
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 05:48 AM 7/2/99 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>Yes, this is an example of the sort of thing I referred to before, when
>I mentioned gas forming in the electrolyte. Interesting perhaps also is
>that water molecules tend to aggregate into multi-molecular groups and
>"cages". The rotational frequencies of whole groups of molecules will
>lie much lower than those of individual molecules, perhaps going some
>way toward explaining purported sonic resonances of water. Perhaps if
>any H in such a group is "bound" to multiple other O's, the total energy
>of the hydrogen bonds for that one H might be greater than the strength
>of the covalent bond joining it to the OH. In that case rotating the
>whole cluster fast enough, might preferentially break the H-OH bond.
>
>>The strategy I have suggested is to eliminate as much of the
>>volume of electrolyte as possible while maximizing the available surface
>>area while maintaining a high dielectric constant.


   I will not correct this again, but if you READ the literature
which goes back more than a hundred years, it is RELAXATION and
not RESONANCE.   Look at the imaginary part of the permitivity
(complex dielectric constant) because they are quite different.

  Good luck.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 05:34:05 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA21248;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 05:31:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 05:31:45 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Case, Arata and Little
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 08:36:51 -0400
Message-ID: <19990702123651156.AAA252 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"5keQC.0.wB5.n4BVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28850
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gnorts,

After a reading a little more on the idea of CF in Pd microparticles with no
supposed external power input, I thought of various possible expanations.
Bi-metalic eddie currents generated from the contact of the powder and the
case, something like the Seebeck effect or a thermocouple effect was the
first.  The second being RF conduction from the outside being conducted by
the case and absorbed in the powder thereby creating eddie currents in the
powder, again.  These would be pretty weak or small possible power inputs
that are fairly classical and obvious.  They've probably been mentioned in
the discussions, I don't know.

Eddie currents form on grain boundaries, and I believe are the cause of the
CF reactions observed in foils, etc.  Scratching and fracturing or
disrupting the lattice on the microscale of the cathode seem to increase the
chances of a CF reaction in electrolytic cells, and seem to be verified by
SIMS analysis of transmutation products that form in these areas.  At these
areas there bends and corners that distort the magnetic waveform geometry,
and I've always thought that there might be an intensification of current in
those locations due to eddie currents.  Electron vortices would form in
those areas that may have enough strength to affect the D2 or H2 that was in
the vicinity, and maybe they would be sucked into the lattice faster or with
more velocity than normal.  This is how I always envisioned the CF process
working in a P&F type of cell.  Thermal expansions and contractions in the
lattice would contribute to local pressures being exerted as well.

The coronal discharge mechanism that Scott is working with now, has
additional advantages, due to the high potential of the arc, and should be
successful, depending on the ability of the foil to load like a normal
cathode.  Tungsten, it has been suggested by Aki, is not always manufactured
the same, and that may be the reason Scott is not seeing any or much excess
heat.  The cathode may just not be loading.  The other reason that Scott may
not be seeing much of anything may simply be his calorimetry.  The
thermocouples may be inaccurately reading the water temperature due to the
RF present in the cell, and in the rest of the set-up.

One suggestion that would be easy to apply to both the Pd powder experiment
and the Mizuno replication would be to apply a moderate to strong external
RF generator, plugged into the same powerstrip as the rest of the equipment
and run the experiment.  For starters, it would test the integrity of the
instrumentation and calorimetry on both experiments, and in the Case cell
and the Pd powder cell, it may increase the actual reaction by adding
additional electrical energy to the cell.  You could use an old sewing
machine motor or something sparky like that.  Just set it next to the
apparatus and see what your instruments do.  If they do anything at all,
then it obviously needs to be analysed and corrected.  I think this test
should be made on every calorimetry set-up, before any papers are published
and any money is wasted on replication efforts.  It's easy and cheap to do.
You don't even need to be running the cell to do it either.  Also, if the He
production is actually increased in the Pd cells then you know where the
power is coming from.

Another suggestion, would be to combine Fred Sparber's idea of infusing Hg
with D2, with the addition of Pd powder in sufficient quantities to make an
amalgam.  This would stretch the Pd a little farther, so you wouldn't have
to use as much, which I presume is what you are trying to do with the Case
cell, and it would eliminate some of the contamination issues associated
with Carbon.  You could also add some yellowcake in small quantities and
possibly solve your funding problems, and Fred could start making cheap
Christmas presents for the ladies in his life.8)

Then I ran across the following URLS which may be of significance.  Fred
Epps brought me some papers by Kozirev some years back, and I thought they
were a bunch of hooey, but since then, actual technologies have been
developed here in the US that indicate that this is very real, and possibly
relevant to your cells.  The math is quite well developed, which is
something I'm sure you will appreciate, although it's not for the timid.
There is much more material at Bill Beaty's website, that runs from weird,
to down right weird, to OMIGOD THIS IS REALLY WEIRD!!! 8) 

http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carhomep.htm

http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/ngotp/news/FEATURES/FEAT_7/feature7.htm

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1009922/0000944209-98-001577.txt

http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/tors/

Again, way to go Bill, and have a good weekend.

Knuke

Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 05:50:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA24959;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 05:47:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 05:47:49 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530506b3a25aaf1a02 [12.21.208.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 04:51:44 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
Resent-Message-ID: <"ybwxE.0.u56.rJBVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28851
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:02 PM 7/1/99, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:39:50 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote:
>[snip]
>>>>The strategy I have suggested is to eliminate as much of the
>>>>volume of electrolyte as possible while maximizing the available surface
>>>>area while maintaining a high dielectric constant.
>>>
>>>Now you're on Stan's turf! ;).
>>
>>I don't understand that.
>I just meant that you were getting closer to Stan's setup. I.e. at the
>end he was concentrating on spark-plug replacements that were supposed
>to split water in the plug - i.e. small electrolyte volume, and maximal
>surface area, while using distilled water -> high dielectric constant.

Oh!  If that is the case, his approach wasn't very good at it, was it?!

By driving a cell at 20 kV the particle size in a 1 cm thick slurry
containing cell is driven down to 1/10^5 cm, with the differential across
each particle at 2 V.  There are 5,000 equivalent plates, since about half
the space is dielectric separator particles and 1/2 conductors.  The plate
area is reduced to 1/2 of a cm^2 however, unless bubles form on the
dielectric surfaces.  The active surface area in each cm^3 is increased by
a factor of at least 2,500, total surface area much more. The capacitive
conductance through the cell has less energy loss due to use of the
dielectric particles.  By including dielectric particles in the slurry as
well as conducting particles, the actual amount of electrolyte traversed by
the current through 1 cm of electrolyte can drop to about 1/10 cm,
providing 90 percent less resistance loss from the electrolyte.  The
eqivalent plate separation due to electolyte is thus 2/10^6 cm, far less
than the tiniest bubble readily observable.  Of course, this highlights the
importance of good bubble management!  If bubble formation can be achieved
on small dielectric paticles, as prior experiments indicate, then the
suface potential dop due to "charge image" present at conductor surfacs
disappears, and the 1/2,500 ratio can be greatly improved.  Small effects,
like particle rotation wile traversing the active cell area, may make big
differences in the volume of gas extracted from an AC cell.

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 06:34:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA12460;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:33:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:33:29 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530507b3a2673f0d74 [12.21.208.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 05:37:24 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
Resent-Message-ID: <"JFy_u1.0.X23.f-BVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28852
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 7:20 AM 7/2/99, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>At 05:48 AM 7/2/99 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>>Yes, this is an example of the sort of thing I referred to before, when
>>I mentioned gas forming in the electrolyte. Interesting perhaps also is
>>that water molecules tend to aggregate into multi-molecular groups and
>>"cages". The rotational frequencies of whole groups of molecules will
>>lie much lower than those of individual molecules, perhaps going some
>>way toward explaining purported sonic resonances of water. Perhaps if
>>any H in such a group is "bound" to multiple other O's, the total energy
>>of the hydrogen bonds for that one H might be greater than the strength
>>of the covalent bond joining it to the OH. In that case rotating the
>>whole cluster fast enough, might preferentially break the H-OH bond.
>>
>>>The strategy I have suggested is to eliminate as much of the
>>>volume of electrolyte as possible while maximizing the available surface
>>>area while maintaining a high dielectric constant.
>
>
>   I will not correct this again, but if you READ the literature
>which goes back more than a hundred years, it is RELAXATION and
>not RESONANCE.   Look at the imaginary part of the permitivity
>(complex dielectric constant) because they are quite different.
>
>  Good luck.
>
>   Mitchell Swartz


Mitchell, I thought we went over this already.  YOU read the literature.
The ciruit proposed is an LC circuit (included again below for reference.)
Whether series or parallel resonance is applied, the result is the same. It
is a resonant circuit, not an RC relaxation oscillator.  The appropriate
term is RESONANCE.

If you want to talk about what is happening in the electrolyte itself, the
two authors of relevence to the discussion so far, Puharich and Meyers,
both use the term resonance.  However, I agree that water represents an RC
lattice, thus relexation may be an appropriate term for what happens in the
water itself.  I can not see how relaxation is an accurate term for what is
happening in the circuit as a whole, though.  The methodology I have
proposed permits experimentation and use of the effects of dielectric
relaxation in the electrolyte, but the primary circuit resonance is
established independent of that, and only secondarily uses the dielectic
nature of the electolyte.  The dielectric nature of the plate coverings is
far more important to the basic operation and electrolysis efficiencies,
unless OU operation is intended, as suggested by Puharich and Meyer.

The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Electronics and Nuclear Engineering,
Sarbacher, Prentice Hall, 1959, states:

"Resonance. 1. Resonance exists between one coordinate of a system which is
executing oscillations or vibrations and a periodic agency which maintains
the oscillations or vibrations when a small amplitude of periodic agency
produces in the system a relatively large amplitude of oscillation or
vibration (AIEE)

Resonance may exist in an electric circuit posssesing inductance,
resistance, and capacitance btween the quantity of electricity which
oscillates and a periodically applied electromotive force which sustains
the oscillation."

Perhaps the term you wish to use is "dielectric relaxation" defined in the
same source as:

"Dielectric relaxation. A finite time is required for the dipole moment of
certain molecules in dielectric materials to align themselves with the
applied field, and dielectric relaxation (i.e. failure of the molecules to
become or remain aligned) arises when the period of the applied field is
shorter than this time."


Here is the one of the proposed circuits:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

          I1
    ---------------  V1
    |             |
    |       -------------
    |       |           |
    |       |           C1
    AC      L1          |  I2
    |       |           |
    |       | I3        R1
    |       |           |
    |       -------------
    |             |
    --------------- Ground

    AC - AC source
    L1 - Inductor
    C1 - The cell capacitance
    R1 - The net cell resistance
    I1 - Input current (rms)
    I2 - Cell current  (rms)
    I3 - Inductor current (rms)
    V1 - supply voltage = cell voltage
    Xl - Reactance of L1
    Xc - Reactance of C2

When the operating frequency is at the resonant frequency fo the tank
circuit L1, C1, R1, the net impedence of the tank circuit is maximum to the
AC source, thus the current through the cell I2 is at a maximum with
respect to the input current I1.  In fact,

    I2 = Q * I1 = I3

Where Q is given by:

    Q = Xl/R1

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 07:05:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA27139;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 07:04:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 07:04:24 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990702095916.008946c0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 09:59:16 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
In-Reply-To: <v01530507b3a2673f0d74 [12.21.208.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"biMbC.0.td6.cRCVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28853
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


At 05:37 AM 7/2/99 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote:
>At 7:20 AM 7/2/99, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>>At 05:48 AM 7/2/99 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>>>Yes, this is an example of the sort of thing I referred to before, when
>>>I mentioned gas forming in the electrolyte. Interesting perhaps also is
>>>that water molecules tend to aggregate into multi-molecular groups and
>>>"cages". The rotational frequencies of whole groups of molecules will
>>>lie much lower than those of individual molecules, perhaps going some
>>>way toward explaining purported sonic resonances of water. Perhaps if
>>>any H in such a group is "bound" to multiple other O's, the total energy
>>>of the hydrogen bonds for that one H might be greater than the strength
>>>of the covalent bond joining it to the OH. In that case rotating the
>>>whole cluster fast enough, might preferentially break the H-OH bond.
>>>
>>>>The strategy I have suggested is to eliminate as much of the
>>>>volume of electrolyte as possible while maximizing the available surface
>>>>area while maintaining a high dielectric constant.
>>
>>
>>   I will not correct this again, but if you READ the literature
>>which goes back more than a hundred years, it is RELAXATION and
>>not RESONANCE.   Look at the imaginary part of the permitivity
>>(complex dielectric constant) because they are quite different.
>>
>>  Good luck.
>>
>>   Mitchell Swartz
>
>
>Mitchell, I thought we went over this already.  YOU read the literature.
>The ciruit proposed is an LC circuit (included again below for reference.)
>Whether series or parallel resonance is applied, the result is the same. It
>is a resonant circuit, not an RC relaxation oscillator.  The appropriate
>term is RESONANCE.
>
>If you want to talk about what is happening in the electrolyte itself, the
>two authors of relevence to the discussion so far, Puharich and Meyers,
>both use the term resonance.  However, I agree that water represents an RC
>lattice, thus relexation may be an appropriate term for what happens in the
>water itself.  I can not see how relaxation is an accurate term for what is
>happening in the circuit as a whole, though.  The methodology I have
>proposed permits experimentation and use of the effects of dielectric
>relaxation in the electrolyte, but the primary circuit resonance is
>established independent of that, and only secondarily uses the dielectic
>nature of the electolyte.  The dielectric nature of the plate coverings is
>far more important to the basic operation and electrolysis efficiencies,
>unless OU operation is intended, as suggested by Puharich and Meyer.



   As nice a fellow as you are, you are incorrect - except about
your comments regarding the circuit itself far above, amd far below.

  The comments posted here about electricity in medicine have not
been entirely correct, and I have not had the time to correct them
previously.  But, if you want some good experiments and technology, 
involving free radical control using electricity, try:
  "Inactivation of Herpes Simplex Viruses with Methylene Blue, 
Light and Electricity", Swartz, M.R., L. Schnipper, A. Lewin,  
C. Crumpacker,  Proc. of the Society of Experimental Biology 
and Medicine, 161, 204-209, (1979)
 or
US PATENT 4,181,128: Virus Inactivation Appicator and the Like
US PATENT 4,402,318: METHOD OF INACTIVATION OF VIRUSES, BACTERIA,
              ETC. IN VITRO, AND PRODUCTION OF VACCINES


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

>The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Electronics and Nuclear Engineering,
>Sarbacher, Prentice Hall, 1959, states:
>
>"Resonance. 1. Resonance exists between one coordinate of a system which is
>executing oscillations or vibrations and a periodic agency which maintains
>the oscillations or vibrations when a small amplitude of periodic agency
>produces in the system a relatively large amplitude of oscillation or
>vibration (AIEE)
>
>Resonance may exist in an electric circuit posssesing inductance,
>resistance, and capacitance btween the quantity of electricity which
>oscillates and a periodically applied electromotive force which sustains
>the oscillation."


   Moving away from theoretical electrical circuits to actual
materials.

   If you don't understand dielectric spectroscopy and its impact in
resolving the several dielectric spectra of water/ice (and the movement
of those spectra to much higher frequencies in water), and the role
of inscribed ferroelectric behavior in water/ice, then when you do,
there will be much more for you to invent.

   Have a good day.

    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 07:10:35 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA30696;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 07:09:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 07:09:29 -0700
Message-ID: <377CC800.47EB9940 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 08:09:09 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8um5H1.0.SV7.MWCVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28854
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott,   maybe we are barking up the wrong tree. So far, everyone has
assumed the action is at the tungsten cathode.  This seems unlikely to
me because tungsten does not form a hydride and any small solubility
would be reduced to near zero by the high temperature.

If I understand correctly, you are using platinum as the anode.  Under
such conditions, platinum will oxidize to produce a black coating.
Normally, this layer is conductive.  However, in your cell, the layer
will be a complex mixture containing possibility carbon and tungsten,
the effects of which are unknown.  If this idea has merit, you should
reduce the area of the anode so that the layer can build up more
rapidly.  In addition, if this is the source of action, the layer in the
Mizuno cell has probably reached the critical thickness because of
repeated runs, hence he has an effect while your newer cell does not.
If the action is at the anode, we need to reexamine the potential
nuclear reactions. Just a thought.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 09:49:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA18687;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:41:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:41:40 -0700
Message-ID: <00e601bec4a8$cce593a0$cdb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com> <377CC800.47EB9940@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:33:35 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"FOzgE1.0.vZ4.4lEVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28855
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8

Ed Storms wrote:


> Scott,   maybe we are barking up the wrong tree. So far, everyone has
> assumed the action is at the tungsten cathode.  This seems unlikely to
> me because tungsten does not form a hydride and any small solubility
> would be reduced to near zero by the high temperature.

The action that you MUST HAVE at the cathode, is Sputtering/Oxidation of the
Tungsten so that it can get into the Plasma and the Electrolyte as WOx which
can either hydrolyze to insoluble Tungstic Acid H2WO4, which can the react
with the K2CO3 to form the Soluble Potassium Tungstate K2WO4 which can form
2 K+    +   WO4=  which will plate on the anode as you suggest.
>
> If I understand correctly, you are using platinum as the anode.  Under
> such conditions, platinum will oxidize to produce a black coating.
> Normally, this layer is conductive.  However, in your cell, the layer
> will be a complex mixture containing possibility carbon and tungsten,
> the effects of which are unknown.  If this idea has merit, you should
> reduce the area of the anode so that the layer can build up more
> rapidly.  In addition, if this is the source of action, the layer in the
> Mizuno cell has probably reached the critical thickness because of
> repeated runs, hence he has an effect while your newer cell does not.
> If the action is at the anode, we need to reexamine the potential
> nuclear reactions. Just a thought.

Seems to me that one should weigh the W cathode before a run, to see how
much of the material is coming off during a run, the see what form this
material is in the detritus, the anode, and the electrolyte.

Regards,     Frederick
>
> Ed Storms
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 10:00:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA25454;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:58:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:58:13 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3a29a0e2075 [207.8.69.70]>
In-Reply-To: <377CC800.47EB9940 ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:53:46 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Resent-Message-ID: <"JUjAO.0.eD6.a-EVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28856
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Scott,   maybe we are barking up the wrong tree. So far, everyone has
>assumed the action is at the tungsten cathode.  This seems unlikely to
>me because tungsten does not form a hydride and any small solubility
>would be reduced to near zero by the high temperature.
>
>If I understand correctly, you are using platinum as the anode.  Under
>such conditions, platinum will oxidize to produce a black coating.
>Normally, this layer is conductive.  However, in your cell, the layer
>will be a complex mixture containing possibility carbon and tungsten,
>the effects of which are unknown.

***{Very interesting. Russ George is cooking carbon and palladium together,
and claiming nuclear events. One of the things that makes his experiment so
implausible is this appearance that it has little in common with other CF
variants. But if the more normal CF variants deposit a mixture of carbon
and palladium on the anode, where you can bet it gets very hot, then they
could be based on carbon-palladium cookery also! In that case, you may have
found the elusive commonality that ties all this stuff together. --Mitchell
Jones}***

    If this idea has merit, you should
>reduce the area of the anode so that the layer can build up more
>rapidly.

***{And also so that the carbon-palladium mixture "cooks" at the right
temperature. Russ George cooked his mix at 200 deg C, so that would be
something to shoot for here, if the anode temperature  can somehow be
measured. --Mitchell Jones}***

  In addition, if this is the source of action, the layer in the
>Mizuno cell has probably reached the critical thickness because of
>repeated runs, hence he has an effect while your newer cell does not.
>If the action is at the anode, we need to reexamine the potential
>nuclear reactions. Just a thought.

***{Your mere thought could very well be a breakthrough, if CF is real, and
I urge Scott to pursue it with extreme vigor. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 10:23:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA04412;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:22:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:22:52 -0700
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0215B246 XCH-CPC-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:22:39 -0700 
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"IDtNL.0.q41.iLFVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28857
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace
	Have you made any actual measurements with this setup?
This circuit is like a resonant battery charger, and the currnet flows only
a portion of the cycle of the applied sinewave, the portion where the
applied voltage is greater then the "battery voltage" of the cell. If you
are talking about very large applied voltages and only a couple of volts of
cell voltage, the current will be more sinusoidal, instead of short pulses.

Hank

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 11:20:52 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26124;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:19:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:19:25 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990702141416.00897a10 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 14:14:16 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <00e601bec4a8$cce593a0$cdb4bfa8 default>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>
 <377CC800.47EB9940 ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"EGWyN1.0.-N6.iAGVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28858
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:33 AM 7/2/99 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
>
>The action that you MUST HAVE at the cathode, is Sputtering/Oxidation of the
>Tungsten so that it can get into the Plasma and the Electrolyte as WOx which
>can either hydrolyze to insoluble Tungstic Acid H2WO4, which can the react
>with the K2CO3 to form the Soluble Potassium Tungstate K2WO4 which can form
>2 K+    +   WO4=  which will plate on the anode as you suggest.


  The cathode is the site of electrochemical reduction.

  The anode is the site of electrochemical oxidation.

  Therefore the "MUST HAVE" coupled with any claim of
"Oxidation" at a cathode, as above, is technically opposite of 
standard redox theory.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 11:43:16 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA32459;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:40:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:40:36 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990702143531.00890870 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 14:35:31 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Cold Fusion Times VOLUME 7 NUMBER 3 out/site updated
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"jER4H1.0.5x7.aUGVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28859
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

 
  Vorts:

  The Cold Fusion Times VOLUME 7 NUMBER 3 [summer 1999]
is out and the Cold Fusion Times web site is updated.


      http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 12:10:16 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06243;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:04:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:04:17 -0700
Message-ID: <001b01bec4bc$b5a2e580$9bb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com><377CC800.47EB9940@ix.netcom.com> <3.0.1.32.19990702141416.00897a10@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:57:15 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"gjXwO1.0.TX1.nqGVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28860
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8

Mitchell Swartz wrote:


> At 10:33 AM 7/2/99 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
> >
> >The action that you MUST HAVE at the cathode, is Sputtering/Oxidation of
the
> >Tungsten so that it can get into the Plasma and the Electrolyte as WOx
which
> >can either hydrolyze to insoluble Tungstic Acid H2WO4, which can the
react
> >with the K2CO3 to form the Soluble Potassium Tungstate K2WO4 which can
form
> >2 K+    +   WO4=  which will plate on the anode as you suggest.
>
>
>   The cathode is the site of electrochemical reduction.

Thanks for the 6th grade chemistry lesson, Swartz. Obviuosly I was referring
to oxidation (W + Ox ---> WOx) in the plasma region near the cathode, and
when the SPUTTERED TUNGSTEN gets into the electolyte it can react: 2 H2O +
W ---->   WO2.
>
>   The anode is the site of electrochemical oxidation.

Right.   And the Tungstate Anions,  WO4= or  HWO4- or KWO4- can react at the
Anode to literally "Anodize" it.

>
>   Therefore the "MUST HAVE" coupled with any claim of
> "Oxidation" at a cathode, as above, is technically opposite of
> standard redox theory.

Only if you don't know of what you speak.

Hope that helps. :-)       FJS
>
>    Mitchell Swartz
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 14:31:50 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA00316;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:30:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:30:34 -0700
Message-ID: <003801bec4d1$27bf25c0$9bb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC:  Run 8
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:22:30 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"LKfIo3.0.r4.wzIVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28861
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In some of the Anodizing experiments conducted in the late 50s, CO2  (Dry
Ice) was added to the anodizing bath.

This served to cool the bath, and build up H2CO3  <---> H+  + HCO3-
or 2 H+ + CO3=

With K2CO3 in the solution:  H2CO3 + K2CO3 ---->  2 KHCO3 .

Perhaps the CO2 level in the electrolyte is important.

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 14:41:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA05785;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:39:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:39:53 -0700
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: "Vortex" <vortex-l mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Ferromagnetic Case catalyst
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:39:27 -0400
Message-ID: <000201bec4d3$5bde6e40$330a16cf computer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Resent-Message-ID: <"5P_aS3.0.EQ1.e6JVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28864
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortex,

I checked our remaining unused UCI G75E catalyst and found 6 ferromagnetic
pieces.  This dismisses any anomaly associated with it before or after
running in the cell.

A 20g sample of unused catalyst was checked earlier in the week and found to
have no ferromagnetic pieces.

Ed Wall

New Energy Research Laboratory
http://www.infinite-energy.com   email:ewall infinite-energy.com
Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Bow, NH 03302-2816
(603) 226-4822   fax 224-5975

"It is scientific only to say what's more likely and less likely and not to
be proving all the time possible and impossible."
Richard Feynman, 1964

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 14:41:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA04377;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:37:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:37:59 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b [207.8.61.158]>
In-Reply-To: <00e601bec4a8$cce593a0$cdb4bfa8 default>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>
 <377CC800.47EB9940 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:34:07 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Resent-Message-ID: <"tVuQu1.0.D41.t4JVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28862
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
>To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 8:09 AM
>Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
>
>Ed Storms wrote:
>
>
>> Scott,   maybe we are barking up the wrong tree. So far, everyone has
>> assumed the action is at the tungsten cathode.  This seems unlikely to
>> me because tungsten does not form a hydride and any small solubility
>> would be reduced to near zero by the high temperature.
>
>The action that you MUST HAVE at the cathode, is Sputtering/Oxidation of the
>Tungsten so that it can get into the Plasma and the Electrolyte as WOx which
>can either hydrolyze to insoluble Tungstic Acid H2WO4, which can the react
>with the K2CO3 to form the Soluble Potassium Tungstate K2WO4 which can form
>2 K+    +   WO4=  which will plate on the anode as you suggest.

***{If the idea is to restructure the Mizuno setup so that it has an
operational commonality with the Case cell, then why not simply use a
carbon anode, a platinum cathode, and a solution of K2WO4 as the
electrolyte? This setup would burn carbon at the anode, evolving CO2, so
that would have to be reflected in Pout. (Also, you might get some CO, so
beware.) Since the anode would be slowly consumed in this way, and since
the temperature at the anode surface would rise as the ratio of anode area
to cathode area declined, it would seem that if there is an ideal
temperature for the CF reaction--e.g., 200 deg C as per Russ George--this
setup should automatically pass through it. In that case, Scott's
calorimeter would show an excess heat maximum at that point.

The problem with switching attention to the anode, of course, is that the
H+  and D+ ions are attracted to the cathode, not the anode. Thus if we
assume the action takes place at the anode in an attempt to find a
commonality with the Case cell, we are forced to assume that the D2 gas
which Case used in his cell had nothing to do with his excess heat, and the
hoped-for commonality immediately begins to fade away, like the Cheshire
cat. Result: I still remain very skeptical, despite Ed's very interesting
suggestion.

Ed's suggestion, of course, should be tried, since the immediate goal is to
replicate Mizuno, and since a long shot is better than no shot.

--Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

>
>Regards,     Frederick
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 14:41:27 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA05357;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:39:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:39:17 -0700
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:42:10 -0400
Message-ID: <01bec4d3$bd1beca0$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: <"cqc431.0.dJ1.56JVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28863
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Scott, you wrote:

>It would not be extremely difficult to vary the pressure somewhat.  What's
>the altitude of Sapporo, Japan?
Sapporo altitude is listed as 630 meters.
Adjacent ski slopes listed at 1,100 meters.
You could ask Mizuno for the altitude at the university.
Regards,
George Holz                    Varitronics Systems
732-356-7773                   george varisys.com
1924 US Hwy 22 East        Bound Brook NJ 08805



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 14:58:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA17486;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:57:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:57:37 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990702175234.00892a10 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 17:52:34 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <001b01bec4bc$b5a2e580$9bb4bfa8 default>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>
 <377CC800.47EB9940 ix.netcom.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990702141416.00897a10 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"rk55q1.0.7H4.GNJVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28865
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:57 PM 7/2/99 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
>>   The cathode is the site of electrochemical reduction.
>
>Thanks for the 6th grade chemistry lesson, Swartz. Obviuosly I was referring
>to oxidation (W + Ox ---> WOx) in the plasma region near the cathode, and
>when the SPUTTERED TUNGSTEN gets into the electolyte it can react: 2 H2O +
>W ---->   WO2.

  Your welcome, and it is often forgotten.  The correction seems ok.

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

>>   The anode is the site of electrochemical oxidation.
>
>Right.   And the Tungstate Anions,  WO4= or  HWO4- or KWO4- can react at the
>Anode to literally "Anodize" it.

   It is still the site of oxidation   ;-)X

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


>>   Therefore the "MUST HAVE" coupled with any claim of
>> "Oxidation" at a cathode, as above, is technically opposite of
>> standard redox theory.
>
>Only if you don't know of what you speak.

     It is opposite what is denoted, but then, that is
only since Faraday.

     Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 15:16:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA30930;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:14:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:14:28 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530508b3a2c6315c22 [12.21.208.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:18:22 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
Resent-Message-ID: <"68Jqk3.0.4Z7.3dJVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28866
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:59 AM 7/2/99, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
[snip]
>  The comments posted here about electricity in medicine have not
>been entirely correct, and I have not had the time to correct them
>previously.  But, if you want some good experiments and technology,
>involving free radical control using electricity, try:
>  "Inactivation of Herpes Simplex Viruses with Methylene Blue,
>Light and Electricity", Swartz, M.R., L. Schnipper, A. Lewin,
>C. Crumpacker,  Proc. of the Society of Experimental Biology
>and Medicine, 161, 204-209, (1979)
> or
>US PATENT 4,181,128: Virus Inactivation Appicator and the Like
>US PATENT 4,402,318: METHOD OF INACTIVATION OF VIRUSES, BACTERIA,
>              ETC. IN VITRO, AND PRODUCTION OF VACCINES


Thanks for the references.


>   If you don't understand dielectric spectroscopy and its impact in
>resolving the several dielectric spectra of water/ice (and the movement
>of those spectra to much higher frequencies in water), and the role
>of inscribed ferroelectric behavior in water/ice, then when you do,
>there will be much more for you to invent.


Perhaps you could enlighten us a bit?  Preferably not with references, but
with some words?

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 15:18:20 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA31072;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:14:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:14:38 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530509b3a2c72d9752 [12.21.208.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:18:25 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: RE: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
Resent-Message-ID: <"zmsdT.0.Eb7.CdJVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28867
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Horace
>        Have you made any actual measurements with this setup?
>This circuit is like a resonant battery charger, and the currnet flows only
>a portion of the cycle of the applied sinewave, the portion where the
>applied voltage is greater then the "battery voltage" of the cell. If you
>are talking about very large applied voltages and only a couple of volts of
>cell voltage, the current will be more sinusoidal, instead of short pulses.
>
>Hank


No, I haven't tested these concepts per se.  This is just a bunch of
concepts thrown together from my imagination, based upon experience gained
through experimentation, vortex participation, and reading.

However, I have done electospark/glow experiments at high voltages, where
the electrodes were gradually covered with insulating coverings. The
linkage was clearly capacitive, as shown by the xy phase plot.  The cell
seemed to operate best when a characteristc phase diagram, which I called
an "eye" was made.  It was indicative of a low power factor, and thus
resonant operation.  I used the shape of the eye to tune operation by
setting the voltage so as to achieve a minimum power factor.  I have had
experiments operate in that mode that showed to be over unity by a small
amount (up to the 14 percent Puharich coincidentally observed) and similar
experiments showning no overunity.  I was using boiloff calorimetry and the
electrolyte was operated at boiling temperature and well insulated.  I
attributed the experiments showing no overunity to better calorimetry.  I
did not account for the evolved gas, except by estimation, because the
current was small.  These experiments have been a continuing model in my
head prompting thoughts that have come together in the proposed
configuration.  I still wonder about the ou results.

Your observation about the prevention of current until the required series
voltage is reached is well taken.  Note that I have been careful not to say
the apparent power is the actual power applied to the cell.  However, in
the proposed mode of operation, the current is only retarded to the extent
electrolysis is not occuring.  I think this amounts to optimzing power
allocation while reducing cell resistence per "equivalent plate" and by
utilizing lowered elecrolyte impedence at higher frequncies to efficiently
get the energy to points internal to the cell.

This discussion brings to mind yet another possibility for improving
electrolytic function, and that is steam entrainment.  AC electrolysis
requires getting the bubbles off the electrodes fast to avoid
recombination.  Unless there is an overunity process involved in
recombination (a distict possibility, as mentioned before, with the
creation of flourine ash) it is bad and converts the recombination energy
to steam, provided the electrolyte is at boiling temperature.  It is
possible that recombination in some bubbles creates steam in which other
nearby evolved bubbles, or gas therefrom, can entrain before recombination.
A slurry should also provide lots of surface area to aid in steam
formation.

The latest concept posted, "Resonance with ordinary DC electrolysis" is
very much along the lines of Meyer and Puharich in that it uses DC and
metallic plates.  It probably achieves nothing or almost nothing, unless
the plates should coat with dielectric or semiconductor.  It certainly
serves to set off the differences with the capacitive REC approach though.

The origninal REC concept, using capacitive linkage to the cell, and AC
only, seems to have the ability to drop internal cell impedence
significantly, but presents the problems of getting the bubbles off the
metal surfaces before recombination.  The interesting aspects of the
proposed device are in experimentation with slurries, especially slurries
without metal components, or where the objective is to drive chemical
reactions other than simple hydrogen and oxygen evolution.  Operation in
boiling mode is also of interest.

As an aside, it occurs to me that Scott, if and when he has time to fool
around,  might consider putting an inductor, a choke, in series with his
bypass capacitor, possibly with resonant frequency tuned to his approximate
spark rate.

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 15:41:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA16884;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:40:15 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:40:15 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990702183453.008936b0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 18:34:53 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
In-Reply-To: <v01530508b3a2c6315c22 [12.21.208.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"1mrYK2.0.g74.E_JVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28868
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:18 PM 7/2/99 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote:
>>   If you don't understand dielectric spectroscopy and its impact in
>>resolving the several dielectric spectra of water/ice (and the movement
>>of those spectra to much higher frequencies in water), and the role
>>of inscribed ferroelectric behavior in water/ice, then when you do,
>>there will be much more for you to invent.
>
>
>Perhaps you could enlighten us a bit?  Preferably not with references, but
>with some words?

 Horace:

 Wish that I had the time.
 On the back burner, I am preparing an article on this, and since
"a picture is a thousand words", and with this it may be a 
lower limit  ;-)X

  So please be patient -- or check out the refs, which are very
important. As discouraging as that might be, I apologize, but 
if you need specific ones, please let me know.


 Best wishes.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 15:44:20 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA18409;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:43:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:43:27 -0700
X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01530500b3a2f1463167 [12.21.208.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:47:24 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Resent-Message-ID: <"j_3rg3.0.YV4.F2KVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28869
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Some reminders:

1.  The mass spec. indicates almost no CO2, yet there is a suspicious large
peak, not in stoichiometric ratio by my calculation, at the mass of CO.

2.  There are two anodes in the experiment, one gas and one metal.

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 16:38:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA29429;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:30:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:30:59 -0700
Message-ID: <377D4BD4.6CD5F0AC ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 17:32:00 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>
	 <377CC800.47EB9940 ix.netcom.com> <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b@[207.8.61.158]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2xmK2.0.kB7.okKVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28870
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:

> Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> The problem with switching attention to the anode, of course, is that the
> H+  and D+ ions are attracted to the cathode, not the anode. Thus if we
> assume the action takes place at the anode in an attempt to find a
> commonality with the Case cell, we are forced to assume that the D2 gas
> which Case used in his cell had nothing to do with his excess heat, and the
> hoped-for commonality immediately begins to fade away, like the Cheshire
> cat. Result: I still remain very skeptical, despite Ed's very interesting
> suggestion.

The Case cell and the Mizuno cell have nothing in common.  The Case cell is a
logical extension of the Pd-D2 system which uses electrolysis to load D into
Pd.   Arata first showed that sufficiently high concentrations of D could be
achieved using the high surface energy of fine particles instead of
electrolysis.  In other words, instead of forcing the D in by applied current,
it was sucked in by surface energy.  Case simply used finely divided Pd in a
different form. The Arata sample could not be run at high temperature because
finely divided Pd will sinter, thereby losing the high surface area.  However,
the Pd microparticles on the catalyst are too far apart to sinter, thus high
temperatures can be used. The nuclear reaction in each case uses D to produce
He.

The Mizuno cell is an extension of the light water work with the added feature
of a high voltage arc. This technique has no relationship to the Pd-D studies,
therefore the analysis must explore new ground. Similar variations have been
explored in LENT-1 and in the Bockris configuration using graphite rods. These
configurations have been found to produce a variety of nuclear reactions.  We do
not know which nuclear reaction produces the heat in the Mizuno configuration,
hence we do not know which electrode is active nor the the nature of the
nuclear-active states.  I suggest all options remain open.

Regards,

Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 16:55:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA02887;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:51:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:51:23 -0700
Message-ID: <377D479E.62133CC6 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 11:13:35 +1200
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nikolay Damianov <nikolay.damianov excite.com>
Subject: Re: Mystery
References: <930926581.26179.817 excite.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"viY2k1.0.1j.w1LVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28871
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Great, some are saying it is azote which is nitrogen and your saying
asote which you say is oxygen.

Nikolay Damianov wrote:

> asote = oxygen in other countries
> asotie would be an oxygen mass
>
> so there u have it, the mystery - solved...
>
> -nikk-
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 17:01:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA05147;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:58:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:58:34 -0700
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <74f949a5.24aeabf7 aol.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 19:57:43 EDT
Subject: PLEC:  anode?
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54
Resent-Message-ID: <"fNKPK3.0.HG1.g8LVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28872
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott,

Are you still using platinum sheet as the anode rather than platinum mesh?

Do you have a photo or diagram of Mizuno's cell that shows exactly how 
Mizuno's anode is placed around his cathode?

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 17:22:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA10824;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:21:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:21:31 -0700
Message-ID: <377D48B8.F0FD997 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:18:16 -0700
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: Ferromagnetic Case catalyst
References: <000201bec4d3$5bde6e40$330a16cf computer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"1ZTLc1.0.2f2.BULVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28873
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 2, 1999

Vortex,


Ed Wall wrote:

>I checked our remaining unused UCI G75E catalyst and found 6 ferromagnetic
>pieces.  This dismisses any anomaly associated with it before or after
>running in the cell.

The nomenclature says it all.
UCI (Unusual Catalytic Ingredients) G (Gosh) 75 E (Eureka!). : )

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 17:31:33 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA27417;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b3a306127b95 [207.8.67.180]>
In-Reply-To: <377D4BD4.6CD5F0AC ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>	
 <377CC800.47EB9940 ix.netcom.com> <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b@[207.8.61.158]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 19:24:48 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Resent-Message-ID: <"N2X-T2.0.Fi6.ObLVt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28874
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>
>> The problem with switching attention to the anode, of course, is that the
>> H+  and D+ ions are attracted to the cathode, not the anode. Thus if we
>> assume the action takes place at the anode in an attempt to find a
>> commonality with the Case cell, we are forced to assume that the D2 gas
>> which Case used in his cell had nothing to do with his excess heat, and the
>> hoped-for commonality immediately begins to fade away, like the Cheshire
>> cat. Result: I still remain very skeptical, despite Ed's very interesting
>> suggestion.
>
>The Case cell and the Mizuno cell have nothing in common.  The Case cell is a
>logical extension of the Pd-D2 system which uses electrolysis to load D into
>Pd.   Arata first showed that sufficiently high concentrations of D could be
>achieved using the high surface energy of fine particles instead of
>electrolysis.  In other words, instead of forcing the D in by applied current,
>it was sucked in by surface energy.  Case simply used finely divided Pd in a
>different form. The Arata sample could not be run at high temperature because
>finely divided Pd will sinter, thereby losing the high surface area.  However,
>the Pd microparticles on the catalyst are too far apart to sinter, thus high
>temperatures can be used. The nuclear reaction in each case uses D to produce
>He.
>
>The Mizuno cell is an extension of the light water work with the added feature
>of a high voltage arc. This technique has no relationship to the Pd-D studies,
>therefore the analysis must explore new ground.

***{The light water and the heavy water work have always had the presumed
commonality that the site of the action involved hydrogen--protium in the
light water cells, and deuterium in the heavy water cells. However, if we
are now to suppose that a nuclear reaction is somehow taking place in
Mizuno's anode, it seems to me that hydrogen is clearly left out of the
picture. Thus we are left to cast about for some *other* nuclear reaction
that might occur under anodic conditions. Taking your suggestion that W and
C encrust the anode and that the reaction occurs there, what might be the
nature of that reaction? Well, C-14 decays with the emission of a .155 MEV
electron, and has a half-life of 5700 years, according to my *Handbook*.
Could it be that the conditions at Mizuno's anode are somehow shortening
the half-life of C-14? Or do you have some other idea in mind? --Mitchell
Jones}***

[snip]

>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 17:32:06 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA27716;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <000501bec4e9$f33f7980$a1b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:19:59 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"VRBCq.0.km6.4cLVt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28876
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott,

As I see it, the gas-liquid interface of the Film Boiling-Plasma Zone is
acting as an Anode wrt the W cathode, and as a Cathode wrt the Pt Anode.
Thus the discharge V-I characteristic taken from the anode to cathode, is
not representative of the V-I characteristic between this "virtual anode"
and the W cathode.

This suggests that the Pt anode-W cathode spacing and configuration could
throw things off drastically from Mizuno's experimental setup.

IOW, the concentric Pt anode with a large surface area and thus low current
density, and a low field intensity wrt it's "virtual cathode" could result
in a current limiting effect, even though your measured power levels are
close to those of Mizuno.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 17:32:33 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA27649;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 20:31:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Ed's interesting suggestion ...Re: PLEC: Run 8
In-Reply-To: <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b [207.8.61.158]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990702203053.15801F-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ue97I1.0.Yl6.ybLVt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28875
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear  Gals and Guys,

	What IS E'd interesting suggestions?



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 17:58:26 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA26995;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:56:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:56:12 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b3a31073c06e [12.21.211.93]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:00:07 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Ed's interesting suggestion ...Re: PLEC: Run 8
Resent-Message-ID: <"NgqD7.0.gb6.h-LVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28877
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:31 PM 7/2/99, John Schnurer wrote:
>        Dear  Gals and Guys,
>
>        What IS E'd interesting suggestions?


Ed's suggestion was consider the anode.

Mine too:

At 10:00 PM 6/24/99, Horace Heffner wrote:
>The new hydrogen absorbing forms of carbon may provide a special
>opportunity to look for CF in the form:
>
>   C13 + H1 -> N14 + gamma  [typo corrected]
>
>followed by beta decay:
>
>   N13 -> C13 + beta + neutrino
>
>which are the first two steps of the carbon cycle.
>
>If LENR reactions can and do occur in a metal lattice, with little or no
>ionizing radiation, due to special solid state mechanics, perhaps nuclear
>reactions in a carbon lattice are feasible utilizing the same mechanisms.
>There is the presence of carbon or carbonate radicals in all open CF cells,
>which tend to migrate toward or coat the anode.  Perhaps there are hydrogen
>trapping carbon based structures built in the vicinity of or on the surface
>of the anodes of electrolytic cells containing carbonates.  In the case of
>the Ohmuri cell, that anode might be the one provided by the
>liquid/discharge interface that opposes the cathode from the opposite side
>of the gas/plasma sheath.
>
>This kind of possibility is another reason to build long cells with
>separate calorimetry for the anode, electrolyte and cathode sections.  Some
>of the heat may be coming from the anode region.

to which I would also like to add the possibility:

  C12 + D -> N14 + gamma

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 18:24:20 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA00418;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:23:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:23:39 -0700
Message-ID: <001401bec4ea$5891e3e0$a1b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <74f949a5.24aeabf7 aol.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC:  anode?
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:23:57 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"LkTDH3.0.N6.QOMVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28878
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: <Tstolper aol.com>
To: <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 5:57 PM
Subject: PLEC: anode?

Hey Tom, that's what I want to know, too.  :-)

Regards,    Frederick


> Scott,
>
> Are you still using platinum sheet as the anode rather than platinum mesh?
>
> Do you have a photo or diagram of Mizuno's cell that shows exactly how
> Mizuno's anode is placed around his cathode?
>
> Tom Stolper
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 18:38:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA02911;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:32:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:32:25 -0700
Message-ID: <377D6851.52C2D2E1 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 19:33:11 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>	
	 <377CC800.47EB9940 ix.netcom.com> <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b@[207.8.61.158]> <v04011702b3a306127b95@[207.8.67.180]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"eR0A-1.0.Pj.fWMVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28879
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:

> >Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >
> >> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem with switching attention to the anode, of course, is that the
> >> H+  and D+ ions are attracted to the cathode, not the anode. Thus if we
> >> assume the action takes place at the anode in an attempt to find a
> >> commonality with the Case cell, we are forced to assume that the D2 gas
> >> which Case used in his cell had nothing to do with his excess heat, and the
> >> hoped-for commonality immediately begins to fade away, like the Cheshire
> >> cat. Result: I still remain very skeptical, despite Ed's very interesting
> >> suggestion.
> >
> >The Case cell and the Mizuno cell have nothing in common.  The Case cell is a
> >logical extension of the Pd-D2 system which uses electrolysis to load D into
> >Pd.   Arata first showed that sufficiently high concentrations of D could be
> >achieved using the high surface energy of fine particles instead of
> >electrolysis.  In other words, instead of forcing the D in by applied current,
> >it was sucked in by surface energy.  Case simply used finely divided Pd in a
> >different form. The Arata sample could not be run at high temperature because
> >finely divided Pd will sinter, thereby losing the high surface area.  However,
> >the Pd microparticles on the catalyst are too far apart to sinter, thus high
> >temperatures can be used. The nuclear reaction in each case uses D to produce
> >He.
> >
> >The Mizuno cell is an extension of the light water work with the added feature
> >of a high voltage arc. This technique has no relationship to the Pd-D studies,
> >therefore the analysis must explore new ground.
>
> ***{The light water and the heavy water work have always had the presumed
> commonality that the site of the action involved hydrogen--protium in the
> light water cells, and deuterium in the heavy water cells. However, if we
> are now to suppose that a nuclear reaction is somehow taking place in
> Mizuno's anode, it seems to me that hydrogen is clearly left out of the
> picture. Thus we are left to cast about for some *other* nuclear reaction
> that might occur under anodic conditions. Taking your suggestion that W and
> C encrust the anode and that the reaction occurs there, what might be the
> nature of that reaction? Well, C-14 decays with the emission of a .155 MEV
> electron, and has a half-life of 5700 years, according to my *Handbook*.
> Could it be that the conditions at Mizuno's anode are somehow shortening
> the half-life of C-14? Or do you have some other idea in mind? --Mitchell
> Jones}***

No, I leave such speculations to others.  However, the graphite electrodes
apparently make Fe, Cr and other elements, none of which is radioactive but the
mixture is magnetic.  Before we get carried away, more experimental examination is
needed.

Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 19:14:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA11518;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 19:12:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 19:12:19 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990702220926.0069bc7c pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 22:09:26 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: CGDE a.k.a. PLEC  literature
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"EQzCK3.0.up2.36NVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28880
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I am pleased to see that Scott Little is reading the literature on CGDE
(Contact Glow Discharge Electrolysis). As I pointed out last month <ahem -
modest cough> this may save him a lot of time and effort. He writes:

	If 2:1 heat production was commonplace in such experiments, it
	would have been noticed long ago. . . .

Not necessarily. 2:1 heat is unusual. Most of the time, Mizuno sees ~30%,
and when they first performed the experiment, Ohmori and Mizuno usually saw
nothing. Is there any indication in the literature that people looked at
the heat balance? They would have to look carefully and repeatedly to find
anything.

This is a little like saying that people should have seen the thermal
anomalies in palladium hydride before 1989. There was probably more
research done on PdH and PdD than CGDE, but I think there was no chance
that anyone would spot the excess heat. You have to spent a year or two
looking for it. Mizuno, who worked with Pd-D for many years, saw a few
passing indications of charged particles or neutrons before 1989, but he
finally dismissed them as experimental error. Even if people saw excess
heat in Pd-D or CGDE, they would probably assume it is experimental error.


	(1) Mizuno's cell is really special in a fairly subtle way . . .

It would have to be subtle, since he himself has difficulty replicating the
effect.


	...if it weren't for the painful experience of confronting
	numerous serious calorimetry errors made by myself and by other
	researchers in this field.

The "numerous serious errors" in the literature do not include anything
like this. Input and output are in the hundreds of watts, and the ratio is
as high as 2:1 (albeit rarely). I have never heard of an error on this
scale. This is roughly analogous to saying: "because I have trouble finding
tiny objects with my microscope, Mizuno may not be able to find a bagel on
a plate."

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 21:02:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA05194;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 20:59:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 20:59:44 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990702230357.00945e10 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 23:03:57 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
In-Reply-To: <377CC800.47EB9940 ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"X8usr3.0.4H1.mgOVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28881
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:09 AM 7/2/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:

>Scott,   maybe we are barking up the wrong tree.  <snip>...you should
>reduce the area of the anode so that the layer can build up more
>rapidly.

My present anode is really large (~100cm^2) and it is not darkening much at
all even after 8 runs.  I would be all excited about this suggestion if it
weren't for the fact that my first series of incandescent W runs used a
very small Pt anode (~2cm^2) which did turn rather dark rather
quickly...but no excess heat was observed.

At 06:19 PM 7/2/99 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:

>As I see it, the gas-liquid interface of the Film Boiling-Plasma Zone is
>acting as an Anode wrt the W cathode, and as a Cathode wrt the Pt Anode.

This sounds right.

>Thus the discharge V-I characteristic taken from the anode to cathode, is
>not representative of the V-I characteristic between this "virtual anode"
>and the W cathode.

I see your point but it sure seems like the cell impedance will be
dominated by the plasma zone, and thus the anode-plasma separation is
relatively unimportant...?

At 08:36 AM 7/2/99 -0400, Michael T Huffman wrote:

>The other reason that Scott may
>not be seeing much of anything may simply be his calorimetry.  The
>thermocouples may be inaccurately reading the water temperature due to the
>RF present in the cell, and in the rest of the set-up.

You're suggesting that my experiment does produce excess heat...but that I
have errors in the temperature measurement which just happen to reduce the
reported Pout so that it ends up being equal to Pin...within 2%
relative...over 8 separate runs!!!!!!!!!!!   Besides, I don't use
thermocouples because they ARE rather sensitive to RF interference.  I use
thermistors, which have about 100 times better noise immunity.  Mizuno uses
thermocouples.

At 07:57 PM 7/2/99 EDT, Tstolper aol.com wrote:

>Are you still using platinum sheet as the anode rather than platinum mesh?

Yes.

>Do you have a photo or diagram of Mizuno's cell that shows exactly how 
>Mizuno's anode is placed around his cathode?

Not exactly.  I have the schematic line drawings that Mizuno includes in
his papers (e.g. in the ICCF-7 proceedings).  They show the anode as a
cylinder that completely encloses the cathode.  If the drawing is to scale,
his anode-cathode separation is somewhat smaller than mine.

At 10:09 PM 7/2/99 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>The "numerous serious errors" in the literature do not include anything
>like this. 

I'm not talking about stuff in the literature.  Goofs this bad don't make
it to the literature.


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 21:41:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA11330;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 21:35:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 21:35:32 -0700
Message-ID: <377D91D6.3A3D7165 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 22:30:14 -0600
From: "Richard T. Murray" <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Murray departure from Vortex-L  7.2.99
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"g8EiP3.0.tm2.KCPVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28882
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 2, 1999   Hello Vorts,  I'm unsubscribing, after being on Vortex-L
3 1/2 years, since about January, 1996.  I want to focus my time on my
meditative explorations with my friends here in Santa Fe, and dialogue
with   NonDualitySalon onelist.com  .   I'd appreciate email about any
major events, confirmations or disconfirmations, about cold fusion and
new energy research, such as whether He is found in the unused Case
catalyst.  Tomorrow, I will be 57!

Fondly,  Rich Murray  Room For All
1943  Otowi Drive
Santa Fe, NM  87505
505-986-9103   505-920-6130  cellular VoiceStream

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 23:06:17 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA28132;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:03:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:03:33 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:08:45 -0400
Message-ID: <19990703060845937.AAC243 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"BISYP2.0.Ut6.qUQVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28883
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 10:33 AM 7/2/99 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
>>
>>The action that you MUST HAVE at the cathode, is Sputtering/Oxidation of the
>>Tungsten so that it can get into the Plasma and the Electrolyte as WOx which
>>can either hydrolyze to insoluble Tungstic Acid H2WO4, which can the react
>>with the K2CO3 to form the Soluble Potassium Tungstate K2WO4 which can form
>>2 K+    +   WO4=  which will plate on the anode as you suggest.
>
>
>  The cathode is the site of electrochemical reduction.
>
>  The anode is the site of electrochemical oxidation.
>
>  Therefore the "MUST HAVE" coupled with any claim of
>"Oxidation" at a cathode, as above, is technically opposite of 
>standard redox theory.
>
>   Mitchell Swartz

If you look at the original Hall Effect demo, you see some similarity
between that, and the cathode that Scott is working with.  With the
electrolyte stirring, there may be areas of the "cathode" where a positive
potential could be formed, and oxidation could occur.  A way to look for
this is to filter the camera lense with a heavy photo grey filter, and look
for areas that have no sparking activity or lesser sparking activity.  A
video camera might be best, so you could move it around the cell.

Knuke

Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  2 23:11:00 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA28162;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:03:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:03:34 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: Ferromagnetic Case catalyst
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:08:48 -0400
Message-ID: <19990703060848484.AAE243 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"4jG3u.0.tt6.sUQVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28884
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>July 2, 1999
>
>Vortex,
>
>
>Ed Wall wrote:
>
>>I checked our remaining unused UCI G75E catalyst and found 6 ferromagnetic
>>pieces.  This dismisses any anomaly associated with it before or after
>>running in the cell.
>
>The nomenclature says it all.
>UCI (Unusual Catalytic Ingredients) G (Gosh) 75 E (Eureka!). : )
>
>-ak-

It's still good information, Ed, thanks for checking.

Knuke

Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  3 00:19:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA08573;
	Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:17:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:17:46 -0700
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:17:29 -0400
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199907030317_MC2-7BAA-8FEC compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id AAA08555
Resent-Message-ID: <"lrV432.0.t52.QaRVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28885
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick said:

>> This suggests that the Pt anode-W cathode spacing and configuration
could
throw things off drastically from Mizuno's experimental setup. <<

Just a thought - having read Ahern's patent (United States Patent 5,770,036
Ahern, et. al. Jun. 23, 1998) quoted s few days ago on vortex, where he
specifies that the electrodes have to have 'sharp' edges for the ou effect
to appear, why not try modifying the Pt foil anode in Scott's set-up to
perforate it to look like an old nutmeg grater with the spikes pointing
towards the W cathode?

This would increase the current density locally, or at least create local
peaks.

Norman Horwood

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  3 01:04:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA12296;
	Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:58:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:58:43 -0700
Message-ID: <00ac01bec528$e698f460$a1b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com> <3.0.5.32.19990702230357.00945e10@mail.eden.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 01:50:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"h35qQ2.0.203.pASVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28886
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>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: PLEC: various

Scott wrote:.
>
> At 06:19 PM 7/2/99 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
>
> >As I see it, the gas-liquid interface of the Film Boiling-Plasma Zone is
> >acting as an Anode wrt the W cathode, and as a Cathode wrt the Pt Anode.
>
> This sounds right.
>
> >Thus the discharge V-I characteristic taken from the anode to cathode, is
> >not representative of the V-I characteristic between this "virtual anode"
> >and the W cathode.
>
> I see your point but it sure seems like the cell impedance will be
> dominated by the plasma zone, and thus the anode-plasma separation is
> relatively unimportant...?

Rather than conjuring up a math model, if you line your coffee cup with
aluminum foil and fill it with tap water, then wrap a pencil with Al foil
and immerse it in the center of the cup and read the resistance, then use a
dowel twice the pencil diameter and immerse it in the cup and measure the
resistance, it will give you a feel as to the relevance of  the separation
and and V-I characteristics of
the plasma zone and the anode-plasma separation.

>From this simple *midnight* experiment, one can develop a math model.  :-)

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  3 02:45:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA25420;
	Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:44:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:44:38 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 05:49:51 -0400
Message-ID: <19990703094951078.AAC62 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"HWGGB2.0.1D6.6kTVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28888
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>At 08:36 AM 7/2/99 -0400, Michael T Huffman wrote:
>
>>The other reason that Scott may
>>not be seeing much of anything may simply be his calorimetry.  The
>>thermocouples may be inaccurately reading the water temperature due to the
>>RF present in the cell, and in the rest of the set-up.

Scott wrote:

>You're suggesting that my experiment does produce excess heat...but that I
>have errors in the temperature measurement which just happen to reduce the
>reported Pout so that it ends up being equal to Pin...within 2%
>relative...over 8 separate runs!!!!!!!!!!!   Besides, I don't use
>thermocouples because they ARE rather sensitive to RF interference.  I use
>thermistors, which have about 100 times better noise immunity.  Mizuno uses
>thermocouples.

Yes, and they would all look similar depending on how the dominant RF
emitters were placed, and whether or not you moved them from one position to
another from run to run.  Placement variation and variation of lead length
can be a factor as well, not just the thermistor, as in your case.  If one
lead is longer than the other, that would make a difference.  If one lead is
closer to an RF source that would make a difference.  You should do the old
sewing machine motor test, and see what happens.  Like I said, you don't
even have to be running an experiment.  When you calibrate your calorimeter,
conditions are different in many ways from the actual experiment.  I know
that eliminating these types of errors is difficult and may even be costly,
but I don't see any logical way around it. Maybe some of the other people
who have done more of this kind of thing can make helpful suggestions, but
you should do that test before you publish that so-and-so's device is not
OU.  The so-and-so's should do that test before they publish that their
devices are OU.  You just can't assume by the researcher's credentials that
they know how to do calorimetry or power measurement.  Einstein had trouble
dressing himself.

Knuke

 
Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  3 02:50:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA25386;
	Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:44:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:44:36 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: CGDE a.k.a. PLEC  literature
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 05:49:48 -0400
Message-ID: <19990703094948484.AAA62 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"72r7p1.0.aC6.4kTVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28887
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed wrote:

>The "numerous serious errors" in the literature do not include anything
>like this. Input and output are in the hundreds of watts, and the ratio is
>as high as 2:1 (albeit rarely). I have never heard of an error on this
>scale. This is roughly analogous to saying: "because I have trouble finding
>tiny objects with my microscope, Mizuno may not be able to find a bagel on
>a plate."

It doesn't matter what the total wattage is when accurate measurement is
concerned.  The wattage produced in the thermocouples and the leads to the
the computer are in the milliwatt range.  RF can easily distort that, and
consciously or by accident, a researcher can play those things like a
trombone.  The longer the leads, the worse it can be.  Hall Effect clamps
are notoriously sensitive to this as well.  A refrigerator kicking on across
the room or even in another room will send the readings all over the place.
This is why I suggested the old sewing machine motor test.  It may well be
that the PhD who is doing the research is one of the most knowledgable
people in his or her particular field, but if they are doing a poor job of
calorimetry or power measurement, then their published work should be judged
for it softness and absorbancy rather than anything else.

I propose that this test be called the Huffman Old Sewing Machine Motor Test
and that every paper involving calorimetry or power measurement should
include the sentence "After performing the Huffman Old Sewing Machine Motor
Test on our calorimetry and power measuring equipment to ensure the
soundness of our measurements, we proceeded to bla, bla bla".

Knuke


 
Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  3 06:37:35 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA15880;
	Sat, 3 Jul 1999 06:36:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 06:36:54 -0700
Message-ID: <377E12DF.D3805810 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 06:40:48 -0700
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: Ferromagnetic Case catalyst
References: <19990703060848484.AAE243 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7vFI_.0.2u3.s7XVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28889
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 3, 1999

Vortex,

I agree with Michael's thanks to Ed.

Although not mentioned, I hope Ed tests the ferromagnetic particles found  with
tests similar to Claytor's. For that matter, since his lab is close to Case, he
can get some samples, before and after,  from Case and run it through a magnet
and test those particles too, if found. And how about  the G75E that Scott and
George may have?

-AK-


Michael T Huffman wrote:

>It's still good information, Ed, thanks for checking.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  3 08:33:51 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA02594;
	Sat, 3 Jul 1999 08:27:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 08:27:37 -0700
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Ferromagnetic Case catalyst
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:27:09 -0400
Message-ID: <000101bec568$83e75880$2c0a16cf computer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
In-Reply-To: <377E12DF.D3805810 ix.netcom.com>
Importance: Normal
Resent-Message-ID: <"LgOXZ.0.Re.flYVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28890
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Akira and Nuke,

> Although not mentioned, I hope Ed tests the ferromagnetic
> particles found  with
> tests similar to Claytor's. For that matter, since his lab is
> close to Case, he
> can get some samples, before and after,  from Case and run it
> through a magnet
> and test those particles too, if found. And how about  the G75E
> that Scott and
> George may have?

Our limited resources are focused on getting high quality calorimetry.   Our
new water flow calorimeter is almost usable, but still needs some graphical
software so we can see a strip chart in real time.  I plotted 6 points below
0.6W yesterday and they were almost perfectly colinear, so it looks like
those Earthtech provided probes are working as advertised.  Thanks, Scott!

We may do such material analysis later, but we are not equipped for it.  We
have no spectrometry equipment.

Ed Wall

New Energy Research Laboratory
http://www.infinite-energy.com   email:ewall infinite-energy.com
Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Bow, NH 03302-2816
(603) 226-4822   fax 224-5975

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  3 12:17:36 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA20757;
	Sat, 3 Jul 1999 12:16:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 12:16:52 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b3a40f393474 [12.21.211.38]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:20:43 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: REC: Source of fresh water?
Resent-Message-ID: <"D9kBN.0.F45.Z6cVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28891
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Operating a resonant electrolytic cell (REC) as defined previously, highly
insultated and at boiling temperature, may provide an efficient means of
obtaining fresh water from salt water, provided it can be operated at a COP
of over 1.14 as hoped.  At minimum, all the energy input is output in
useful products, either steam, which can be used for energy recovery plus
fresh water, or gas, which can be recombined to reclaim the energy in the
form of heat.  Unfortunately, if the electrolyte is seawater, some of the
evolved gas will be chlorine, some of which will have to be further removed
from the water.  Still HCL would be a useful byproduct of such a process,
and the recombination of H and CL in an insulated compartment surrounded by
seawater at boiling temperature should provide nearly 100 percent energy
recovery in the form of additional generated steam.

It is of interest that such a process operated at high pressure should gain
efficiency from the electrolysis evolved gas, since the moles of gas
evolved have only to do with current through the cell, and are not related
to the cell operating pressure.  That, if true, definitely provides
something for nothing.

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  3 19:06:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA27801;
	Sat, 3 Jul 1999 19:00:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 19:00:00 -0700
Message-ID: <000501bec5bf$f3428180$a8b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fluorescent Tube with Hg & D2O?
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 19:51:47 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"CvFDB3.0.Eo6.V0iVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28892
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The standard 40 watt fluorescent bulbs (0.4 amperes   100 volts) contain a
"drop" of Mercury. If one substituted a drop of H2O or D2O, or H2/D2 for the
Micron pressure Argon, the bulbs could be ran in a standard fixture using a
standard or electronic ballast.

The bulb can be painted or covered with a metal tube to trap the photons,
and do the calorimetry.

The trick is to break into a standard bulb to work the "fill" and pressure.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  3 20:13:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA06610;
	Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:12:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:12:20 -0700
Message-ID: <19990704031123.14060.rocketmail web116.yahoomail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"rfM2Q2.0.Cd1.K4jVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28893
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Michael Huffman writes that Scott Little might be getting RF from the
electrical discharge picked up in his thermistor(s) and a reading error
thereby. Certainly this kind of possibility exists in general, (it has
happened to me) and a good experimentalist always tests his/her equipment as
much as practical and understands the equipment's limitations.

Scott's PLEC runs do not exhibit the characteristics of RF pickup. First, as
Scott already said, eight runs with somewhat different details and with
different powers all gave Pout/Pin = 1, to within a couple of percent. It is
very unlikely that RF pickup would always fortuitously be just the right
value to give unity Pout, regardless of the experimental conditions. Second,
When there is RF pickup in the temperature sensor(s), the indicated
temperature jumps up or down whenever the RF source(s) change. In particular,
when an RF source comes on, like when the discharge starts to arc, the
indicated temperature jumps correspondingly. Scott's Pout (derived from
temperatures) exhibits smooth, exponential-like rises and falls over several
minute intervals. It does not look like RF pickup is influencing his data.


===
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 04:27:30 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA20613;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 04:26:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 04:26:25 -0700
Message-ID: <000d01bec60f$12df8480$428f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 05:18:08 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"rpIK-2.0.w15.XJqVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28894
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

In the 1980s, Kubas at Los Alamos discovered that the H-H bond (4.53 ev)
need not be broken for bonding to the transition metals.

G.J. Kubas, Molecular Hydrogen Complexes; Coordination of a sigma bond to
transition metals.
Acc. Chem. Res., 21; 120-128, 1988.

Is it PdHx or x Pd(H2)?   :-)

This points to Pd, K, or Hg molecules "absorbing" H2 or D2, and the
formation of M(H2) molecules/Quasiatoms.

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 05:13:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA24418;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 05:06:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 05:06:21 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 08:11:33 -0400
Message-ID: <19990704121133125.AAA121 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"MUgXV3.0.Sz5.yuqVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28895
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Michael Schaffer wrote:
>Michael Huffman writes that Scott Little might be getting RF from the
>electrical discharge picked up in his thermistor(s) and a reading error
>thereby. Certainly this kind of possibility exists in general, (it has
>happened to me) and a good experimentalist always tests his/her equipment as
>much as practical and understands the equipment's limitations.
>
>Scott's PLEC runs do not exhibit the characteristics of RF pickup. First, as
>Scott already said, eight runs with somewhat different details and with
>different powers all gave Pout/Pin = 1, to within a couple of percent. It is
>very unlikely that RF pickup would always fortuitously be just the right
>value to give unity Pout, regardless of the experimental conditions. Second,
>When there is RF pickup in the temperature sensor(s), the indicated
>temperature jumps up or down whenever the RF source(s) change. In particular,
>when an RF source comes on, like when the discharge starts to arc, the
>indicated temperature jumps correspondingly. Scott's Pout (derived from
>temperatures) exhibits smooth, exponential-like rises and falls over several
>minute intervals. It does not look like RF pickup is influencing his data.


Well, Scott did have a problem before that was caught and corrected in:

http://www.eden.com/~little/vwfc/lwb.html

The net effect being that the Peltier heating and cooling unit doesn't kick
on as much in the improved layout.  I haven't had the time to go back and
check the archives, but I think that Scott caught this problem himself.  In
other words, nobody on this group saw anything wrong with those giant
bi-polar wangs that the Tin was making.  It takes time, effort and expertise
to see these things.  There were probably a hundred PhDs that signed off on
Hanford as being a wonderful place to store nuclear waste in the 40's.  It's
quite possible that no or few Geologists were consulted, however, and now we
have a problem.

The RF issue is not just related to or focused upon the thermistors in
Scott's set-up, but the entire calorimetry/power measurement/device itself.
The Test wasn't proposed for just Scott's calorimetry, either.  It was
proposed for all calorimeters.  I wish I had more time to analyze Scott's
set up for a particular weakness that he could check, but I don't, so I
threw out the Huffman Old Sewing Machine Motor Test as a way for Scott and
others to check and analyze their own set ups.  I don't think that he has
done this.

This type of problem is present in virtually all electrical systems, but in
99.9% of the applications, the problem is not critical enough to bother
with.  Boeing, however, found that they nearly lost some airplanes due to a
kid firing up a Nintendo game or a guy firing up a laptop  computer.  Both
the airplane wiring harness, and the game/computer were at fault, and both
were required to be fixed.  This process of finding weaknesses and fixing
them continues today.  I'm sure that in the medical industry, nuclear power
industry, transportation industry and military, you will find many, many
examples of mission critical applications where this type of RF test has,
hopefully, become a mandatory standard operating procedure.

With the growing interest that CF has managed to garner in the public, it
will become more and more important that the tests performed on these
devices become more professional.  The RFI problem influencing calorimetry
data has been with us for the last 10 years, and I've seen no organized
effort from within the CF community to upgrade its standards of
measurements.  What I hope will come of the proposed Huffman Old Sewing
Machine Motor Test, is that one of us will take the time and effort to
collect all of the discussions and findings, and put them into coherent
webpage for researchers who are building calorimetry set-ups for the first
time.  This would give them a big headstart, and save everybody in the
industry a lot of time, money, and frustration when we hear claims of 1000%
OU.  We can just ask them if they've performed this simple, inexpensive
test, and if they haven't, we can show them the website with the
calorimetry/power measurement information, and they can correct their own
problems, if necessary.  If they need additional help, we can help them.

I think that it is damaging to the CF community to be chasing these guys
around the world, publishing their data, doing expensive multi-lingual, long
distance replication attempts, flying around the globe to look at their
calorimetry, and then finding out that it does not perform as claimed.  It
would be *equally* damaging if some of those claims were actually true, and
we ourselves were not measuring things correctly.  This type of test will be
performed by any serious, intelligent, large investor before they commit to
investing anything over $100,000, anyway.  We might as well to it for them,
and save everybody the hassle.  Of course, if you are just trying to pick up
some chump change from people who believe that you can pull bunnies out of
the wall, then that is another story, entirely.  I realize that getting
funding is not easy these days....

It's a simple test.  Just get an old sewing machine motor with one of those
SCR footpedal controls (they're nasty!), put it on a 10 foot extension cord
and walk it around your set-up with the measuring devices on.  Put it high
and low, over and under, around and through everything.  If your setup is
picking up anything, it will show up on the instruments.  That much will
take a half an hour to do.  Correcting any problems may take some time....8)

Have a Happy 4th!

Everybody Now!

And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air...   You guys know the
rest.8)

Knuke

Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 09:30:19 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA00954;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 09:28:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 09:28:11 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b3a534cffad4 [12.21.211.104]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 08:31:47 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id JAA00938
Resent-Message-ID: <"I5jVX1.0.qE.RkuVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28896
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:18 AM 7/4/99, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
>In the 1980s, Kubas at Los Alamos discovered that the H-H bond (4.53 ev)
>need not be broken for bonding to the transition metals.
>
>G.J. Kubas, Molecular Hydrogen Complexes; Coordination of a sigma bond to
>transition metals.
>Acc. Chem. Res., 21; 120-128, 1988.
>
>Is it PdHx or x Pd(H2)?   :-)
>
>This points to Pd, K, or Hg molecules "absorbing" H2 or D2, and the
>formation of M(H2) molecules/Quasiatoms.


It all depends on your point of view, doesn't it Fred?  I take it as
possible substantiation of the "H2 anvil" concept of the Atomic Expansion
Hypothesis (included below.)  This is especially interesting in light of
the recent Case experiments, because electrolysis is not involved in the
Case cell.  Direct absorbtion of H2 molecules from gas phase, followed by
spontaneous and continuous heat evolution, but with continuous heat
generation occuring only at a sufficient lattice energy, agrees with the
anvil stimulated expansion/contraction model (included below) fairly well,
except for the evolution of helium.  In reading this old hypothesis, one of
many wild-eyed speculations I have put forth over the years, I was
surprised to see the reference to Puharich, etc. at the end, and the
obvious implications to the possible ou performance of a REC.  Funny how
this stuff all seems the same after a while.  Well, here is the old stuff:

                     THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS

                      by Horace Heffner  12/30/1996

STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS

The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion
(AE), the increase in the size of an ionized atom or molecule, like H+,
which occurs when it takes on an orbital electron, can perform work on the
surroundings of the ion, and that the amount of energy released can be
greater than the initial ionization energy, provided the ion is in a
sufficiently confined space when the expansion occurs.  This is an idea
that leads to various possible experiments and, if correct, may provide a
basis for the design of over unity devices.  If correct, the AEH also
explains various previously observed results.

This hypothesis is another expression among many of the idea that the
excess heat from cold fusion devices does not come from fusion, or
transmutation, but from extraction of energy from the zero point energy
(ZPE) sea.  This is not to say that transmutation or conventional fusion
does not occur in cold fusion experiments, only that the heat producing
source of cold fusion (CF) devices is primarily ZPE.  It is an assumption
of this hypothesis that ZP energy is what keeps atoms from collapsing and
is part of the glue that holds atoms together without radiation. There have
been various publications referencing ZPE, especially by Dr. H. E. Puthoff
[1 - 6]

Atoms, more particularly orbitals, though quantized in energy, can be
deformed, both in shape and electron probability distribution.  These
deformations can occur as a result of external stress on the orbitals due
to collisions or pressure, or because of electromagnetic fields.  The
deformations are capable of storing energy, converting kinetic energy into
potential energy, and back.  With the exception of the occasional resulting
photon emissions, such collisions are perfectly elastic, which is why the
gas laws and thermodynamics work so well.  It is true that collision and
pressure deformations of orbitals are also electromagnetic in origin, but
differ from purly field generated deformations in that the
collision/deformation caused fields (or field distortions) are highly
localized and mostly cancel at a distance, and in the fact that the field
distortions convert kinetic energy into potential energy at a high energy
density.

HOW MUCH ENERGY AND POWER IS AVAILABLE FROM ZPE?

John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, when first examining the possibility of
vacuum energy, calculated that there is enough energy in the vacuum of a
light bulb to boil all the seas.  The problem is designing a mechanism to
effectively extract this energy.  The energy available is dependent upon
the method used to extract it, be that polarization of the vacuum, the
Casimir Effect, etc.  The atomic expansion method depends upon the amount
of orbital deformation achievable per transaction, and the transaction
repeat rate per volume achievable.  It does appear the two goals, high
repeat rate, and high confinement, typically oppose each other.

The ZP energy fills every vacuum.  If there is not a cutoff frequency, that
energy is infinite.  Assuming a cutoff frequency of near the Plank
frequency (wavelength) of about 10^-33 cm, the energy density is on the
order of 10^94 g/cm^3.  Multiply by c^2 and you have an enormous energy
density - which does not have to remain constant, but can replenish itself
from the ZPE sea if tapped.

The energy density rho(w) is characterized by H. E. Puthoff (Ref. 7) by:

rho(w) dw = [w^2/pi^2*c^3]/[hw/2] dw
          = (hw^3) / (2*pi^2*c^3) dw joules/m^3

Rearranging we have:

rho(w) dw = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) w^3 dw joules/m^3

rho(w) dw = K w^3 dw, where K = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) joules/m^3


Integrating over w=0 to w=B to get cumulative energy density f(B) to cutoff
frequency B:

f(B) = K/4 B^4

This indicates that the total energy density of the vacuum (though not
constant if tapped) is proportional to the fourth power of the cutoff
frequency being tapped.  The big problem is figuring out how to tap this
energy.  If a method of tapping ZPE energy is found, conservation of energy
is not violated, the second law of thermodynnamics is violated, as the
replacement energy ultimately flows from elsewhere in the universe.

Of interest is that most of the ZP energy is in the top frequencies of the
ZP spectrum tapped.  The bottom 98 percent of the frequency distribution
tapped contains (.98)^4 or 92 percent of the energy.  The top two percent
contains about 8 percent of the energy.  This implies it is best to utilize
the smallest possible wavelengths in a ZPE extracting mechanism, and
therefore, most likely, the smallest possible structures.  This leaves
atomic structures as the most likely regime to get good results.

Further evaluating f(B) for dimensionless frequency B (in Hz) we get:

f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] B^4

Now, considering radiation on an atomic scale, i.e. wavelength of 1
angstrom, or 10^-10 m, we get B ~ [3 x 10^17 Hz.] so:

f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] [3 x 10^17 Hz.]^4

f(B) = 1.26 x 10^9 joules/m^3

f(B) = 1260 joules/cm^3

If only the top 2 percent of the accessible ZPE frequency band is utilized,
we get an energy density of about 1260/8 ~ 100 joules per cm^3.

Now, to consider power tapping capabilities, and some pretty big guesses.
Given the extreme ZPE energy density at high frequencies, it is reasonable
to assume that the tapped energy, i.e. energy removed from the imaginary
cm^3 can be replaced at nearly the speed of light, or about 10^-10 second
to replenish the cm^3.  Given a collection of atomic sized devices located
in the cm^3, we could use the macro size of 1 cm instead of 1 angstrom as
the distance from which the replenishing energy must come, even though the
higher ZPE wavelengths within the angstrom dimension micro structure volume
could resupply the volume initially, with the minor resulting deficit at
all ZPE frequencies spreading like a wave throughout the universe.  This
conservative choice gives an event cycle rate maximum of 10^10 event cycles
per second, each cycle taking at most some fraction of the 100 joules
residing in the imaginary cm^3.  If we can somehow extract 1/10,000 the ZPE
energy in the cm^3, we would be able to extract 10^5 joules / cm^3 / sec.,
or 10,000 W/cm^3.  If there are only 1 out of 10,000 sites active per
cycle, and we could  extract 1/10,000 the ZPE energy in each site per
cycle, we would get 1 W/cm^3.

However, since we are using such a small part of the ZPE spectrum,
replenishment might be able to happen from the locality as fast as 10^-20
second per cell, so would not be a practical limitation in any sense.  Such
a local replenishment would depend upon the existance of a mechanism for
the energy of higher ZPE frequencies being converted to and replenishing
the frequency band being tapped.  The potential energy release is unlimited
from any reasonable standpoint.  The real limitations are event density and
event repetition rate, and these are strictly design parameters that depend
upon the ingenuity of the designer and choice of medium.

This is not to say that finding a method of extracting any net energy is
easy.  Though the ZPE sea abounds, it is very difficult to extract the
energy from it.  This is possibly the main value to the AE concept.  If
there is any truth to the idea that ZPE provides the support for orbitals,
then ZPE does interact with our environment in a big way continuously.
Massive energy exchanges occur in springs, sonic devices, etc., simply from
orbital deformation. Enormous forces can be involved and enormous energies,
even in the compression and expansion of relatively cold systems, like
metal lattices.  The intended method of extracting energy from the massive
ZPE sea is to cause orbital expansion to occur in a confined space, thus
creating extreme orbital deformation without supplying the deforming energy
to the process.  This is like manufacturing watch springs that are already
wound.

A PROPOSED MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A METAL LATTICE

1)  An ion, e.g. H+ or He++, is injected into a metal lattice.  This can be
accomplished via high energy ion acceleration or via electrolysis.

2) As the ion comes to a halt in the lattice, any kinetic energy initially
imparted to the ion is given up to the lattice.

3)  The ion takes up an electron from an adjacent atom or conduction band.
If from an adjacent atom, that atom may momentarily shrink (or lose a bond
and expand), but will quickly return to size by obtaining an electron from
a conduction band.  The net result is an electron from the locality is
taken up by the ion.

4)  An orbital is formed about the ion, increasing the size of the ion.

5)  As the electron occupies the orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. a
photon), equivalent to the original ionization energy, is released -
heating the local environment.

6)  As the small ion and acquired electron(s) expands from nuclear
dimensions to atomic dimensions, at some point force is applied in all
directions to the lattice provided the interstitial sites do not
accommodate the size of the de-ionized product.  Further expansion of the
de-ionized product to it's final size results in work being performed on
the lattice.  The energy thus produced has no antecedent. It is derived
solely from the force that keeps atoms from collapsing.  However, unlike a
collision, no initial compressive kinetic energy was supplied.  The energy
is supplied from the ZPE sea.



ENERGY DERIVED FROM ATOMIC EXPANSION IN LIQUID OR GAS PHASES

Energy might be similarly obtained in a gas or liquid phase, though not
with the efficiency of a metal lattice.  A conducting liquid, like mercury,
would behave similarly to the metal lattice, but the force resisting the AE
would be almost entirely inertial, thus much smaller than the resisting
force of a molecular bond.  The force resisting the AE would still be
exerted over a slightly sub-atomic distance, so the excess energy produced
per atomic expansion would almost entirely be proportional to the AE
resisting force.

Similar arguments can be made for the collision of an ion with a non-ion in
a gas.  The main difference here is the lack of an electron source to bring
the net charge to zero, and thus the cost of extracting the electron from
the neutral atom to fill the ion's orbital.  A negative balance in
ionization potentials (e.g. H+ hits He)  must be overcome using the kinetic
energy of the collision.

Similar arguments can also be made for gas/metal interfaces where low
energy ions strike metal electrodes, but do not penetrate.  Here again, the
AE is only inertially confined, and results in the ion product being
accelerated upon its rebound from the plate.


EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A GAS

1)  Hydrogen is ionized to create H+ in a mixture of H2 and Rn (radon gas).
This might be accomplished in an arc, a point or wire discharge, or via
RF, x-ray, or other indirect excitement.

2)  The H+ ion comes into contact with a Rn atom, stripping an electron
from the Rn atom producing a H atom and Rn+ ion.  In the event one of the
other noble gasses is used in place of Rn, some of the H+ kinetic energy is
required to strip the electron, and the post collision noble gas atom may
still ultimately retain the electron even though a momentary H orbital
forms during the collision.

3)  An orbital is formed about the H+ ion, suddenly increasing the size of
the ion.  The expansion, fueled by ZPE, imparts "free" energy to the atoms
in the form of potential, then kinetic, energy as the collision progresses.

4)  As the electron occupies the H orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. one
or more photons), equivalent to the original ionization energy less the Rn
ionizing energy, is released - heating the local environment.

5)  The initial momentums and energies of the H and Rn nuclei gets applied
to their shells, distorting them, and are returned to the environment via
the normal elastic collision mechanism.

6)  Eventually the Rn+ is reconstituted to Rn and a photon is released,
gaining back the complete energy of ionization of the H atom initially.

The net energy gained is the energy of expansion (AE energy) of the H+
orbital in close proximity to the Rn+ ion - thus imparting additional
kinetic energy to both.


WHAT DOES THE AEH EXPLAIN?

The AEH provides a possible explanation for the varied effectiveness of the
alpha, beta, and gamma phases of CF loading.  I suggest that in the initial
loading phase the adsorbed hydrogen is, as suggested by others, alternately
in H and H+ form, but primarily in H+ form.  It is primarily ionically
bound to the lattice, especially when in motion.  An H atom almost fits
inside a tetrahedral lattice cell, but not through the triangular portals
between cells.  In the beta phase, many of the cells are occupied by H
molecules, and in such a state, diffusion between cells requires
displacement of some H molecules, the diffusion paths tend to be blocked,
and the continued diffusion requires the ionization of a path blocking H or
its tunneling out of the way.  Some degree of H confinement upon the
reconversion from an H+ to H would occur, thus some small AE excess energy
might be produced in beta phase.   In the gamma phase, H loading would be
to the point that additional loading would force the formation of H2
molecules in the tetrahedral sites and in the face holes. In looking at the
geometry of the Ni lattice and H2 molecules, it appears such a formation is
possible with only a deformation of the lattice of about 2 percent.  This
would, however, imply extreme confinement and local pressure, which would
dramatically increase the work done by ZPE in supporting the H2 formation,
or "expansion".

Some numbers regarding H2 molecules and the face centered cubic geometry of
the Ni lattice:

H atomic radius:     .79 Å
H covalent radius    .32 Å
H2 bond length       .7414 Å

Ni atomic radius    1.62 Å
Ni covalent radius  1.15 Å
Ni bond length      2.4916 Å

>From this it is determined that the face hole will pass a sphere of radius
0.2885 Å and the tetrahedral space will accommodate a sphere of radius
0.6118 Å. However, an H2 molecule can be placed across one axis of the
tetrahedron with each atom partway through a face hole.  In fact, the H2
atom could pass through the face holes with only an expansion of the bond
length of 2*(.3200 -.2885) = .063 Å.  This is an increase in bond length of
about 2.5 percent.  Less expansion is sufficient to fit the H2 into the
tetrahedron. Note that it is also possible, when there is sufficient heat,
to trap or form an H2 molecule in the face hole and that the three Ni atoms
can act like two hammers and an anvil, or a tri-jawed anvil - popping the
H2 atom apart, each atom then expanding in separate tetrahedral spaces.
Such an expansion is at least inertially constrained, thus AE energy could
result.  Note that each half of the H2 "dumbbell" resides in a different
tetrahedral space.  These spaces can act as pistons, i.e the vacuum will
accumulate zero point energy.  This energy may assist the cracking of the
H2 by the anvil by exerting a Casimir force on the expanding H orbital
surface.  Further, when the orbitals of the expanding H and the boundary
metal atoms make contact, a kind of orbital "blow through" may occur,
creating free electrons that further heat the lattice.  The H nucleus would
be accelerated in the direction of the center of its tetrahedral site by
the expanding H orbital.  This momentum could carry the H nucleus on into
the next tetrahedral site, thus ZPE may help facilitate the H diffusion.
Sufficient energy might momentarily create an H "supermolecule," two H
nuclei orbited by two electrons.   Such events would increase the
likelihood of fusion, if only a small amount.  Maximizing the ZPE
extraction via these means would mean loading the lattice at a (or
eventually heating it to a) temperature near the melting point of the Ni in
order to permit maximum occupation of the triangular face holes by H2
atoms.  Similar arguments apply to the Pd-D system.

The following chart of FCC elements shows possible candidates for such a
mechanism:

Elem.   Bond   Covalent Atomic  Face Hole   Tetrahedral
        Length  Radius  Radius  Radius      Space Radius
         (A)      (A)    (A)     (A)           (A)
Ge      2.4498   1.22   1.52    0.1944        0.5123
Pt      2.7460   1.30   1.83    0.2854        0.6417
Ni      2.4916   1.15   1.62    0.2885        0.6118
Cu      2.5560   1.17   1.57    0.3057        0.6373
Pd      2.7511   1.28   1.79    0.3083        0.6653
Au      2.8841   1.34   1.79    0.3251        0.6993
Ag      2.8894   1.34   1.75    0.3282        0.7031
Al      2.8630   1.25   1.82    0.4030        0.7744
Ce      3.6500   1.65   2.70    0.4573        0.9309
Yb      3.8800   1.74   2.40    0.5001        1.0035
Ca      3.9470   1.74   2.23    0.5388        1.0509
Pb      3.5003   1.47   1.81    0.5509        1.0051
Sr      4.3020   1.91   2.45    0.5738        1.1319

Since hydrogen has a covalent radius of 0.32 A, it appears superficially
that Pd, Cu, Ni, and Pt are the only reasonable candidates for the
suggested anvil/piston mechanism. However, this table is only an
approximation, and a detailed analysis of the crystal structure, utilizing
the Schroedinger Equation, is required.  It is especially noteworthy that
Pt, Cu, and Au are relatively impervious to hydrogen adsorbtion at standard
temperatures.  The best candidates capable of both trapping the H2 in a
face hole and also being capable of anvil pressure on the bond appear to be
Nu, Cu, and Pd, but again, detailed analysis is required.  Also, the less
pervious elements might become active at a high temperature, especially Pt
and Cu.  Note also that above Al in the table, the H atom, having a radius
of 0.79 Å, appears to readily fit into the tetrahedral space without
orbital deformation.  This would greatly diminish the free energy
generating potential.

The AEH  model also may explain why various discharge tubes, especially
those containing H2 or He, appear to produce excess energy.   The ions are
injected into the metal lattice where they are confined prior to atomic
expansion. A repetitive ion oscillation may produce a kind of synchronized
shock wave in the metal surface causing it to rebound and add energy to the
impinging and reflecting particles at the surface.  The source of the AE
energy may be primarily in the electrodes, especially cathodes, but to some
degree may occur in the gas as well, or at the electrode surface due to AE
surface effect expansion.

The AEH may also explain the mechanism by which cavitation devices produce
excess heat - namely that some of the H2O is ionized in the cavitation
bubbles and the collapsing bubble results in the ions being injected into
the the high pressure water wall where the ions reconstitute and expand,
undergo AE, adding pressure, thus kinetic energy, to the collapsing
pressure wall.

The AEH may also explain the over unity performance of an arc in producing
water gas in that collision of H+ with C, or CO or CO2 could potentially
create AE energy.

Here are some ionization potentials of interest:

H   13.598
C   11.260
CO  14.014
CO2 13.773

Note that no kinetic energy is required to trigger the AE reaction between
H+ and C and that little is required for CO or CO2.  Note that the AE
reaction might possibly push the chemical equilibrium in the arc toward the
production of CO by supplying the excess energy required to split the
second O from the CO2.  Two things are bothersome about this concept
though.  One is that if the AE effect exists it should have been observed
in chemistry long ago.  Another is that, unlike the case where H+ and a
noble gas are used, a bond can form between the H and the reactant, so the
kinetic energy would end up in molecular vibration, or in reducing the
probability of such a bond.  The main difficulty, though, is that the
shared orbital, the bond, creates an attractive force instead of a
repulsive force.  AE excess energy is based upon repulsion, not attraction.
Perhaps one difficulty answers the other.  In any event, He++ would make a
more logical AE generator than H+ in this application.  The He would act as
an energy booster, and thereby as a kind of catalyst, in cracking the H2O
and CO2 bonds.  Such a process may work best at very low voltages and high
frequencies, especially in a manner similar to that suggested by Puharich
(Ref. 8) for cracking water.  His method adapted to a steam/CO2
environment, catalyzed by He, could assist in the production of water gas.
Such a gas could be used, within a sealed glass envelope containing both
discharges, to feed oscillations (due to operation in the negative
resistance range) of a higher voltage arc or electric discharge, to produce
electrical energy directly, without mechanical devices.


SO WHAT ABOUT DESIGN CRITERIA?

This model results in some concrete design suggestions:

1) Produce ions (especially H+ or H++) in as large a quantity and as
efficiently as possible.

2) Accelerate or transport the ions into a confining and preferably
conducting medium where they are deionized under pressure.

3) Utilize the increased pressure and heat in the confining medium.

4) Make the confining medium as gas recycling as possible, preferably
extracting energy from the higher pressure and temperature post-AE gas
before repeating the cycle.


SOME APPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTATION THOUGHTS

1)  Mercury, though not as confining as a lattice, may make a good medium
for ion injection as it would expel the gasses quickly.  Mercury also
conducts electricity well.  Other metals could be used at higher
temperatures; however, electron emission from hot cathodes would not be
good as it would increase the power demand.  The increased power would have
to be utilized to result in more ionizations.  The simplest possible test
device may be a small sealed glass tube of H2 or He with a point anode at
the top and mercury cathode at the bottom, activated with high frequency
high voltage pulsed DC current.  An improvement might be to use two anode
electrodes, isolated from the cathode, with a lower voltage discharge
between the anodes to do the ionization.

2)  Hot anodes are fine as they will increase ionization and kinetic energy
of the gas.  An arc created by an isolation transformer may make a very
good anode.

3)  It may be possible to use water as a cathode.  The atomic expansion may
assist in boiling the water at the surface.  The water could provide it's
own H2 from the evolved steam which migrates to an arc anode.  It might be
good to use a helium atmosphere to get safe recombination.  An electrolyte
would, of course, increase the cathode conductivity.

4)  Electrolysis (or arcs) under water may produce usable energy if done
under extreme pressure.  Simply use the evolved high pressure gas to move
pistons.  Additional process stages could be added for recombination and
heat recovery.  Some of the energy of compression, by the AEH model, would
come from the ZPE sea.

5)  As suggested earlier, a closed tube with an electrically excited
mixture of H2 and a noble gas, especially radon, may produce some over
unity results.

6)  The process of producing water gas, i.e. burning carbon in an arc under
water to produce CO and H2, may be improved by avoiding the use carbon rods
altogether.  This might be done by recycling the CO2 and H2O (as steam)
into an arc and driving its equilibrium to a mixture of H2O, CO2, CO, and
H2 in the arc.  The AE energy would assist in driving the reaction in
reverse in the arc and would be the energy derived from the recycling
process.  This process might be assisted by adding He to the atmosphere as
the He has a much higher ionization potential (24.587 volts) than CO or
CO2, and will not bond with it.


REFERENCES

1.  H. E. Puthoff, "Everything for Nothing," New. Sci., vol. 127, p. 52 (28
July 1990).

2.  H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a
Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D, vol. 35, p. 3266
(1987).

3.  D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the
Vacuum," Phys. Rev. E, vol. 48, p. 1562 (1993).

4.  H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum:  Implications for Energy
Research," Spec. in Sci. and Tech., vol. 13, p. 247 (1990).

5.  Timothy Boyer, "The Classical Vacuum," Scientific American, p. 70,
August 1985

6.  Walter Greiner and Joseph Hamilton, "Is the Vacuum Really Empty?",
American Scientist, March-April 1980, p. 154

7.  H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy
Research",  Speculations in Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp.
247-257, 1990.

8.  US Patent 4,394,230, "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SPLITTING WATER
MOLECULES," Henry K. Puharich, Attorney, Agent, or Firm - Mandeville and
Schweitzer

Regards,               Note: without prior arrangement, any technical
                       information emailed to me will be treated as
Horace Heffner         public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 11:28:56 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA24518;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 11:28:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 11:28:05 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990704133211.009353a0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 13:32:11 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
In-Reply-To: <19990704121133125.AAA121 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"kvI-q.0.0_5.rUwVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28897
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:11 AM 7/4/99 -0400, Michael T Huffman wrote:

>In
>other words, nobody on this group saw anything wrong with those giant
>bi-polar wangs that the Tin was making.

Giant?  Peak-to-peak amplitude was only 0.06C and the errors introduced by
the problem were around 1-2 watts out of 100 watts.

>Huffman Old Sewing Machine Motor Test as a way for Scott and
>others to check and analyze their own set ups.  I don't think that he has
>done this.

The fact that my system reports a very close power balance on the actual
experiment under a variety of excitation conditions is satisfactory
evidence that it is not suffering from interference problems.

>The RFI problem influencing calorimetry
>data has been with us for the last 10 years, and I've seen no organized
>effort from within the CF community to upgrade its standards of
>measurements.

You're asking too much, Knuke, there has been no organized
effort from within the CF community. Period.

>It's a simple test.  Just get an old sewing machine motor with one of those
>SCR footpedal controls (they're nasty!), put it on a 10 foot extension cord
>and walk it around your set-up with the measuring devices on.  Put it high
>and low, over and under, around and through everything.

Your spirit is in the right place but the test is far too subjective to be
of much value.  What's needed is a test that determines if the level of RF
that is present in the actual experiment is causing problems...not some
other source of RF.  This can be fairly easily done by adding a Joule
heater to the cell so that, during actual operation of the experiment, a
known amount of power can be added via the Joule heater to see if the
calorimeter reads it correctly...while the actual experiment is running.
This is called the Method of Additions in analyical work.  Having described
it, I guess I'll just have to demonstrate it on my next run....:)  I think
I will NOT monitor the Joule heater with my calorimeter's data acquisition
system but rather just record the heater power manually.  That way it will
simulate a real excess heat event and you will be able to see how
dramatically different looking such a run would be from the runs I have
conducted to date.


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 Jul  4 12:21:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA00461;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 12:19:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 12:19:17 -0700
Message-ID: <005201bec651$214e9000$428f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 13:10:43 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"SsZBs.0.27.rExVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28898
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace wrote:

[Text saved to keep file]

Nice going, Horace.  Your theory is along the lines of Quasiatoms and close
approach atom/molecular collisions and Supercritical Fields that extract
ZPE:

T. Cowan, Phys Rev Lett, 54:1761-1764, 1985

T. Cowan, Phys Rev Lett, 54: 444-447-1986

W. Greiner(ed.) Physics of Strong Fields, 1987.

W. Greiner (ed.) Quantum Electrodynamics of Strong Fields, 1983.

W. Greiner, B. Muller, and J. Rafelski, Quantum Electrodynamics of Strong
Fields, 1985.

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 13:01:57 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA06912;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 13:01:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 13:01:09 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3a34b9055c0 [207.8.67.180]>
In-Reply-To: <377D6851.52C2D2E1 ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>		
 <377CC800.47EB9940 ix.netcom.com> <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b@[207.8.61.158]>
 <v04011702b3a306127b95 [207.8.67.180]>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 14:58:30 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Resent-Message-ID: <"uSWQl.0.wh1.5sxVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28899
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> >Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The problem with switching attention to the anode, of course, is that the
>> >> H+  and D+ ions are attracted to the cathode, not the anode. Thus if we
>> >> assume the action takes place at the anode in an attempt to find a
>> >> commonality with the Case cell, we are forced to assume that the D2 gas
>> >> which Case used in his cell had nothing to do with his excess heat,
>>and the
>> >> hoped-for commonality immediately begins to fade away, like the Cheshire
>> >> cat. Result: I still remain very skeptical, despite Ed's very interesting
>> >> suggestion.
>> >
>> >The Case cell and the Mizuno cell have nothing in common.  The Case
>>cell is a
>> >logical extension of the Pd-D2 system which uses electrolysis to load D
>>into
>> >Pd.   Arata first showed that sufficiently high concentrations of D
>>could be
>> >achieved using the high surface energy of fine particles instead of
>> >electrolysis.  In other words, instead of forcing the D in by applied
>>current,
>> >it was sucked in by surface energy.  Case simply used finely divided Pd
>>in a
>> >different form. The Arata sample could not be run at high temperature
>>because
>> >finely divided Pd will sinter, thereby losing the high surface area.
>>However,
>> >the Pd microparticles on the catalyst are too far apart to sinter, thus
>>high
>> >temperatures can be used. The nuclear reaction in each case uses D to
>>produce
>> >He.
>> >
>> >The Mizuno cell is an extension of the light water work with the added
>>feature
>> >of a high voltage arc. This technique has no relationship to the Pd-D
>>studies,
>> >therefore the analysis must explore new ground.
>>
>> ***{The light water and the heavy water work have always had the presumed
>> commonality that the site of the action involved hydrogen--protium in the
>> light water cells, and deuterium in the heavy water cells. However, if we
>> are now to suppose that a nuclear reaction is somehow taking place in
>> Mizuno's anode, it seems to me that hydrogen is clearly left out of the
>> picture. Thus we are left to cast about for some *other* nuclear reaction
>> that might occur under anodic conditions. Taking your suggestion that W and
>> C encrust the anode and that the reaction occurs there, what might be the
>> nature of that reaction? Well, C-14 decays with the emission of a .155 MEV
>> electron, and has a half-life of 5700 years, according to my *Handbook*.
>> Could it be that the conditions at Mizuno's anode are somehow shortening
>> the half-life of C-14? Or do you have some other idea in mind? --Mitchell
>> Jones}***
>
>No, I leave such speculations to others.

***{That's fine. Since the carbon-14 speculation was mine, I might as well
be the one to refute it. My references indicate that a gram of atmospheric
carbon produces, on average, 15.3 decays per minute due to the C-14 which
it contains, that C-14 has a half-life of 5730 years, and that it decays
vie the emission of a .156 MeV electron. [Note: atmospheric carbon is
referenced here because the source of radiocarbon (C-14) is cosmic ray
impacts that occur at the upper margins of the atmosphere and produce the
reaction N-14 + n -> C-14 +p.]  Since -dN/dt = N(ln 2)/H, it follows that N
= -HdN/(ln 2)dt, and we can, as an approximation, set dN = -(15.3) and dt =
1/(60)(24)(365.25) =  1.9013x10^-6 years. Result: N = -HdN/(ln 2)dt =
-(5730)(-15.3)/(ln 2)(1.9013x10^-6) = 6.65x10^10, which is the number of
C-14 atoms in a gram of atmospheric carbon.Since each C-14 atom in a gram
would contribute .156 MeV upon disintegration, all of them together would
contribute (6.65x10^10)(.156) = 1.04x10^10 MeV =
(1.04x10^10)(10^6)(1.6x10^-19) = .00166 joules per gram of atmospheric
carbon. Bottom line: even if we could reduce the half-life of C-14 to zero
in the Mizuno cell, and even if it contained nothing but carbon from
atmospheric sources, the resulting decays could not possibly account for
the excess heat which Mizuno measured. --Mitchell Jones}***

Since, however, the graphite electrodes
>apparently make Fe, Cr and other elements

***{Based on what evidence? And by what reaction pathways might graphite be
transformed into iron or chromium? (If you do not choose to speculate on
the latter point, perhaps you can supply a reference to someone who has.)
Such information is important because if we switch our focus to the anode,
we give up the notion that hydrogen is instrumental to the effect and,
without some plausible rationale to substitute for it, further
investigation becomes little more than random trial and error. --Mitchell
Jones}***

, none of which is radioactive but the
>mixture is magnetic.  Before we get carried away, more experimental
>examination is
>needed.

***{It occurs to me that the underlying issue here may lie in the area of
philosophy of science, rather than within the context of this specific
experiment. Speaking from such a perspective, do you agree that, even in
the absence of a specific theory, we still need some sort of plausible
rationale to justify the time and effort which an experiment requires? (Or
are you a proponent of the "stab in the dark" approach to science? :-)
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 13:21:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA11006;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 13:15:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 13:15:21 -0700
Message-Id: <199907042015.QAA27537 ns.cancom.net>
Subject: Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 99 13:22:01 -0600
x-sender: wiseman pop.cancom.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v2, June 6, 1997
From: George Wiseman <wiseman eagle-research.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"mD02c3.0.uh2.P3yVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28900
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I find the vortex group interesting but I need to unsubscribe for a month 
or so, because this volume of emails is hard to handle while traveling.

Since I subscribed to correspond with Horace Heffner in a public forum 
(and anyone else interested in Brown's Gas) perhaps anyone seriously 
about Brown's Gas will CC their discussion to me, and CC my responce to 
them, this will keep everything in public and I won't need to spend hours 
online at hotel phone rates.

I thank you in advance for this favor.

I would appreciate anyone interested in Brown's Gas to visit the page 
below and send some comments about what you see there.  I think this 
group has the expertise to do peer review of my work.

http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/watergas.html

BTW, I also prefer the 'open' communication promoted by Mr. Heffner; this 
is what makes these discoveries grow into marketable items, which then 
true free enterprise can bring to the public.  My opinion on patents is 
located at

http://www.eagle-research.com/nopatent/patfree.html

Blessings on you all, till I re-subscribe




George Wiseman <wiseman eagle-research.com>

http://www.eagle-research.com


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 14:18:08 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA26048;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 14:16:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 14:16:55 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b3a5729738f4 [12.21.208.146]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 13:20:55 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ifivw.0.wM6.6zyVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28901
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:32 PM 7/4/99, Scott Little wrote:
[snip]
>Your spirit is in the right place but the test is far too subjective to be
>of much value.  What's needed is a test that determines if the level of RF
>that is present in the actual experiment is causing problems...not some
>other source of RF.  This can be fairly easily done by adding a Joule
>heater to the cell so that, during actual operation of the experiment, a
>known amount of power can be added via the Joule heater to see if the
>calorimeter reads it correctly...while the actual experiment is running.
>This is called the Method of Additions in analyical work.


I hate to nitpick about this because I think your method of using
thermistors is vastly superior to the use of thermocouples due to the much
larger signal involved, and I doubt you have any noise problem.  Unless the
thermal mass being measured is small and thus perturbed by the I^2*R
sensing loss in the thermistor, thermistors seem to be vastly superior to
thermocouples and yet cheaper to implement due to the lack of need of
amplification.  (Yes, you sold me on all that long ago.)

That said, it certainly could be Mizuno's thermocouples are causing an
exess power signal, thus it seems worthwhile to examine what is happening
on his end with regard to signal amplification.   Induced noise is AC.  For
induced noise to have any effect on the temperature measurement, the AC
noise has to be rectified and averaged in some manner by his amlifier.  If
Mizuno were interested in testing for broadcast noise picked up by the
thermocouples he might consider leaving a probe in air or on ice, or
otherwise in a constant temperature environment close to the cell in
operation and see if temperature still rises when the cell power is
applied, and drops when it is removed, with a much shorted time constant
than the cell's.


>Having described
>it, I guess I'll just have to demonstrate it on my next run....:)  I think
>I will NOT monitor the Joule heater with my calorimeter's data acquisition
>system but rather just record the heater power manually.  That way it will
>simulate a real excess heat event and you will be able to see how
>dramatically different looking such a run would be from the runs I have
>conducted to date.


This sounds very worthwhile, and I am sure you will have no difficulty
convincing Michell Swartz of the value of thermal pulse pulse analysis.
8^)  However, I don't believe thermal pulses are useful in looking for
thermocouple noise in this case because the power to the resistor is
probably DC or 60 Hz, and in any case will not broadcast noise equivalent
to the high voltage circuitry.  In other words, be there noise or not, the
thermal pulse should not change due the fact the noise adds only to the
baseline in which the noise hides and not to the thermal pulse in
proportion to the pulse height.  At minumum, the noise induced on the
thermistor or themocouple circuit should be much much less from the joule
heater than from the HV HF discharge.

I think Knuke is right about the need for some standard methods.  It would
be pretty good to have a calorimetry FAQ for CF wouldn't it?

Scott, if and when you time to fool around,  you might consider putting an
inductor, a choke, in series with your bypass capacitor that is across the
cell, possibly with resonant frequency tuned to the approximate spark rate
or some multiple.  You probably can make a sufficient choke by winding bell
wire around your finger a dozen times.  You might need to reduce the bypass
capacitor size.  The choke could serve two purposes: (A) introducing into
the spark regime more noise as a control test and (B) looking for the
effect of resonance mode when operating in the plasma regime.  Resonance in
the regulated DC plasma regime would be a possible indication of a tunnel
diode effect from some kind of layer on the cathode or fluid anode or
platinum anode operating in a negative resistance portion of its I/V curve.
That would not necessarily be an indication of an ou process.  It would be
an indication that unanticipated oscillations, noise, and effects are
probably present in the cell.  We certainly already know there is a lot of
radiated RF noise.

Regards,                 Any technical material emailed to me without
                         prior agreement will be treated as
Horace Heffner           public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 14:18:54 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA26982;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 14:18:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 14:18:22 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990704171319.00899d20 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 17:13:19 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990704133211.009353a0 mail.eden.com>
References: <19990704121133125.AAA121 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Mo8ul1.0.Kb6.T-yVt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28902
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 01:32 PM 7/4/99 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
>>The RFI problem influencing calorimetry
>>data has been with us for the last 10 years, and I've seen no organized
>>effort from within the CF community to upgrade its standards of
>>measurements.
>
>You're asking too much, Knuke, there has been no organized
>effort from within the CF community. Period.


  RFI (EMI) has been discussed in the literature, as well as the problems
with calorimetry. 

 Furthermore, there has been a very organized effort to improve
calorimetry in the CF community  -- including using standards that
some of the folks here tend to think that they can avoid, such as 
impulse response, and noise, measurements.

   Mitchell Swartz


   

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 16:29:00 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA19087;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:27:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:27:23 -0700
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <d7d20834.24b147ac aol.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:26:36 EDT
Subject: Re: PLEC:  anode?
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54
Resent-Message-ID: <"hXNZd2.0.9g4.Rt-Vt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28903
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:23:57 -0600, Fred Sparber wrote, re my questions to 
Scott about whether he was still using a platinum sheet anode and whether he 
had a photo or diagram showing exactly how Mizuno's anode was placed around 
the cathode:

"Hey Tom, that's what I want to know, too.  :-)"

Thank you, Fred.  It's always good to have confirmation from someone with 
more technical and chemical expertise.  (By the way, your message re 
cathode/anode spacing and configuration appeared in my mailbox after the one 
I had posted to Vortex-L, even though yours appears to have been written more 
than an hour earlier.  I see that kind of achronicity a lot.)

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 16:29:43 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA19121;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:27:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:27:26 -0700
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <1f4324b4.24b147a9 aol.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:26:33 EDT
Subject: PLEC Improvements?
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54
Resent-Message-ID: <"E-1_M3.0.cg4.Tt-Vt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28904
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed,

In your post Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 22:09:26 -0400, you wrote that Mizuno and 
Ohmori usually saw no excess heat when they first began their plasma 
electrolysis experiments.

Do you know what their first cell looked like?  Do you know what changes they 
made to improve performance?

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 18:38:06 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA09626;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:36:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:36:24 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990704212443.00689f08 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 21:24:43 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: CGDE a.k.a. PLEC  literature
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"klHEi2.0.JM2.Nm0Wt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28905
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wrote "The 'numerous serious errors' in the literature do not include
anything," like a 100 watt, 100% mistake. Scott Little responds:

	I'm not talking about stuff in the literature.  Goofs this bad
	don't make it to the literature.

Okay, let me rephrase. I have never heard of anyone, anywhere, under any
circumstances ever making a mistake on this scale. Have you, Scott? Tell us
about it.

I do not rule out a mistake, but I cannot imagine how it could happen.

Michael T Huffman wrote:

	The wattage produced in the thermocouples and the leads to the
	computer are in the milliwatt range.  RF can easily distort
	that, and consciously or by accident, a researcher can play
	those things like a trombone.  The longer the leads, the worse
	it can be.

Mizuno says initially RF caused problems with the thermocouples. He
regrounded and used compensated leads and the problems went away. I will
measure the temperature of test samples of the inlet and outlet water with
a thermistor, far from the machine. I will also recalibrate on the fly with
the joule heater while excess heat is being generated (assuming the machine
works when I am there). I will add 10 or 20 watts with the heater, which is
located at the bottom of the cell, below the TCs.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  4 21:47:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA04459;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 21:45:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 21:45:37 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990704234956.0089d100 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 23:49:56 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: CGDE a.k.a. PLEC  literature
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990704212443.00689f08 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NA5Kr3.0.U51.mX3Wt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28906
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:24 PM 7/4/99 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>Okay, let me rephrase. I have never heard of anyone, anywhere, under any
>circumstances ever making a mistake on this scale. Have you, Scott? Tell us
>about it.

Wow! in reviewing the various large calorimetry errors I have encountered,
I came up with one example that just might apply in Mizuno's case.  Once, I
was confronted with a large apparent excess heat result....100 watts out
for 50 watts in.  After considerable searching around, I discovered that an
ammeter placed in the hot lead going to the experiment read much higher
than the ammeter they had in the neutral lead returning from the
experiment.  The problem was an accidental path to ground within the
apparatus.  As a result they were only monitoring a portion of the total
current being delivered to the device.  When the problem was corrected the
excess heat "signal" vanished.

Mizuno probably has his current shunt located in the near-ground line that
returns from his cell so that his data logger is not subjected to the ~150
volts.  Find an ordinary battery-powered DVM (Fluke 87 if available) and,
configured as an ammeter, insert it in series with the high-voltage lead to
the cell.  It SHOULD read the same average current as his data logger does.


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 Jul  4 21:50:30 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA04504;
	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 21:45:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 21:45:41 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990704225858.0089cd40 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 22:58:58 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b3a5729738f4 [12.21.208.146]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NgiSM.0.I61.rX3Wt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28907
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 01:20 PM 7/4/99 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote:

>...I don't believe thermal pulses are useful in looking for
>thermocouple noise in this case because the power to the resistor is
>probably DC or 60 Hz, and in any case will not broadcast noise equivalent
>to the high voltage circuitry.

Hmmmm! You're right.  But I still don't want to expose the experiment to
some other source of RF.  In my experience, immunity to RF comes in
infinite shades of gray.  I really want to know if the particular flavor of
RF caused by the experiment itself is causing problems.

>Scott, if and when you time to fool around,  you might consider putting an
>inductor, a choke, in series with your bypass capacitor that is across the
>cell, possibly with resonant frequency tuned to the approximate spark rate
>or some multiple.

That does sound interesting.  I'll certainly consider it.


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  5 00:36:09 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA26862;
	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 00:30:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 00:30:42 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b3a60d51fedb [12.21.211.41]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:34:42 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
Resent-Message-ID: <"Xn16Z.0.YZ6.Yy5Wt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28908
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:58 PM 7/4/99, Scott Little wrote:
>At 01:20 PM 7/4/99 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>...I don't believe thermal pulses are useful in looking for
>>thermocouple noise in this case because the power to the resistor is
>>probably DC or 60 Hz, and in any case will not broadcast noise equivalent
>>to the high voltage circuitry.
>
>Hmmmm! You're right.  But I still don't want to expose the experiment to
>some other source of RF.  In my experience, immunity to RF comes in
>infinite shades of gray.  I really want to know if the particular flavor of
>RF caused by the experiment itself is causing problems.


Then it seems logical to look at the signal coming from the termistor to
the computer interface to see if there is noise on it.  Then it should be
fairly easy to attach two extra leads to the thermistor itself and
superimpose similar AC noise on the thermistor end using a signal
generator, capacitively isolated.  This should permit you to do a noise
sensitivity analysis at a wide range of noise frequencies and amplitudes.

However, this all seems a bit futile when there is no reason to expect that
you have an error.  Your data aquisition method should be impervioous to AC
noise because it averages to zero.  Further, for the error to be yours, it
has to be based on rectification in subtract mode, which seems very
unlikely.  The fruitful place to be looking is Mizuno's setup.

Regards,                 Any technical material emailed to me without
                         prior agreement will be treated as
Horace Heffner           public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  5 00:42:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA28583;
	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 00:38:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 00:38:17 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b3a610e7d682 [12.21.208.94]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:42:18 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
Resent-Message-ID: <"yEDa-.0.X-6.e36Wt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28909
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I just wrote: "...for the error to be yours, it has to be based on
rectification in subtract mode, which seems very unlikely."

The above is based on the assumption that your hot thermocouple is closer
to the electrical noise than the cold thermocouple.  If the cold
thermocouple is closer then rectification of the AC noise in the direction
the DC flows to the A/D will result in a higher T1, thus a lower T2-T2 and
thus less power.  Very hard to believe that could happen and coincidentally
match to 2 percent, but this is much more likely than a subtracting type
error from the hot lead.


Regards,                 Any technical material emailed to me without
                         prior agreement will be treated as
Horace Heffner           public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  5 03:30:26 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA13335;
	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 03:29:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 03:29:32 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990704215545.0068aa34 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 21:55:45 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC Improvements?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"RhWnb3.0.HG3.Ba8Wt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28910
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Tom Stolper writes:

	Do you know what [O&M's] first cell looked like?  Do you know what
	changes they made to improve performance?

No, sorry, I do not know. I was not paying much attention for the first
year or two. I think I will concentrate on trying to learn what they have
done lately to improve reproducibility.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  5 12:41:41 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA11022;
	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:40:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:40:21 -0700
Message-ID: <37810A46.A7367FB0 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 13:41:37 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>		
	 <377CC800.47EB9940 ix.netcom.com> <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b@[207.8.61.158]>
	 <v04011702b3a306127b95 [207.8.67.180]> <v04011700b3a34b9055c0@[207.8.67.180]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"TgELV2.0.8i2.beGWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28911
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:

>
> ***{It occurs to me that the underlying issue here may lie in the area of
> philosophy of science, rather than within the context of this specific
> experiment. Speaking from such a perspective, do you agree that, even in
> the absence of a specific theory, we still need some sort of plausible
> rationale to justify the time and effort which an experiment requires? (Or
> are you a proponent of the "stab in the dark" approach to science? :-)
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>

I have no problem with tentative theories or speculations.   At the present time
we have only a limited amount of information on which such speculation can be
based.  We know only that the Mizuno configuration may produce excess heat.  We
also know that excess heat using the light water configurations involves a variety
of transmutation reactions, some of which do not involve hydrogen.  Because we are
working with a completely new method to initiate nuclear reactions, speculation
based on normal experience is very likely to be wrong.

My approach would be to first establish that the anomalous energy is real.  Once
this is proven, the resources to detect anomalous radiation and elements will be
made available.  One does not need a model or even a plausible rationale to make
such measurements, because they are routinely done under such circumstances.  The
results obtained from such broad spectrum measurements will focus thinking and
lead, very naturally, to a plausible model.  Speculations at this time are a waste
of time because they deflect thinking from the important issues and have a high
probability of being wrong.  In addition, until the excess energy is shown to be
real, no amount of speculation as to the potential nuclear source will have an
impact on the present path being taken.

The difference in the philosophy of science we have is the difference between the
way physics is normally practiced, i.e. figure out in advance from theory how the
experiment will behave, and the difference between the way other kinds of science
are practiced, i.e. do an experiment and see what happens.  In the latter case,
the experiment is either found to fit expected and conventional models or
something new is observed.  If the result is new, then  suitable diagnostics are
done to find out why the result is strange.  Sometimes the strange result is found
to be error but, occasionally, a new behavior is observed which leads to a new
theory.  A physicist would start down this path only if the result were so totally
expected that an unexpected result would cause the experiment to be rejected out
of hand and no more would be said of the anomalous result. The way physicists
handle cold fusion, I think, makes my case.

Ed Storms



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  5 14:10:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA00527;
	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 14:09:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 14:09:27 -0700
From: BriggsRO aol.com
Message-ID: <1d2c8efd.24b278cf aol.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 17:08:31 EDT
Subject: Thoughts on PLEC etc.
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 246
Resent-Message-ID: <"prfis.0.48.7yHWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28912
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 7/4/99 9:46:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, little eden.com 
writes:

<< At 09:24 PM 7/4/99 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 
 >Okay, let me rephrase.  I have never heard of anyone, anywhere, under any
 >circumstances ever making a mistake on this scale.  Have you, Scott? Tell us
 >about it.
  >>

Scott and Jed,

Some time ago, I was privileged to observed a c-f experiment that was 
reported to be putting out 30% to 100% o-u with high reliability over a long 
period of time with high repeatability but when the identical reactor (not a 
replica) was relocated and tested in a somewhat more sophisticated 
calorimeter, the output equaled the input.  The original calorimeter was an 
airflow type with a single thermometer reading output air temp, and there was 
a question about its location re the reactor and the calibration resistor.  
Unfortunately, I am under a nondisclosure commitment and cannot identify the 
experiment.

 Also, I have a vague recollection of hearing about a CETI reactor that was 
reported to be producing amazingly high o-u but measurement errors were 
discovered or suspected.  This was before I started following you guys 
closely, and someone else probably knows more about that report.  If my info 
is wrong, I will humbly stand corrected.

 On the other hand, having met Mizuno, heard his paper and read his reports, 
I have difficulty believing that he is making an obvious, fundamental error 
in either colorimetry or electrical power measurement.  

I also have very high confidence in Scott's thoroughness and competence and 
his results are consistent within themselves.  An r.f. interference or any 
other spurious signal would not yield such consistent equality between output 
heat and input measurement (by two different methods) and under such a wide 
range of conditions including both with and without r.f. generation.  

Some other comments are obscure to me.  First, what is "parallax" in the 
context of this experiment?  What is "operational manifold"?  As far as 
impulse response, Scott's step function response to voltage change contains 
all of that information but it isn't important since Scott is considering 
only the steady state data.  (I'm sure I could find spurious o-u indications 
in Scott's data if I looked at the transient conditions before the reactor 
has cooled to match a reduced voltage.)  Noise analysis is only important if 
noise appears to be affecting results, which it doesn't.

I agree with Ed on opportunistic science.  You don't have to wait till all 
the stop lights between your point of origin and  your destination are green 
to start your trip.  Just wait for the one at your corner to green up and go. 
 You'll get there sooner or find out if you are lost.

Remember, Scott is not inventing electrolytic chemistry.  He is trying to 
duplicate one, well documented experiment by a knowledgeable, cooperative 
experimenter.

Finally, Scott, why don't you do a run with the anode diameter squeezed down 
to match Mizuno's and eliminate that question.  That makes more sense than 
chasing r.f. noise.

Regards to all,

Bob Briggs

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  5 14:35:28 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA06629;
	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 14:34:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 14:34:46 -0700
Message-ID: <19990705213414.65458.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [198.88.183.82]
From: e lewis <elewis1 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: read text copies of my book online!
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 14:34:14 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"OAdNM.0.Vd1.sJIWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28913
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I've spent 10 years writing a long book about the history and philosophy of 
science, economic depressions, and the interconnections of all this.  For 
people who read the vortex mailing list, the parts dealing with cold fusion 
history and theory and my predictions and understanding of likely directions 
of development may be the most interesting part.

You can read the manuscript text online for 5 dollars by calling the credit 
card payments line in Australia: 61-395-455-755.  Or send your credit card 
number by fax: 61-395-488-707  Make sure you mention that that this is 
payment for Edward Lewis and that you give your email address clearly.  
Within a few days at most, I should receive notification of your payment and
then I'll send you the information to your email address for accessing the 
book.  You'll be able to read the book on-line in html format and download 
it for personal use as often as you wish, until the procedure for how this 
is done is changed which probably won't be for two more weeks at least.  It 
is now July 5, 1999.

The book
presents the economics and
history and philosophy of science sections developed as much as 10 years ago 
and my view of the history of cold fusion.

I'm a cold fusion and new science researcher and have published articles in 
a lot of periodicals including Cold Fusion Times, Infinite Energy, Frontier 
Perspectives, and Extraordinary Science.  I worked with G. Miley and 
discovered an effect of radioactivity inducing radioactivity in a 
microsphere-type electrolysis cell.  This is a little similar to the effect 
reported by Conte and Pieralice.

My main work as you can see from reading my articles on my web site is to 
develop a theory of plasmoids which I think is also a theory of cold fusion. 
  Both Shoulders and H. Fox used to call these EVs.

Based on Matsumoto's early CF work and prior research on ball lightning, I 
understand the role of the microscopic ball lightning in various 
transmutation and new energy devices.  I then developed a theory that even 
atoms may act like ball lightning, and a general theory of the structures 
that I call plasmoids which includes both galaxies and particles.
This required a new theory of physical organization.

I also developed a philosophy of science based partly on Thomas Kuhn's 
ideas.  It emphasizes that new paradigm development happens when prior 
fundamental hypotheses are contradicted so that novel fundamental phenomena 
are produced. You can read about this at http://207.225.33.111/booktext.html 
  I show that the development of science has been highly periodic with 
scientific revolutions in physics on the scale of Einstein, Faraday, and 
Franklin happening every 80 years almost to the year, and try to explain why 
this is so.
This periodicity has continued unabated since Copernicus, at least.

On my web site: http://207.225.33.111 you can read more information about 
both the science theory and the physics theories and ideas.

I enjoyed researching accounts of tornadoes and explaining tornadoes as a 
plasmoid phenomena especially, and relating the microscopic, micrometer size 
objects emitted during cold fusion to ball lightning and the host of other 
plasmoid sizes.  In particular, an understanding of cold fusion depends on 
an understanding of ball lightning, and especially of atoms as a type of 
plasmoid which may convert to electricity and light directly and entirely as 
does ball lightning.

There are much experimental evidence for this:  Matsumoto's research showing 
ball lightning emission, K. Shoulders reports and Claytor's and other 
reports of microscopic voids and lights.







_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  5 16:18:23 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA01915;
	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:13:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:13:20 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990705190819.0089a530 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 19:08:19 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on PLEC etc.
In-Reply-To: <1d2c8efd.24b278cf aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"knrrt1.0.mT.GmJWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28914
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 05:08 PM 7/5/99 EDT, BriggsRO aol.com wrote:
>Some other comments are obscure to me.  First, what is "parallax" in the 
>context of this experiment?  What is "operational manifold"?  As far as 
>impulse response, Scott's step function response to voltage change contains 
>all of that information but it isn't important since Scott is considering 
>only the steady state data.  (I'm sure I could find spurious o-u indications 
>in Scott's data if I looked at the transient conditions before the reactor 
>has cooled to match a reduced voltage.)  Noise analysis is only important if 
>noise appears to be affecting results, which it doesn't.


   Operational manifold did refer to where in the space of output vs.
electrical
input power the system was driven.   It did refer to a paper, the draft
of which was shared with several vorts, prior to submission.

   Also the impulse response issue dealt with a heat (control) input
rather than voltage, so that the response of the calorimeter alone
could be examined.  Flow calorimeters do not appear to be as accurate
in following waveforms as measurements obtained from isoperibolic
systems.

    Noise analysis is always important since it can be included in the
"output", but is not counted in the input.  


   BTW, I agree with your comments about Dr. Mizuno's likelihood of having
correctly done the calorimetry.

    Mitchell Swartz




        

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  5 16:49:53 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA09087;
	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:47:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:47:14 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 23:46:40 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3781435b.84872116 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>		 <377CC800.47EB9940@ix.netcom.com> <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b@[207.8.61.158]> <v04011702b3a306127b95@[207.8.67.180]> <v04011700b3a34b9055c0@[207.8.67.180]> <37810A46.A7367FB0@ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <37810A46.A7367FB0 ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 QAA09058
Resent-Message-ID: <"KJ6Zh2.0.qD2.2GKWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28915
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 13:41:37 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
[snip]
>based.  We know only that the Mizuno configuration may produce excess heat.  We
>also know that excess heat using the light water configurations involves a variety
>of transmutation reactions, some of which do not involve hydrogen.  Because 

Would you mind stating explicitly which reactions (or experiments) you
had in mind when you wrote this?

[snip]
Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  5 18:20:58 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01490;
	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:20:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:20:21 -0700
Message-ID: <000d01bec74c$b961f840$358f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:13:12 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"SU2qn1.0.CN.LdLWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28916
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott,

Along with R. O. Briggs thought that the anode be sized to be the same as
Mizuno's, wouldn't measuring the "cold resistance" of cell to get it to
match that of the Mizuno cell, bring it closer to
duplication?

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  5 18:44:15 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA07809;
	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:42:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:42:03 -0700
Message-ID: <000801bec74f$c20f9ee0$358f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: GETECH Electronics Co.,Ltd. Mercury Switches
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:34:54 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC71D.7509AD20"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"lRpsS.0.xv1.hxLWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28917
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_0005_01BEC71D.7509AD20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The Mercury Tilt Switches such as those used in thermostats are a source of
small quantities of Hg.

For the fluorescent lamps, 40 watt, 48" with a T8 (1.0" dia.) all you need
for 6 to 10 millitorr pressure, is about 0.1 micrograms. probably could get
that much out of a tooth filling.  :-)

A couple of nanograms  H2O or D2O added to the mercury discharge experiment
powered by an electronic ballast  (cost about $35.00) for a 32 watt unit
operating constant current of about 0.32 amperes at more than 15 kilohz off
120 volts A.C.

 http://www.getech.com.tw/ms.htm

Regards,    Frederick               (a very rubbed individual)    :-)

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC71D.7509AD20
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="GETECH Electronics Co.,Ltd..url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="GETECH Electronics Co.,Ltd..url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.getech.com.tw/ms.htm

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.getech.com.tw/ms.htm
Modified=E03229204EC7BE012F

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC71D.7509AD20--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  5 21:26:52 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA08620;
	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:25:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:25:51 -0700
Message-ID: <19990706042520.50869.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [130.126.15.9]
From: e lewis <elewis1 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: confirmations of the theories described in the book
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 21:25:19 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"xoEM4.0.X62.FLOWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28918
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


There have been a number of confirmations of the theories described in the 
book.
First of all, based on the ideas I was formulating in the spring of 1989, I 
predicted that not only was a scientific revolution occurring in the 1980s, 
but that someone may have already formulated a new physics premise to 
replace QM.  This was before news of CF came out.  I was thinking that 
superconductivity was one of the anomalies that would enable new theory 
formulation.

The idea of identifying all phenomena as the same general type, but varying 
sizes of this same type, and that that all phenomena might exhibit the 
anomalies of ball lightning is a fundamental idea that gets confirmed more 
and more.

Some predictions that have been confirmed are:

1) There are microscopic ball lightning.  The microscopic objects emitted 
during various kinds of stress behave like ball lightning in a number of 
ways.  I predicted that people would find grooves and ditches and trails on 
surfaces in and around their apparatus due to the motion of tiny plasmoids 
because ball lightning leaves markings like this.  Ball lightning also 
leaves pits and tunnels where they contact materials or leave materials 
sometimes associated with elemental and isotopic residues.  Claytor and 
others have found micrometer size pits.  I may have also found groove and 
pit markings in the CETI type electrolysis cells.  You can see pictures of 
them on my site.

2) That people would find more instances of the plasmoid wave phenomena 
associated with cold fusion that Matsumoto first found on plastic sheets.

3) That people would find anomalous surges of electricity due to the 
conversion of material to electricity.  Matsumoto reported finding anomalous 
surges, but his report wasn't published.

4)  The microscopic plasmoids might hop and show effects like tornadoes.  
Matsumoto found markings of them hopping like tornadoes.

5)  People would find features like geological features in electrodes and 
other stressed materials.  Ohmori found volcano like features.

6) Microscopic plasmoids that behave like ball lightning are common.
Matsumoto reported finding microscopic markings on plastic sheets after an 
earthquake that look like ball lightning markings.

There were a number of other early predictions.

7) It has become evident that transmutation is associated with plasmoid 
formation or travel.

8) That material is transported as moving plasmoids and may be converted 
inside them.

9)  That the superconductivity phenomena and the plasmoid phenomena are 
related in that superconductivity is a feature of plasmoids.


You can read about the history of science and economics theories and the 
confirmations of these theories at http://207.225.33.111
I formulated the economics and history of science theories 10 years ago.  
The major economic predictions were that there would be an industrial 
revolution based on QM theory and that there would be rapid economic 
development and an economic boom in the economies that gained leadership in 
the new industries.  Rising productivity growth rates in the most advanced 
economy was also predicted 10 years ago



>From: e lewis <elewis1 hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: read text copies of my book online!
>Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 14:34:14 PDT
>
>I've spent 10 years writing a long book about the history and philosophy of
>science, economic depressions, and the interconnections of all this.  For
>people who read the vortex mailing list, the parts dealing with cold fusion
>history and theory and my predictions and understanding of likely 
>directions
>of development may be the most interesting part.
>
>You can read the manuscript text online for 5 dollars by calling the credit
>card payments line in Australia: 61-395-455-755.  Or send your credit card
>number by fax: 61-395-488-707  Make sure you mention that that this is
>payment for Edward Lewis and that you give your email address clearly.
>Within a few days at most, I should receive notification of your payment 
>and
>then I'll send you the information to your email address for accessing the
>book.  You'll be able to read the book on-line in html format and download
>it for personal use as often as you wish, until the procedure for how this
>is done is changed which probably won't be for two more weeks at least.  It
>is now July 5, 1999.
>
>The book
>presents the economics and
>history and philosophy of science sections developed as much as 10 years 
>ago
>and my view of the history of cold fusion.
>
>I'm a cold fusion and new science researcher and have published articles in
>a lot of periodicals including Cold Fusion Times, Infinite Energy, Frontier
>Perspectives, and Extraordinary Science.  I worked with G. Miley and
>discovered an effect of radioactivity inducing radioactivity in a
>microsphere-type electrolysis cell.  This is a little similar to the effect
>reported by Conte and Pieralice.
>
>My main work as you can see from reading my articles on my web site is to
>develop a theory of plasmoids which I think is also a theory of cold 
>fusion.
>  Both Shoulders and H. Fox used to call these EVs.
>
>Based on Matsumoto's early CF work and prior research on ball lightning, I
>understand the role of the microscopic ball lightning in various
>transmutation and new energy devices.  I then developed a theory that even
>atoms may act like ball lightning, and a general theory of the structures
>that I call plasmoids which includes both galaxies and particles.
>This required a new theory of physical organization.
>
>I also developed a philosophy of science based partly on Thomas Kuhn's
>ideas.  It emphasizes that new paradigm development happens when prior
>fundamental hypotheses are contradicted so that novel fundamental phenomena
>are produced. You can read about this at 
>http://207.225.33.111/booktext.html
>  I show that the development of science has been highly periodic with
>scientific revolutions in physics on the scale of Einstein, Faraday, and
>Franklin happening every 80 years almost to the year, and try to explain 
>why
>this is so.
>This periodicity has continued unabated since Copernicus, at least.
>
>On my web site: http://207.225.33.111 you can read more information about
>both the science theory and the physics theories and ideas.
>
>I enjoyed researching accounts of tornadoes and explaining tornadoes as a
>plasmoid phenomena especially, and relating the microscopic, micrometer 
>size
>objects emitted during cold fusion to ball lightning and the host of other
>plasmoid sizes.  In particular, an understanding of cold fusion depends on
>an understanding of ball lightning, and especially of atoms as a type of
>plasmoid which may convert to electricity and light directly and entirely 
>as
>does ball lightning.
>
>There are much experimental evidence for this:  Matsumoto's research 
>showing
>ball lightning emission, K. Shoulders reports and Claytor's and other
>reports of microscopic voids and lights.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 06:55:03 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA12779;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 06:54:04 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 06:54:04 -0700
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: "Vortex" <vortex-l mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: NERL's new water flow calorimeter
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:53:29 -0400
Message-ID: <000201bec7b6$edbcc7e0$290a16cf computer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Importance: Normal
Resent-Message-ID: <"cocmc1.0.R73.xfWWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28919
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gnorts All,

I've mentioned the flow calorimeter that I've been building with a lot of
help.  It is working well.  The first application planned for it at present
is Case cell calorimetry.

I would like to take this opportunity to gratefully acknowledge Scott
Little's encouragement and for the probes he made and provided to us.  These
are featured on Earthtech's website and make use of his study of the 'stem
effect', which is what happens when a thermal probe is inserted in a medium
to be measured.  The tube that constitutes the probe's exterior conducts
between the external environment and the measurement device, in this case, a
thermistor.  From what I see, Scott's choice of thermistor over thermocouple
or RTD is excellent, because of electrical noise rejection, extreme
precision and small size, which makes them quite responsive.

My first attempt at a Tin regulator did not emulate Earthtech's because our
data acquisition system would not allow convenient software modification.  I
attempted to build an analog controller.  This could work, but as I
remembered more and more about control theory, analog systems have inherent
drifting problems and obtaining precision requires some serious work.  So, I
decided to virtually duplicate Earthtech's design which incorporates long
period (15 second) pulse width modulation of the power to the Peltier
devices that heat or cool the inlet water stream.  This meant using another
computer, getting a data acquisition card (NuDaq 12-bit), and programming
the thing to drive relays that turn the Peltier devices on and off as well
as reverse polarity.  This did work pretty well, but regulation was not that
good.  This was due to insufficient thermal mass in the heat exchanger that
held the Peltier devices.

I decided to go with a third design that used amplitude modulation, taking
advantage of one of the NuDaq card's D/A converters to drive National
Instruments LM-12 amplifiers providing power to the Peltier devices.
Because the Peltier devices were not being turned on and off, they
maintained a constant temperature and did not rely on 'thermal inertia', so
the Tin regulation was much improved.

Mike Carrell is gratefully acknowledged for much helpful support and for
generously sharing his electronics expertise in each design tried, and now
in modifying a power supply to make it controllable by the NuDaq card.

The first actual experiment planned to be monitored by this device is the
Case cell.  We plan to have a heater at the bottom of a large Dewar, warming
the cell which will have coils of copper tubing wrapped around it's top (if
I can figure a way to hold them in place).  The calorimeter top will be
insulated with fiberglass and closed with a plastic sheet.  The biggest
problem I foresee with this system is that every time I have to pump down or
change gas, the whole thing has to be disassembled, and so repeatability of
the apparatus becomes a crucial issue that must be thoroughly investigated.

Ed Wall

New Energy Research Laboratory
http://www.infinite-energy.com   email:ewall infinite-energy.com
Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Bow, NH 03302-2816
(603) 226-4822   fax 224-5975

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 07:41:41 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA28924;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:24:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:24:27 -0700
Message-ID: <378211C4.82FBBB04 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 08:25:16 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes
References: <000d01bec60f$12df8480$428f85ce default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"HkSuH3.0.s37.R6XWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28920
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> To: Vortex
>
> In the 1980s, Kubas at Los Alamos discovered that the H-H bond (4.53 ev)
> need not be broken for bonding to the transition metals.
>
> G.J. Kubas, Molecular Hydrogen Complexes; Coordination of a sigma bond to
> transition metals.
> Acc. Chem. Res., 21; 120-128, 1988.
>
> Is it PdHx or x Pd(H2)?   :-)
>
> This points to Pd, K, or Hg molecules "absorbing" H2 or D2, and the
> formation of M(H2) molecules/Quasiatoms.
>
> Regards,     Frederick

It is PdHx.  Pd is a member of a class of metallic hydrides in which the H
is present as a partially ionized atom.  However, bonding to the surface may
occur without breaking the H-H bond. I have not seen this paper, but I
suspect it may be a theoretical study. Another class exists called ionic
hydrides in which the atom is fully ionized.

On the other hand, I have proposed that the nuclear-active-state in the
palladium system to be PdD2 in which the partially ionized dimer occupies
the same lattice position as the monomer in normal beta-PdD.  This, however,
would not be the same as the situation  proposed by Kubas.

Regards,

Ed Storms


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 07:50:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA07423;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:49:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:49:53 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990706095145.00adb2b8 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 09:51:45 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: PLEC: Run 9 (simulated excess heat)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"yvvA82.0.vp1.HUXWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28921
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

As promised, a run with a Joule heater simulating excess heat:

http://www.eden.com/~little/Inc-W/2ndtry/run9.html

I'm probably going to wait for a report from Jed, who is visiting Mizuno
now,  before doing another run.



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 Jul  6 08:28:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA20010;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:27:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:27:39 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990706102943.00adb2b8 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 10:29:43 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "Vortex" <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: NERL's new water flow calorimeter
In-Reply-To: <000201bec7b6$edbcc7e0$290a16cf computer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"vpGX-3.0.Vu4.h1YWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28922
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:53 7/6/99 -0400, Ed Wall wrote:

>I've mentioned the flow calorimeter that I've been building with a lot of
>help.  It is working well.

Congrats, Ed...a lot of work, eh?

>The biggest
>problem I foresee with this system is that every time I have to pump down or
>change gas, the whole thing has to be disassembled, and so repeatability of
>the apparatus becomes a crucial issue that must be thoroughly investigated.

Why not run to a gas/vacuum line into the calorimeter enclosure?  I ran a
1/2" dia stainless steel tube right through the insulation into my Case
experiment (see photos in http://www.eden.com/~little/case/setup.html).   I
made the insulation extra thick (4") where the tube entered so a longer
length of tubing would be involved.  A 4" long piece of 1/2" OD 0.050" wall
stainless tubing has the same thermal conductivity as a 3" square piece of
styrofoam 1" thick!  In my case, the heat leak was completely negligible
and the gas/vacuum line allowed me to perform the entire Case protocol of
several hydrogen cleaning cycles followed by the active deuterium fill with
the calorimeter running, recording the power balance at all times.



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 Jul  6 08:35:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA21873;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:30:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:30:19 -0700
Message-ID: <001b01bec7c3$73837de0$8cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <000d01bec60f$12df8480$428f85ce default> <378211C4.82FBBB04@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:21:45 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"BtdoR3.0.ZL5.94YWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28923
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes

Ed Storms wrote:
>
> It is PdHx.  Pd is a member of a class of metallic hydrides in which the H
> is present as a partially ionized atom.  However, bonding to the surface
may
> occur without breaking the H-H bond. I have not seen this paper, but I
> suspect it may be a theoretical study. Another class exists called ionic
> hydrides in which the atom is fully ionized.

If this is the case, might one run a current through the D2 pressurized
Case-Type cell to see if D-
ions come to the surface of the Pd in the catalyst?  This could happen in
the "wet" P&F cells after the Pd is heavilly loaded.

OTOH, the literature on "Quasiatoms" states that if the nuclei briefly (dt)
come within a distance less than the ground state electron orbital radius,
Light Lepton (+/-) AND neutrino pair production with rest energies: dE  =
h/dt can occur, provided the "Supercritical Fields" :
 E = kq/r^2 (about 5.15E11 volts/meter at the ground state Bohr radius, r ,
between the deuterons) allow ZPE tapping.
>
> On the other hand, I have proposed that the nuclear-active-state in the
> palladium system to be PdD2 in which the partially ionized dimer occupies
> the same lattice position as the monomer in normal beta-PdD.  This,
however,
> would not be the same as the situation  proposed by Kubas.

Could this be interpreted as PdD2 briefly becoming a three-atom Quasiatom?
:-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Storms
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 08:50:00 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA28949;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:48:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:48:50 -0700
Message-ID: <37822597.795D469 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 09:49:59 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>		 <377CC800.47EB9940@ix.netcom.com> <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b@[207.8.61.158]> <v04011702b3a306127b95@[207.8.67.180]> <v04011700b3a34b9055c0@[207.8.67.180]> <37810A46.A7367FB0@ix.netcom.com> <378143
5b.84872116 mail-hub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"1eNvm1.0.A47.YLYWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28924
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 13:41:37 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> [snip]
> >based.  We know only that the Mizuno configuration may produce excess heat.  We
> >also know that excess heat using the light water configurations involves a variety
> >of transmutation reactions, some of which do not involve hydrogen.  Because
>
> Would you mind stating explicitly which reactions (or experiments) you
> had in mind when you wrote this?
>
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>

Robin,
The main work is by Miley and Mizuno which has been published in many papers, most of
which are in conference proceedings and not generally available.  However, an early
part of the work can be seen in an issue of Infinite Energy which you can obtain from
Gene Mallove.  The Miley studies indicate that accumulation of neutrons and/or protons
produce superheavy nuclei which fission to produce the observed nuclear products. The
mechanism is still being debated.

G. H. Miley and J. A. Patterson, Nuclear transmutations in thin-film nickel coatings
undergoing electrolysis, Infinite Energy 2, #7 (1996) 19.

Mizuno, T, T. Ohmori and M. Enyo, Anomalous Isotopic Distribution in Palladium Cathode
after Electrolysis, Infinite Energy 2, #7 (1996) 10.

In addition, Bockris and students did arc electrolysis using carbon electrodes which
produced iron. This effect has been duplicated several times by other workers.
However, I do not have time now to track down the references.  Most can be found in
Infinite Energy or ICCF conference proceedings. They propose carbon fuses with oxygen
to produce iron.  However, the mechanism is hard to understand.

Sundaresan, R., and J. O'M. Bockris, Anomalous Reactions During Arcing Between Carbon
Rods in Water, Fusion Technol. 26 (1994) 261.

While all of this work is subject to other interpretations, I believe a strong
indication of numerous nuclear reactions exists. Because the mixture of products keeps
getting more complex,  the mechanism must be more complex than that proposed to
explain D-D fusion.  Nature is forcing us to consider possibilities well beyond normal
behavior and well beyond the imaginations of most scientists.

I have been asked to write a review of this branch of the field which would be very
useful.  However, I have donated so much time to this field that I am reluctant to add
more to this apparently losing battle without clear financial support.   At some point
I need to see a return on investment which is not apparent.

Ed Storms







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 09:21:14 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA09341;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:19:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:19:41 -0700
Message-ID: <000401bec7ca$5abfe800$f68f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Referece of EAM    [Quasiatoms]
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:12:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01BEC798.0D861500"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"3tA29.0.tH2.ToYWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28925
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_0001_01BEC798.0D861500
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Referece of EAM
Referece of EAM
Quasiatoms: An approach to atoms in nonuniform electronic systems.=20
M. J. Stott and E. Zaremba, Phys. Rev. B, 22, 1564 (1980).=20
Atoms embedded in an electron gas: Immersion energies.=20
M. J. Puska, R. M. Nieminen and M. Manninen, Phys. Rev. B, 24, 3037 =
(1981).=20

Covalent effects in the effective-medium theory of chemical binding: =
Hydrogen heats of solution in the 3d metals.=20
J. K. Norskov, Phys. Rev. B, 26, 2875 (1982).=20

Universal features of the equation of state of metals.=20
J. H. Rose, J. R. Smith, F. Guinea and J. Ferrante, Phys. Rev. B, 29, =
2963 (1984).=20



------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BEC798.0D861500
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Referece of EAM</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www.mep.titech.ac.jp/EAMers/Note/RefOfEAM.html>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<H3>Referece of EAM</H3>Quasiatoms: An approach to atoms in nonuniform=20
electronic systems. <BR>M. J. Stott and E. Zaremba, Phys. Rev. B, 22, =
1564=20
(1980).=20
<P>Atoms embedded in an electron gas: Immersion energies. <BR>M. J. =
Puska, R. M.=20
Nieminen and M. Manninen, Phys. Rev. B, 24, 3037 (1981).=20
<P>Covalent effects in the effective-medium theory of chemical binding: =
Hydrogen=20
heats of solution in the 3d metals. <BR>J. K. Norskov, Phys. Rev. B, 26, =
2875=20
(1982).=20
<P>Universal features of the equation of state of metals. <BR>J. H. =
Rose, J. R.=20
Smith, F. Guinea and J. Ferrante, Phys. Rev. B, 29, 2963 (1984).=20
<P></P></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BEC798.0D861500--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 09:25:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA11146;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:23:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:23:19 -0700
Message-ID: <000901bec7ca$d9a457a0$f68f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Selected Publications of Dr    Note COLD FUSION Topics
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:15:54 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BEC798.8D1B8520"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"66uZV.0.zj2.srYWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28926
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_01BEC798.8D1B8520
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Selected Publications of Dr
Selected Publications of Dr. Peter Armbruster

Winner of the 1997 ACS Award in Nuclear and Radiochemistry
sponsored by Gordon and Breach Publishers=20



 1. P. Armbruster:=20

  Massenseparator f=FCr die Massentrennung von Spaltprodukten
  Nukleonik 3, 188 (1961)

2. P. Armbruster:

  Ionisierung innerer Elektronenschalen bei der Abbremsung von =
Spaltprodukten
  Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik 166, 341 (1961)

3. P. Armbruster, D. Hovestadt, H. Meister, H.J. Specht:

  Determination of the Mean Primary Charge of 235U Fission Products=20
  Nuclear Physics 54, 586 (1963)

 4. K. Sistemich, P. Armbruster, J. Eidens, E. Roeckl:

  The Primary Charge of Fission Products from the Thermal Neutron =
Fission of 235U
  Nucl. Phys. A139, 289 (1969)

5. P. Armbruster, H. Labus, K. Reichelt:

  Investigation on the Primary Spins of the 235U FissionFragments
  Zeitschrift f=FCr Naturforschung 26a, 512 (1971)


6. P.H. Mokler, H.J. Stein, P. Armbruster:

  X-Rays from Superheavy Quasiatoms Transiently Formed During =
Heavy-Ion-Atom Collisions=20
  Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 827 (1972)


7. E. Moll, H. Schrader, G. Siegert, M. Asghar, J.P. Bocquet, G. =
Baileul, J.P. Gautheron, J. Greif, G.J. Crawford, C. Chauvin, H. Ewald, =
H. Wollnik, P. Armbruster, G. Fiebig, H. Lawin, K. Sistemich:

  Analysis of 236U-Fission Products by the Recoil Separator LOHENGRIN
  Nucl. Instr. and Methods 123, 615 (1975)


8. K. Sistemich, J.W. Gr=FCter, H. Lawin, J. Eidens, R. Fabbbri, T.A. =
Kahna, W.D. Lauppe, G. Sadler, H.A. Selic, M. Shaanan, P. Armbruster:=20

  The Isotope Identification and the b -Decay Chain Analysis at the =
Fission Product Separator 'JOSEF'
  Nucl. Instr. Meth. 130 491 (1975)

9. P. Armbruster, H.-H. Behncke, S. Hagmann, D. Liesen, F. Folkmann, =
P.H. Mokler:

  A Tool for Spectroscopy of Super-Heavy Quasimolecules (Z1+Z2>137) - =
The Bang Hansteen Scaling Rule=20
  Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik A288, 277-281 (1978)

10. G. M=FCnzenberg, W. Faust, S. Hofmann, P. Armbruster, K. G=FCttner, =
H. Ewald:

  The Velocity Filter SHIP, A Separator of Unslowed Heavy IonProducts=20
  Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 161, 65 (1979)

11. G. M=FCnzenberg, S. Hofmann, F.P. He\ss berger, W. Reisdorf, K.-H. =
Schmidt, J.H.R. Schneider, P. Armbruster, C.-C. Sahm, B. Thuma:

  Identification of Element 107 by a Correlation Chains=20
  Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik A300, 107 (1981)

12. S. Hofmann, W. Reisdorf, G. M=FCnzenberg, F.P. Hessberger, J.R.H. =
Schneider, P. Armbruster:=20

  Proton Radioactivity of 151Lu
  Z. Phys. A305, 111- 123 (1982)

13. G. M=FCnzenberg, P. Armbruster, F.P. Hessberger, S. Hofmann, K. =
Poppensieker, W. Reisdorf, J.H.R. Schneider, W.F.W. Schneider, K.-H. =
Schmidt, C.-C. Sahm, D. Vermeulen:

  Observation of One Correlated a -Decay in the Reaction 58Fe on 209Bi =
=AE 267109
  Z. Phys. A309, 89 (1982)

14. G. M=FCnzenberg, P. Armbruster, H. Folger, F.P. Hessberger, S. =
Hofmann, J. Keller, K. Poppensieker, W. Reisdorf, K.-H. Schmidt, H.-J. =
Sch=F6tt, M. Leino, R. Hingmann:

  The Identification of Element 108=20
  Z. Phys. A317, 235 (1984)

15. P. Armbruster:

  On the Production of Heavy Elements by Cold Fusion: The Elements 106 =
to 109
  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 35, 135 (1985)

16. D. Albrecht, P. Armbruster, R. Spohr, M. Roth, K. Schaupert, H. =
Stuhrmann:

  Investigation of Heavy Ion Produced Defect Structures in Insulators by =
Small Angle Scattering=20
  Appl. Phys. A37, 37 (1985)

17. P. Armbruster, M. Bernas, J.P. Bocquet, R. Brissot, H.R. Faust, P. =
Roussel:

  Identification of the New Neutron-Rich Isotopes 70-74Ni and 74-77Cu in =
Thermal Neutron Fission of 235U
  Europhys. Lett. 4(7), 793 (1987)

18. K. Schaupert, D. Albrecht, P. Armbruster, R. Spohr:

  Permeation Through Latent Nuclear Tracks in Polymer Foils
  Appl. Phys. A44, 347 (1987)

19. U. Quade, K. Rudolph, S. Skorka, P. Armbruster, H.-G. Clerc, W. =
Lang, M. Mutterer, C. Schmitt, J.P. Theobald, F. G=F6nnenwein, J. =
Pannicke, H. Schrader, G. Siegert, D. Engelhardt:

  Nuclide Yields of Light Fission Products from Thermal-Neutron Induced =
Fission of 233U at Different Kinetic Energies
  Nucl. Physics A487, 1 (1988)

20. Z. Patyk, A. Sobiczewski, P. Armbruster, K.-H. Schmidt:

  Shell Effects in Properties of the Heaviest Nuclei=20
  Nucl. Phys. A491, 267 (1989)

21. A.B. Quint, W. Reisdorf, K.-H. Schmidt, P. Armbruster, F.P. =
Hessberger, S. Hofmann, J. Keller, G. M=FCnzenberg, H. Stelzer, H.-G. =
Clerc, W. Morawek, C.-C. Sahm:

  Investigation of the Fusion of Heavy Nearly Symmetric Systems
  Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik A346, 2, 119- 31 (1993)

22. V. Ninov, P. Armbruster, F.P. Hessberger, S. Hofmann, G. =
M=FCnzenberg, Y. Fujita, M. Leino, A. L=FCttgen:

  Separation of actinide-made transurania by a gas-filled magnetic =
separator=20
  Nucl. Instr. Methods in Phys. Res. A357, 486-494 (1995)

23. S. Hofmann, V. Ninov, F.P. Hessberger, P. Armbruster, H. Folger, G. =
M=FCnzenberg, H.J. Sch=F6tt, A.G. Popeko, A.V. Yeremin, A.N. Andreyev, =
S. Saro, R. Janik, M. Leino:

  Production and Decay of 269/110=20
  Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik A 350, 4, 277 (1995)

24. S. Hofmann, V. Ninov, F.P. Hessberger, P. Armbruster, H. Folger, G. =
M=FCnzenberg, H.J. Sch=F6tt, A.G. Popeko, A.V. Yeremin, A.N. Andreyev, =
S. Saro, R. Janik, M. Leino:

  The New Element 111=20
  Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik A 350, 4, 281 (1995)

25. Ch. Engelmann, F. Ameil, P. Armbruster, M. Bernas, S. Czajkowski, =
Ph. Dessagne, C. Donzaud, H. Geissel, A. Heinz, Z. Janas, C. Kozhuharov, =
Ch. Miehe, G. M=FCnzenberg, M. Pf=FCtzner, C. R=F6hl, W. Schwab, C. =
St=E9phan, K. S=FCmmerer, L. Tassan-Got, B. Voss:

  Production and Identification of Heavy Ni Isotopes: Evidence for the =
Doubly Magic Nucleus 7828Ni
  Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik A 352, 351 (1995)

26. S. Hofmann, V. Ninov, F.P. He=DFberger, P. Armbruster, H. Folger, G. =
M=FCnzenberg, H.J. Sch=F6tt, A.G. Popeko, A.V. Yeremin, S. Saro, R. =
Janik, M. Leino:

  The New Element 112
  Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik A 354, 229-230 (1996)





  =20


------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BEC798.8D1B8520
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Selected Publications of Dr</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www.cofc.edu/~nuclear/Arm_pubs.html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC =
"-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
<META content=3D"Microsoft FrontPage 2.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<P><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D6><STRONG>Selected Publications of Dr. =
Peter=20
Armbruster</STRONG></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D4>Winner of the 1997 ACS Award in Nuclear and=20
Radiochemistry<BR>sponsored by </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.gbhap-us.com/physical.htm"><FONT color=3D#800040 =
size=3D4>Gordon=20
and Breach Publishers</FONT></A><FONT color=3D#800040 =
size=3D4>&nbsp;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=3D#800040 size=3D4><IMG height=3D21=20
src=3D"file:///F:/ACS_DNCT_WebPage/gifs/ltbluln.gif" =
width=3D625></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D3>&nbsp;1. P. Armbruster: </FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Massenseparator f=FCr die Massentrennung von=20
  Spaltprodukten<BR>Nukleonik <U>3</U>, 188 =
(1961)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>2. P. Armbruster:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Ionisierung innerer Elektronenschalen bei der =
Abbremsung von=20
  Spaltprodukten<BR>Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik <U>166</U>, 341=20
(1961)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>3. P. Armbruster, D. Hovestadt, H. Meister, H.J.=20
Specht:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Determination of the Mean Primary Charge of =
<SUP>235</SUP>U=20
  Fission Products <BR>Nuclear Physics <U>54</U>, 586=20
(1963)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>&nbsp;4. K. Sistemich, P. Armbruster, J. Eidens, E.=20
Roeckl:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>The Primary Charge of Fission Products from the =
Thermal=20
  Neutron Fission of <SUP>235</SUP>U<BR>Nucl. Phys. <U>A139</U>, 289=20
  (1969)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>5. P. Armbruster, H. Labus, K. Reichelt:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Investigation on the Primary Spins of the =
<SUP>235</SUP>U=20
  FissionFragments<BR>Zeitschrift f=FCr Naturforschung <U>26a</U>, 512=20
  (1971)<BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>6. P.H. Mokler, H.J. Stein, P. Armbruster:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>X-Rays from Superheavy Quasiatoms Transiently Formed =
During=20
  Heavy-Ion-Atom Collisions <BR>Phys. Rev. Lett. <U>29</U>, 827=20
  (1972)<BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>7. E. Moll, H. Schrader, G. Siegert, M. Asghar, J.P. =
Bocquet, G.=20
Baileul, J.P. Gautheron, J. Greif, G.J.&nbsp;Crawford, C. Chauvin, H. =
Ewald, H.=20
Wollnik, P. Armbruster, G. Fiebig, H. Lawin, K. Sistemich:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Analysis of <SUP>236</SUP>U-Fission Products by the =
Recoil=20
  Separator LOHENGRIN<BR>Nucl. Instr. and Methods <U>123</U>, 615=20
  (1975)<BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>8. K. Sistemich, J.W. Gr=FCter, H. Lawin, J. Eidens, =
R. Fabbbri,=20
T.A. Kahna, W.D. Lauppe, G. Sadler, H.A.&nbsp;Selic, M. Shaanan, P. =
Armbruster:=20
</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>The Isotope Identification and the </FONT><FONT =
face=3DSymbol=20
  size=3D3>b</FONT><FONT size=3D3> -Decay Chain Analysis at the Fission =
Product=20
  Separator 'JOSEF'<BR>Nucl. Instr. Meth. <U>130</U> 491=20
(1975)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>9. P. Armbruster, H.-H. Behncke, S. Hagmann, D. =
Liesen, F.=20
Folkmann, P.H. Mokler:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>A Tool for Spectroscopy of Super-Heavy =
Quasimolecules=20
  (Z1+Z2&gt;137) - The Bang Hansteen Scaling Rule <BR>Zeitschrift f=FCr =
Physik=20
  <U>A288</U>, 277-281 (1978)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>10. G. M=FCnzenberg, W. Faust, S. Hofmann, P. =
Armbruster, K.=20
G=FCttner, H. Ewald:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>The Velocity Filter SHIP, A Separator of Unslowed =
Heavy=20
  IonProducts <BR>Nucl. Instr. and Meth. <U>161</U>, 65=20
(1979)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>11. G. M=FCnzenberg, S. Hofmann, F.P. He\ss berger, W. =
Reisdorf,=20
K.-H. Schmidt, J.H.R. Schneider, P.&nbsp;Armbruster, C.-C. Sahm, B.=20
Thuma:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Identification of Element 107 by </FONT><FONT =
face=3DSymbol=20
  size=3D3>a</FONT><FONT size=3D3> Correlation Chains <BR>Zeitschrift =
f=FCr Physik=20
  <U>A300</U>, 107 (1981)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>12. S. Hofmann, W. Reisdorf, G. M=FCnzenberg, F.P. =
Hessberger,=20
J.R.H. Schneider, P. Armbruster: </FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Proton Radioactivity of <SUP>151</SUP>Lu<BR>Z. Phys. =

  <U>A305</U>, 111</FONT><FONT face=3DSymbol size=3D3>-</FONT><FONT =
size=3D3> 123=20
  (1982)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>13. G. M=FCnzenberg, P. Armbruster, F.P. Hessberger, =
S. Hofmann,=20
K. Poppensieker, W. Reisdorf, J.H.R. Schneider, W.F.W. Schneider, K.-H. =
Schmidt,=20
C.-C. Sahm, D. Vermeulen:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Observation of One Correlated </FONT><FONT =
face=3DSymbol=20
  size=3D3>a</FONT><FONT size=3D3> -Decay in the Reaction =
<SUP>58</SUP>Fe on=20
  <SUP>209</SUP>Bi </FONT><FONT face=3DSymbol size=3D3>=AE</FONT><FONT =
size=3D3>=20
  <SUP>267</SUP>109<BR>Z. Phys. <U>A309</U>, 89 =
(1982)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>14. G. M=FCnzenberg, P. Armbruster, H. Folger, F.P. =
Hessberger, S.=20
Hofmann, J. Keller, K.&nbsp;Poppensieker, W. Reisdorf, K.-H. Schmidt, =
H.-J.=20
Sch=F6tt, M. Leino, R. Hingmann:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>The Identification of Element 108 <BR>Z. Phys. =
<U>A317</U>,=20
  235 (1984)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>15. P. Armbruster:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>On the Production of Heavy Elements by Cold Fusion: =
The=20
  Elements 106 to 109<BR>Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. <U>35</U>, 135=20
  (1985)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>16. D. Albrecht, P. Armbruster, R. Spohr, M. Roth, K. =
Schaupert,=20
H. Stuhrmann:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Investigation of Heavy Ion Produced Defect =
Structures in=20
  Insulators by Small Angle Scattering <BR>Appl. Phys. <U>A37</U>, 37=20
  (1985)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>17. P. Armbruster, M. Bernas, J.P. Bocquet, R. =
Brissot, H.R.=20
Faust, P. Roussel:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Identification of the New Neutron-Rich Isotopes=20
  <SUP>70-74</SUP>Ni and <SUP>74-77</SUP>Cu in Thermal Neutron Fission =
of=20
  <SUP>235</SUP>U<BR>Europhys. Lett. <U>4(7)</U>, 793=20
(1987)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>18. K. Schaupert, D. Albrecht, P. Armbruster, R.=20
Spohr:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Permeation Through Latent Nuclear Tracks in Polymer=20
  Foils<BR>Appl. Phys. <U>A44</U>, 347 (1987)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>19. U. Quade, K. Rudolph, S. Skorka, P. Armbruster, =
H.-G. Clerc,=20
W. Lang, M. Mutterer, C. Schmitt, J.P.&nbsp;Theobald, F. G=F6nnenwein, =
J.=20
Pannicke, H. Schrader, G. Siegert, D. Engelhardt:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Nuclide Yields of Light Fission Products from =
Thermal-Neutron=20
  Induced Fission of <SUP>233</SUP>U at Different Kinetic =
Energies<BR>Nucl.=20
  Physics <U>A487</U>, 1 (1988)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>20. Z. Patyk, A. Sobiczewski, P. Armbruster, K.-H.=20
Schmidt:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Shell Effects in Properties of the Heaviest Nuclei =
<BR>Nucl.=20
  Phys. <U>A491</U>, 267 (1989)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>21. A.B. Quint, W. Reisdorf, K.-H. Schmidt, P. =
Armbruster, F.P.=20
Hessberger, S. Hofmann, J. Keller, G.&nbsp;M=FCnzenberg, H. Stelzer, =
H.-G. Clerc,=20
W. Morawek, C.-C. Sahm:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Investigation of the Fusion of Heavy Nearly =
Symmetric=20
  Systems<BR>Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik <U>A346</U>, 2, 119</FONT><FONT =
face=3DSymbol=20
  size=3D3>-</FONT><FONT size=3D3> 31 (1993)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>22. V. Ninov, P. Armbruster, F.P. Hessberger, S. =
Hofmann, G.=20
M=FCnzenberg, Y. Fujita, M. Leino, A.&nbsp;L=FCttgen:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Separation of actinide-made transurania by a =
gas-filled=20
  magnetic separator <BR>Nucl. Instr. Methods in Phys. Res. <U>A357</U>, =
486-494=20
  (1995)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>23. S. Hofmann, V. Ninov, F.P. Hessberger, P. =
Armbruster, H.=20
Folger, G. M=FCnzenberg, H.J. Sch=F6tt, A.G.&nbsp;Popeko, A.V. Yeremin, =
A.N.=20
Andreyev, S. Saro, R. Janik, M. Leino:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Production and Decay of 269/110 <BR>Zeitschrift =
f=FCr Physik A=20
  <U>350</U>, 4, 277 (1995)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>24. S. Hofmann, V. Ninov, F.P. Hessberger, P. =
Armbruster, H.=20
Folger, G. M=FCnzenberg, H.J. Sch=F6tt, A.G.&nbsp;Popeko, A.V. Yeremin, =
A.N.=20
Andreyev, S. Saro, R. Janik, M. Leino:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>The New Element 111 <BR>Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik A =
<U>350</U>,=20
  4, 281 (1995)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>25. Ch. Engelmann, F. Ameil, P. Armbruster, M. Bernas, =
S.=20
Czajkowski, Ph. Dessagne, C. Donzaud, H.&nbsp;Geissel, A. Heinz, Z. =
Janas, C.=20
Kozhuharov, Ch. Miehe, G. M=FCnzenberg, M. Pf=FCtzner, C. R=F6hl, W. =
Schwab, C.=20
St=E9phan, K. S=FCmmerer, L. Tassan-Got, B. Voss:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>Production and Identification of Heavy Ni Isotopes: =
Evidence=20
  for the Doubly Magic Nucleus =
<SUP>78</SUP><SUB>28</SUB>Ni<BR>Zeitschrift f=FCr=20
  Physik A <U>352</U>, 351 (1995)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT size=3D3>26. S. Hofmann, V. Ninov, F.P. He=DFberger, P. =
Armbruster, H.=20
Folger, G. M=FCnzenberg, H.J. Sch=F6tt, A.G.&nbsp;Popeko, A.V. Yeremin, =
S. Saro, R.=20
Janik, M. Leino:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>The New Element 112<BR>Zeitschrift f=FCr Physik A =
<U>354</U>,=20
  229-230 (1996)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT color=3D#800040 size=3D4><IMG height=3D21=20
src=3D"file:///F:/ACS_DNCT_WebPage/gifs/ltbluln.gif" =
width=3D625></FONT></P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><FONT size=3D3>&nbsp;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BEC798.8D1B8520--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 09:27:36 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA12101;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:26:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:26:28 -0700
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: NERL's new water flow calorimeter
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:25:58 -0400
Message-ID: <000a01bec7cc$3aab1920$290a16cf computer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990706102943.00adb2b8 mail.eden.com>
Resent-Message-ID: <"XUA5N3.0._y2.puYWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28927
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:

> Why not run to a gas/vacuum line into the calorimeter enclosure?  I ran a
> 1/2" dia stainless steel tube right through the insulation into my Case
> experiment (see photos in
> http://www.eden.com/~little/case/setup.html).   I
> made the insulation extra thick (4") where the tube entered so a longer
> length of tubing would be involved.  A 4" long piece of 1/2" OD
> 0.050" wall
> stainless tubing has the same thermal conductivity as a 3" square piece of
> styrofoam 1" thick!  In my case, the heat leak was completely negligible
> and the gas/vacuum line allowed me to perform the entire Case protocol of
> several hydrogen cleaning cycles followed by the active deuterium
> fill with
> the calorimeter running, recording the power balance at all times.
>

I've given a bit of thought to this.  I think it would work, but should
ideally employ a 3:1 valve so that I could switch between the gasses and
vacuum pump without moving anything.  Applying enough torque to get a flared
fitting tight enough for evacuation is a risky thing to in the vicinity of
our glass Dewar.

BTW, I wanted to let the rest of the Vorts know that Owens-Corning has a new
type of fiberglass insulation that is about as pleasant to handle as cotton
fiber.  I imagine it performs better with some moisture condensation than
cotton would.   I bought it at Home Depot.

Ed Wall

New Energy Research Laboratory
http://www.infinite-energy.com   email:ewall infinite-energy.com
Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Bow, NH 03302-2816
(603) 226-4822   fax 224-5975

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 09:27:50 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA12283;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:26:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:26:54 -0700
Message-ID: <001201bec7cb$5ca8afc0$f68f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: No Title [Greiner's Quasiatoms etc.]
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:19:43 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01BEC799.1073C9A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"keowP3.0.d_2.EvYWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28928
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_01BEC799.1073C9A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Quasiatoms and Pair Production in heavy ion experiments.

 http://www.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jr/publi/publi.html

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BEC799.1073C9A0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="No Title.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="No Title.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jr/publi/publi.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jr/publi/publi.html
Modified=400F3311CBC7BE01E4

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BEC799.1073C9A0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 09:41:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA20377;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:40:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:40:29 -0700
Message-ID: <002101bec7cd$428fdc60$f68f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: STRUCTURE OF VACUUM AND ELEMENTARY MATTER
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:33:16 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01BEC79A.F5560960"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"qoFl93.0.H-4.z5ZWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28929
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001E_01BEC79A.F5560960
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://www.wspc.com.sg/books/physics/3218.html

------=_NextPart_000_001E_01BEC79A.F5560960
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="STRUCTURE OF VACUUM AND ELEMENTARY MATTER.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="STRUCTURE OF VACUUM AND ELEMENTARY MATTER.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.wspc.com.sg/books/physics/3218.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.wspc.com.sg/books/physics/3218.html
Modified=20026B27CDC7BE0107

------=_NextPart_000_001E_01BEC79A.F5560960--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 09:58:31 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA27339;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:55:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:55:40 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990706115742.00ae74c0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 11:57:42 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: RE: NERL's new water flow calorimeter
In-Reply-To: <000a01bec7cc$3aab1920$290a16cf computer>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990706102943.00adb2b8 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"PxYEv3.0.5h6.CKZWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28930
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:25 7/6/99 -0400, Ed Wall wrote:

>I've given a bit of thought to this.  I think it would work, but should
>ideally employ a 3:1 valve so that I could switch between the gasses and
>vacuum pump without moving anything.

Here's what I did, using two ordinary valves and a Tee fitting.

   vac---------------X------------T-------------X--------gas
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                               catalyst
                               chamber


>BTW, I wanted to let the rest of the Vorts know that Owens-Corning has a new
>type of fiberglass insulation that is about as pleasant to handle as cotton
>fiber.  I imagine it performs better with some moisture condensation than
>cotton would.   I bought it at Home Depot.

Thanks, I'll try it.



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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 10:16:14 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA00384;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:15:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:15:02 -0700
Message-ID: <000801bec7d2$1571ed40$9db4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Selected Publications of Dr
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:07:48 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC79F.C8739CA0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"SJQle2.0.w5.McZWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28931
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_0005_01BEC79F.C8739CA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Note work directed toward COLD FUSION

 http://www.cofc.edu/~nuclear/Arm_pubs.html

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC79F.C8739CA0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Selected Publications of Dr.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Selected Publications of Dr.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.cofc.edu/~nuclear/Arm_pubs.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.cofc.edu/~nuclear/Arm_pubs.html
Modified=00850BEDD1C7BE01D4

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC79F.C8739CA0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 11:49:56 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA32473;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:40:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:40:19 -0700
Message-ID: <37824DC9.154EC02 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 12:41:19 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes
References: <000d01bec60f$12df8480$428f85ce default> <378211C4.82FBBB04@ix.netcom.com> <001b01bec7c3$73837de0$8cb4bfa8@default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gn_DY.0.Fx7.IsaWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28932
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
> To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 8:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes
>
> Ed Storms wrote:
> >
> > It is PdHx.  Pd is a member of a class of metallic hydrides in which the H
> > is present as a partially ionized atom.  However, bonding to the surface
> may
> > occur without breaking the H-H bond. I have not seen this paper, but I
> > suspect it may be a theoretical study. Another class exists called ionic
> > hydrides in which the atom is fully ionized.
>
> If this is the case, might one run a current through the D2 pressurized
> Case-Type cell to see if D-
> ions come to the surface of the Pd in the catalyst?  This could happen in
> the "wet" P&F cells after the Pd is heavilly loaded.

I do not know how you would know if D- came to the surface.  The standard model
is that D+ is present both on the surface and within the material.  After all,
it is the transfer of a partial electron from the H to the lattice which allows
bonding.

>
> OTOH, the literature on "Quasiatoms" states that if the nuclei briefly (dt)
> come within a distance less than the ground state electron orbital radius,
> Light Lepton (+/-) AND neutrino pair production with rest energies: dE  =
> h/dt can occur, provided the "Supercritical Fields" :
>  E = kq/r^2 (about 5.15E11 volts/meter at the ground state Bohr radius, r ,
> between the deuterons) allow ZPE tapping.

I do not see how this applies to the present situation.

>
> >
> > On the other hand, I have proposed that the nuclear-active-state in the
> > palladium system to be PdD2 in which the partially ionized dimer occupies
> > the same lattice position as the monomer in normal beta-PdD.  This,
> however,
> > would not be the same as the situation  proposed by Kubas.
>
> Could this be interpreted as PdD2 briefly becoming a three-atom Quasiatom?

I do not know what a three-atom Quasiatom is or how using such a designation
would help our understanding.  The material is a metallic compound having a
Fermi sea of electrons.  Standard models exist which describe such materials.
It seems to me useful to use these models rather than trying to create one
solely for the benefit of cold fusion.  We have enough problems.

Ed Storms



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 12:46:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA23147;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:44:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:44:39 -0700
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: various
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:46:57 -0400
Message-ID: <01bec7e8$4e85bc40$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: <"8lOe.0.bf5.cobWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28933
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
>Mizuno probably has his current shunt located in the near-ground line that
>returns from his cell so that his data logger is not subjected to the ~150
>volts.  Find an ordinary battery-powered DVM (Fluke 87 if available) and,
>configured as an ammeter, insert it in series with the high-voltage lead to
>the cell.  It SHOULD read the same average current as his data logger does.
-
Excellent suggestion Scott!
In examining your graph of Mizuno's results at:
http://www.eden.com/~little/Inc-W/2ndtry/timeconstant.html ,
I again noted that the apparent noise in this graph appears first in
the Iin measurement. The Pin noise is a calculated consequence of the
noise in Iin. 
-
Bob Briggs wrote:
>Finally, Scott, why don't you do a run with the anode diameter squeezed down 
>to match Mizuno's and eliminate that question.  That makes more sense than 
>chasing r.f. noise.
-
Good suggestion, the spark mode discharge that takes place in these
cells may be sensitive to the high frequency impedance matrix 
in the liquid between the small discharge virtual anode and the actual 
metal anode. In my experience, the energy in each spark is a strong 
function of the series impedance. In DC gas discharge display devices, a
series resistance of about 1K was required to keep transient arcs from
damaging the IC drive circuits.
Regards,
George Holz                    Varitronics Systems
732-356-7773                   george varisys.com
1924 US Hwy 22 East        Bound Brook NJ 08805


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 13:15:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA19980;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <00c401bec7e9$d360dac0$8cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <000d01bec60f$12df8480$428f85ce default> <378211C4.82FBBB04@ix.netcom.com> <001b01bec7c3$73837de0$8cb4bfa8@default> <37824DC9.154EC02@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:56:43 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"di5sq1.0.vt4.N8cWt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28934
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes

Ed Storms wrote:
>
> I do not know what a three-atom Quasiatom is or how using such a
designation
> would help our understanding.  The material is a metallic compound having
a
> Fermi sea of electrons.  Standard models exist which describe such
materials.
> It seems to me useful to use these models rather than trying to create one
> solely for the benefit of cold fusion.  We have enough problems.

I would say that anyone who believes that Carbon adds to Oxygen  in a simple
underwater Arc to
make Iron, has "Enough" Real Problems.    :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 14:54:23 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA14939;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 14:53:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 14:53:29 -0700
Message-ID: <000801bec7f8$faa6ba00$108f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: WEIN.html        Lepton Pair Production from Ion Collisions
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:46:06 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC7C6.A91C2A80"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"cemmr2.0.Hf3.OhdWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28935
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_0005_01BEC7C6.A91C2A80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/Research/APEX/WEIN/WEIN.html

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC7C6.A91C2A80
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="WEIN.html.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="WEIN.html.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/Research/APEX/WEIN/WEIN.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/Research/APEX/WEIN/WEIN.html
Modified=E04465BDF8C7BE01C4

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEC7C6.A91C2A80--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 15:24:32 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA05043;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <001101bec7fa$fbda6d20$108f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Thesis on "neutral particles" created in heavy ion collisions.  Neutrinos concurrent with leptons?
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:00:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01BEC7C8.AEB2E9A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"31o1N.0.jE1.2_dWt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28936
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_000E_01BEC7C8.AEB2E9A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

There is NO LAW that says all lepton production has to be Electron-Positron
Pair Production.

There should be Light Lepton (+/-) pairs (millions of times less massive
than Electrons-Positrons)created in the CF conditions.

And most likely the Neutrino-Antineutrino pairs are created at the Same
Time.

http://phobos.nsrl.rochester.edu/liu/Thesis/thesis.html

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BEC7C8.AEB2E9A0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="No Title.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="No Title.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://phobos.nsrl.rochester.edu/liu/Thesis/thesis.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://phobos.nsrl.rochester.edu/liu/Thesis/thesis.html
Modified=80E58712FAC7BE017E

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BEC7C8.AEB2E9A0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 16:16:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA20857;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:12:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:12:16 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b3a838495a7d [12.21.211.141]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:16:16 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: RE: NERL's new water flow calorimeter
Resent-Message-ID: <"rOi--1.0.n55.GreWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28937
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:25 PM 7/6/99, Ed Wall wrote:
[snip]
>I've given a bit of thought to this.  I think it would work, but should
>ideally employ a 3:1 valve so that I could switch between the gasses and
>vacuum pump without moving anything.  Applying enough torque to get a flared
>fitting tight enough for evacuation is a risky thing to in the vicinity of
>our glass Dewar.

You could try flexible vacuum hose.  It has much lower thermal
conductivity, and is easy to connect, depending on fitting type you use.  I
bought a box of the Norton 7/8" OD and 3/8" ID  clear plastic type from
Cole-Parmer.  I could mail you a foot or so (free of charge of course) if
you want to try it.  It is expensive stuff by the box, which is minimum
quantity.

Let's see the plastic vacuum hose cross section is about Pi [(7/16")^2 -
(3/16")^2] = 0.49 in^2.  Scott's tubing is about Pi (1/2") (0.05") = 0.0785
in^2.  The ratio of thermal conductivity of soft plastic to steel is about
460:1.  So the ratio of thermal conductivity of steel to plastic vacuum
hose is (0.0785)(460)/(0.49) = 74 to 1.  However, the disadvantage of the
plastic tubing is the lower internal diameter, so a shorter length should
be used to penetrate the envelope in order to get identical vacuum results.

Regards,                 Any technical material emailed to me without
                         prior agreement will be treated as
Horace Heffner           public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 16:37:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA32345;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:31:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:31:41 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b3a809795ab9 [12.21.211.141]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:35:42 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes
Resent-Message-ID: <"02jxR1.0.Dv7.S7fWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28938
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:41 PM 7/6/99, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
>I do not know what a three-atom Quasiatom is or how using such a designation
>would help our understanding.  The material is a metallic compound having a
>Fermi sea of electrons.  Standard models exist which describe such materials.
>It seems to me useful to use these models rather than trying to create one
>solely for the benefit of cold fusion.  We have enough problems.
>
>Ed Storms


I suspect professionals and amateurs take differing views of this.
Visualizing new and varied  models helps generate simple cheap variations
of experimental setups once in place.  This make better use of experimental
expenditures and time, especially for amateurs or those using an Edisonian
approach.

It is also good not to pretend we realy have a firm handle on what is
actually happening in the lattice.  Due to lack of computational
capabilities, present models are only idealizations.

Present models are dependent upon the concept of hydrogen tunneling between
interstitial sites of the host lattice and self-trapping, i.e. distorting
the lattice by about 0.1 angstrom, a result requiring about 450 meV
distortional energy applied by the tunneling proton upon the adjacent
orbitals of the tetrahedral trap.  This 450 meV self trapping energy is the
sum of the 300 meV change in potential energy plus 150 meV in the zero
point vibrational energy. This is a scenario where zero point energy plays
a large but complex role, and is fertile ground for possible ZPE tapping
experiments, IMHO.  If ZPE can create particles from nothing, it can
therefore also create energy from nothing, because mass and energy are
equivalent.  There may be more to CF than just fusion.

An example of an experiment an amateur might propose (since I did propose
such years ago) is to do a standard CF electroysis experiment, but with the
cathode as an element of a tank circuit that produces lateral electron flow
through the cathode.  The objective is to maximize free electron flow
through the cathode at a low energy cost.  The idea is to maximize the
tunneling opportunities, and thus the ZPE tapping opportunities. The high
auxiliary current flow in the cathode might also perform annealing of
lattice damage and also be of use in obtaining better and faster loading,
and possibly in maintaining a sufficient cathode temperature.

An alternative amateur model that may arrive at the same experiment is
based on the notion that very long tunneling distances are involved even in
the standard models, longer than the distance between hydrogen nuclei in
the H2 molecule.  Momentary formation of quasi-neutrons, or Bose
condensates, by free electrons and protons, should not significntly affect
the tunneling distance involved, since the mass increase due to the added
electron only slightly reduces the wavelength.  The wavefunction thus
created should thus take adjacent nuclei into the wave function, due to the
lack of net charge on the quasi-neutron.  The electron-proton pair should
be capable of tunneling together into adjacent nucleii, just like paired
electrons in superconductors tend to tunnel across a Josephson junction at
the same instant with about 50 percent probability.

interesting that in one case fusion ash is present, in the other case not.

Creativity with models leads to creativity in experiments.  This approach
may be bad from a rigorous scientific standpoint, but is very good from the
Edisonian point of view.  There is a big pool of amateurs and students that
might be tapped to do varied explorative experiments if sufficient
information is available and the effort not socially repressed.  One thing
is for sure: Fred Sparber has not been socially suppressed (yea!) and he
has been a wonderful source of ideas for amateurs like me.  More ideas can
only be good as there is little cost in discarding them.  I think it is up
to the individual to sort through the available ideas, add some of his own,
and pick an avenue that is affordable to explore.  I realize this point of
view may be very foreign to scientists who are accustomed to having very
specific programs with concrete results and time lines plus reasonable and
well founded expectations for success in order to obtain NSF grants or
other government funding.  It is a more commonly held view amongst
entrepreneurs, hacks, and wild eyed radicals like me.

Regards,                 Any technical material emailed to me without
                         prior agreement will be treated as
Horace Heffner           public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 18:46:22 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA12064;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 18:45:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 18:45:16 -0700
Message-ID: <012a01bec819$5bc187a0$8cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530500b3a809795ab9 [12.21.211.141]>
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 19:36:10 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"bBAcd2.0.Qy2.i4hWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28939
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>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes

Horace wrote:
>
>More ideas can
> only be good as there is little cost in discarding them.  I think it is up
> to the individual to sort through the available ideas, add some of his
own,
> and pick an avenue that is affordable to explore.  I realize this point of
> view may be very foreign to scientists who are accustomed to having very
> specific programs with concrete results and time lines plus reasonable and
> well founded expectations for success in order to obtain NSF grants or
> other government funding.  It is a more commonly held view amongst
> entrepreneurs, hacks, and wild eyed radicals like me.

I have a copy of McGraw-Hill's,  Modern Men of Science, that has articles
written by the people themselves about how they came about their outstanding
scientific accomplishments. I can't find any Staid and Parochial approaches
in any of them. IOW, you gets an idea (model) and you test it with an
experiment. If you're lucky the experiment will support your hypothesis.
:-)

I guess if you are a "Science Technician" you will repeat the same
experiment for a decade or so until you convince yourself that your model is
statistically correct.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
> Regards,                 Any technical material emailed to me without
>                          prior agreement will be treated as
> Horace Heffner           public domain and available for posting.
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 22:50:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA25764;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:49:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:49:33 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b3a89b8fdd66 [12.21.208.52]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:53:38 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: RE: NERL's new water flow calorimeter
Resent-Message-ID: <"XGBiD2.0.UI6.ifkWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28940
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wrote: "The ratio of thermal conductivity of soft plastic to steel is
about 460:1."  Clearly I meant to say: "The ratio of thermal conductivity
of soft plastic to steel is about 1:460."  The calculations were OK and
unaffected.

Regards,                 Any technical material emailed to me without
                         prior agreement will be treated as
Horace Heffner           public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 22:54:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA29114;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:53:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:53:37 -0700
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 01:57:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
cc: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: magnetism ... gravity ... artifact
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990707014435.10883A-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"K8Bn71.0.q67.XjkWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28941
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Dear Vo.,

	NOTE:  Any Vos who can post this to various gravity discussions,
if they know of them, please do, if you think this may help.

	I have recently been looking at various contributions of magneto
and electro gravity, as the authors call them ... and other names are
used.

	I want to bring to attention some possible sources of artifact.

	Magnetic:

	The earth's magnetic field has vertical components.
	Magnetic field "shielding" and complete accounting of and for
magnetic circuits is a non trivial exercise.

	Electric:

	Coupling of and to earth by means of electric field is common.
	There are vertical and horizontal natural and environmental
electric fields, just as there are magnetic fields.

	EM:  EM... including light can and does produce lift and
propulsion.

	Comment:  One CAN and DOES gain physical effects from use of
electric and magnetic fields ... and from EM emissions...  This is not to
say lift and propulsion from these sources and by these and other
mechanisms are "BAD" ...
	Lift and propulsion are valuable.

	BUT:  One should recognize effects for what they are.
A lighter than air craft is anti gravity .... so are air foils ....
	Be sure your effects are correctly identified.

	AND:  Keep on doing what you are doing.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 22:55:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA29576;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:54:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:54:58 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530504b3a89c3704bb [12.21.208.52]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:59:04 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Signing off
Resent-Message-ID: <"g_GXp1.0.wD7.okkWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28942
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I need to go do some other things so am signing off.  Have fun!

Regards,                 Any technical material emailed to me without
                         prior agreement will be treated as
Horace Heffner           public domain and available for posting.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 23:15:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA00746;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:13:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:13:30 -0700
Message-ID: <01BEC804.D21B9540.bhorst gte.net>
From: Bob Horst <bhorst gte.net>
Reply-To: "bhorst ieee.org" <bhorst@ieee.org>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: PLEC: Runs 7 and 8
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:11:03 -0700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211
Encoding: 39 TEXT
Resent-Message-ID: <"hqHsz3.0.aB.A0lWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28943
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott --

In looking at the graphs for runs 7 and 8, I notice that each time the 
input power is reduced, there is (naturally) a time lag before the 
calorimeter catches up to the new power level.  The area between the curves 
must correspond to the difference in stored energy at the two power levels. 
 But your data never shows any corresponding upward ramps of input power 
(except the initial power on).  I know it is a long shot, but is it 
possible that the amount apparent excess when input power is reduced is not 
equal to the amount when input power is increased?  Maybe you got only 1-2% 
because your power supply is too stable and you only ramped it down just 
once.  If the delta was the important parameter, then a less regulated 
supply, or one with intentional input power oscillations, might produce a 
different amount of excess.  In one of your future runs, you might try both 
upward and downward ramps of input power.

-- Bob Horst

-----Original Message-----
From:	Scott Little [SMTP:little eden.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, June 30, 1999 1:08 PM
To:	vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject:	PLEC: Run 8

Same day service on Run 8!

We used 0.2M K2CO3 and explored all the way down to 70 volts in 6 plateaus.
 Despite correcting for obvious errors and staying on top of the flow rate,
there's a 1-2% unexplained excess showing.  Could be real excess
heat...probably is just other errors not corrected yet.

http://www.eden.com/~little/Inc-W/2ndtry/run8.html



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


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  6 23:33:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA03739;
	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:33:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:33:06 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 06:32:24 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3789efc3.194576140 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>		 <377CC800.47EB9940@ix.netcom.com> <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b@[207.8.61.158]> <v04011702b3a306127b95@[207.8.67.180]> <v04011700b3a34b9055c0@[207.8.67.180]> <37810A46.A7367FB0@ix.netcom.com> <378143
5b.84872116 mail-hub> <37822597.795D469@ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <37822597.795D469 ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 XAA03709
Resent-Message-ID: <"EaSry3.0.Gw.YIlWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28944
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 09:49:59 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
[snip]
heat.  We
>> >also know that excess heat using the light water configurations involves a variety
>> >of transmutation reactions, some of which do not involve hydrogen.  

I was particularly intrigued by the reactions not involving hydrogen.
However none of the experiments you quote below actually exclude
hydrogen (or one of it's isotopes).
i.e.
[snip]
>G. H. Miley and J. A. Patterson, Nuclear transmutations in thin-film nickel coatings
>undergoing electrolysis, Infinite Energy 2, #7 (1996) 19.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Mizuno, T, T. Ohmori and M. Enyo, Anomalous Isotopic Distribution in Palladium Cathode
>after Electrolysis, Infinite Energy 2, #7 (1996) 10.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>In addition, Bockris and students did arc electrolysis using carbon
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> electrodes which
>produced iron. This effect has been duplicated several times by other workers.
>However, I do not have time now to track down the references.  Most can be found in
>Infinite Energy or ICCF conference proceedings. They propose carbon fuses with oxygen
>to produce iron.  However, the mechanism is hard to understand.

See below.
>
>Sundaresan, R., and J. O'M. Bockris, Anomalous Reactions During Arcing Between Carbon
>Rods in Water, Fusion Technol. 26 (1994) 261.
         ^^^^^
>
>While all of this work is subject to other interpretations, I believe a strong
>indication of numerous nuclear reactions exists. Because the mixture of products keeps
>getting more complex,  the mechanism must be more complex than that proposed to
>explain D-D fusion.  Nature is forcing us to consider possibilities well beyond normal
>behavior and well beyond the imaginations of most scientists.

I agree wholeheartedly.
>
>I have been asked to write a review of this branch of the field which would be very
>useful.  However, I have donated so much time to this field that I am reluctant to add
>more to this apparently losing battle without clear financial support.   At some point
>I need to see a return on investment which is not apparent.
[snip]

My opinion for what it is worth, is that BEC's provide the most likely
explanation for large scale transmutation reactions without producing
energetic particles. (Chubbs' theory). 
Because a BEC can encompass billions of nuclei, it's more like making
soup than banging billiard balls together.
IOW a 'single' reaction may start with billions of initial nuclei, and
also end with billions. Mainstream physicists used to thinking in terms
of colliding particles, would normally assign an infinitely small
probability to a 'collision' involving so many particles, which is why
these reactions have been ignored in the past.

PS Ever notice how often helium or one of its multiples is involved
(i.e. C, O, Fe56)?

Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 03:41:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA15586;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 03:39:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 03:39:25 -0700
Message-ID: <37832F1C.E6FD4B28 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 03:42:36 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Claytor <claytor_t_n lanl.gov>, Ed Wall <ewall@infinite-energy.com>,
        "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: ferromagnetic particles found
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"cSJHx.0.Mp3.TvoWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28945
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 7, 1999

To: Tom and Ed,

It has not been suggested but:

Can Ed send over the ferromagnetic particles found for the same testing
Tom is doing with his particles?  And the both results announced
together on the Vortex?

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 06:01:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA14258;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:00:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:00:56 -0700
Message-ID: <018801bec877$bf3900c0$8cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Free Iron in Activated Carbon Catalysts
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:53:39 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"Dlm9g2.0.iU3.8-qWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28946
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

FWIW, Akira.

The Iron in Activated Carbon Sources can react with the CO and Hydrogen to
form volatile Carbonyls, Fe(CO)x and Carbonyl Hydrides H2Fex(CO)y.

These decompose or react to give free Iron, etc.

Biomass A.C. sources such as coconut shell char can contain as much as 0.5%
Fe, or more.

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 06:12:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA16055;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:07:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:07:03 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990707080915.00ae6de8 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:09:15 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: G-75E catalyst
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"cledE.0.nw3.t3rWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28947
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Tom Claytor sent me the magnetically selected pieces from his batch of used
G-75E catalyst (the catalyst originally recommended by Dr. Case).  I
examine them and some sample from our own batch of unused G-75E on our XRF
system.  In both the new and used catalysts, the magnetic pieces are very
high in Fe compared to the non-magnetic stuff.  There are other minor
differences in K, Ca, Sr, etc.

http://www.eden.com/~little/case/cat-xrf.html

BTW, I put some new G-75E in my vacuum system and, after pumping out a ton
of water vapor from it, I used our RGA to look for signs of mass 4 stuff
leaking out of it.  There were none.  However, I haven't had the time to
heat the catalyst yet.

P.S. Apparently the Unsubscriber got me yesterday at about noon.  I just
re-subscribed this minute.  If any direct questions were posed during my
absence, please repose.





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 Jul  7 07:23:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA10645;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 07:22:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 07:22:24 -0700
Message-ID: <378362AC.27236D92 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:22:42 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Molecular Hydrogen Complexes
References: <v01530500b3a809795ab9 [12.21.211.141]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pCqw_3.0.5c2.VAsWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28948
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:

>
> Creativity with models leads to creativity in experiments.  This approach
> may be bad from a rigorous scientific standpoint, but is very good from the
> Edisonian point of view.  There is a big pool of amateurs and students that
> might be tapped to do varied explorative experiments if sufficient
> information is available and the effort not socially repressed.  One thing
> is for sure: Fred Sparber has not been socially suppressed (yea!) and he
> has been a wonderful source of ideas for amateurs like me.  More ideas can
> only be good as there is little cost in discarding them.  I think it is up
> to the individual to sort through the available ideas, add some of his own,
> and pick an avenue that is affordable to explore.  I realize this point of
> view may be very foreign to scientists who are accustomed to having very
> specific programs with concrete results and time lines plus reasonable and
> well founded expectations for success in order to obtain NSF grants or
> other government funding.  It is a more commonly held view amongst
> entrepreneurs, hacks, and wild eyed radicals like me.

I agree with your approach, Horace.  Creative ideas are needed and a variety of
experimental approaches are essential.  Indeed, I can think of dozens of methods
and possible variables needing study.  However, this field has several unique
problems.  We do not understand the basic mechanism and we do not have funding to
try every idea.  Therefore, the work needs to be focused on what has the greatest
chance of success based on past experience.  In addition, amateur efforts usually
are done without knowledge or control of important variables.  As a result, the
work, even if successful, can not be duplicated and frequently can not be
interpreted.  After all, we have a hard enough time with this problem even when
the work is done properly.

Besides, I see an unpleasant process developing.  A person with time on his hands
and an active imagination thinks up all kinds of experiments and models, most of
which are nonsense. Later, a professional following careful logic and hard won
experience tries one of these ideas and it works.  At this point, the ideaman
makes a big point of claiming the idea and the result of the experiment for his
own.  In other words, the effort is mainly an ego trip which contributes nothing
of value.  On the other hand, if the ideaman actually tried the experiment using
his own money and time, I would have more respect for him and the process.  I
suggest, only after the field is properly supported will the ideaman be useful.
Meanwhile, help in getting such support is more useful than thinking up all kinds
of ideas which look ridiculous even to people in the field and make people
outside of the field laugh louder.

Regards,

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 07:37:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA21234;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 07:36:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 07:36:40 -0700
Message-ID: <378365FE.2C9D719A ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:36:55 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>		 <377CC800.47EB9940@ix.netcom.com> <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b@[207.8.61.158]> <v04011702b3a306127b95@[207.8.67.180]> <v04011700b3a34b9055c0@[207.8.67.180]> <37810A46.A7367FB0@ix.netcom.com> <378143
5b.84872116 mail-hub> <37822597.795D469@ix.netcom.com> <3789efc3.194576140@mail-hub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"kLpEi.0.iB5.uNsWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28949
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

>
> My opinion for what it is worth, is that BEC's provide the most likely
> explanation for large scale transmutation reactions without producing
> energetic particles. (Chubbs' theory).
> Because a BEC can encompass billions of nuclei, it's more like making
> soup than banging billiard balls together.
> IOW a 'single' reaction may start with billions of initial nuclei, and
> also end with billions. Mainstream physicists used to thinking in terms
> of colliding particles, would normally assign an infinitely small
> probability to a 'collision' involving so many particles, which is why
> these reactions have been ignored in the past.
>
> PS Ever notice how often helium or one of its multiples is involved
> (i.e. C, O, Fe56)?
>

The Bockris work using carbon to produce iron suggests involvement of atoms heavier than
hydrogen.  Otherwise, a very large number of hydrogen would have to be added, a process
which should build up concentrations of some lower masses on the way to iron.

The soup idea is interesting and in line with the theory of the Chubbs, at least when
hydrogen is involved.  Ron Brightsen (Clustron Sciences Corp.) has noticed the multiple He
effect and has an interesting theory of the nucleus based on this idea.

Regards,

Ed Storms



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 08:33:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12300;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:31:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:31:42 -0700
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: NERL's new water flow calorimeter
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:31:06 -0400
Message-ID: <000201bec88d$bad333a0$240a16cf computer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b3a838495a7d [12.21.211.141]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Importance: Normal
Resent-Message-ID: <"H_5HR1.0.603.UBtWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28950
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace (in abstensia),

Case recommended against anything but metal tubing because of possible
contamination.  I opted to follow Scott's advice.

A bit of thermal conductivity is not so bad, as we are not trying to build a
self-sustainer, but only do good calorimetry.

Ed Wall

New Energy Research Laboratory
http://www.infinite-energy.com   email:ewall infinite-energy.com
Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Bow, NH 03302-2816
(603) 226-4822   fax 224-5975

> You could try flexible vacuum hose.  It has much lower thermal
> conductivity, and is easy to connect, depending on fitting type
> you use.  I
> bought a box of the Norton 7/8" OD and 3/8" ID  clear plastic type from
> Cole-Parmer.  I could mail you a foot or so (free of charge of course) if
> you want to try it.  It is expensive stuff by the box, which is minimum
> quantity.
>
> Let's see the plastic vacuum hose cross section is about Pi [(7/16")^2 -
> (3/16")^2] = 0.49 in^2.  Scott's tubing is about Pi (1/2")
> (0.05") = 0.0785
> in^2.  The ratio of thermal conductivity of soft plastic to steel is about
> 460:1.  So the ratio of thermal conductivity of steel to plastic vacuum
> hose is (0.0785)(460)/(0.49) = 74 to 1.  However, the disadvantage of the
> plastic tubing is the lower internal diameter, so a shorter length should
> be used to penetrate the envelope in order to get identical
> vacuum results.
>
> Regards,                 Any technical material emailed to me without
>                          prior agreement will be treated as
> Horace Heffner           public domain and available for posting.
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 08:43:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA16514;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:42:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:42:26 -0700
Message-ID: <01c101bec88e$4ea06bc0$8cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <000201bec88d$bad333a0$240a16cf computer>
Subject: Re: NERL's new water flow calorimeter
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 09:35:11 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"YA8Lo1.0.n14.YLtWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28951
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Wall <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: NERL's new water flow calorimeter


> Horace (in abstensia),

Now that Storms has set himself up as List-Master of Vortex-L, superceding
List Owner Bill Beaty's Charter, I expect a lot of (in abstensia) revenue
loss for good ole Bill B.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick
>
> Case recommended against anything but metal tubing because of possible
> contamination.  I opted to follow Scott's advice.
>
> A bit of thermal conductivity is not so bad, as we are not trying to build
a
> self-sustainer, but only do good calorimetry.
>
> Ed Wall
>
> New Energy Research Laboratory
> http://www.infinite-energy.com   email:ewall infinite-energy.com
> Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Bow, NH 03302-2816
> (603) 226-4822   fax 224-5975
>
> > You could try flexible vacuum hose.  It has much lower thermal
> > conductivity, and is easy to connect, depending on fitting type
> > you use.  I
> > bought a box of the Norton 7/8" OD and 3/8" ID  clear plastic type from
> > Cole-Parmer.  I could mail you a foot or so (free of charge of course)
if
> > you want to try it.  It is expensive stuff by the box, which is minimum
> > quantity.
> >
> > Let's see the plastic vacuum hose cross section is about Pi [(7/16")^2 -
> > (3/16")^2] = 0.49 in^2.  Scott's tubing is about Pi (1/2")
> > (0.05") = 0.0785
> > in^2.  The ratio of thermal conductivity of soft plastic to steel is
about
> > 460:1.  So the ratio of thermal conductivity of steel to plastic vacuum
> > hose is (0.0785)(460)/(0.49) = 74 to 1.  However, the disadvantage of
the
> > plastic tubing is the lower internal diameter, so a shorter length
should
> > be used to penetrate the envelope in order to get identical
> > vacuum results.
> >
> > Regards,                 Any technical material emailed to me without
> >                          prior agreement will be treated as
> > Horace Heffner           public domain and available for posting.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 10:56:32 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA29672;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:55:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:55:16 -0700
Message-ID: <001601bec8a0$db529ea0$d7b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex-L
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:47:57 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"IytLs1.0.TF7.4IvWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28952
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

****************************************************************************
*
>                          WELCOME TO VORTEX-L
>
****************************************************************************
*
>
> WARNING: AT LEAST READ THE RULES BELOW!
>
> The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of professional
> research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous
> energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaeffer, Huffman, Griggs, and
> Potapov among others.)  Skeptics beware, the topics also wander to any
> anomalous physics such as "Cold Fusion," reports of excess energy in "free
> energy" devices, chemical transmutation, gravity generation and detection,
> and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims.  Please see the rules below.
> This is a public, lightly-moderated list.  Interested parties are welcome
> to subscribe.  PLEASE READ THE RULES BEFORE SUBSCRIBING.  There is no
> charge, but donations towards expenses are accepted (see rules below for
> suggested donation.)
>
> Admin addr: vortex-L-request eskimo.com
>
> Mail addr:  vortex-L eskimo.com
>
> Webpage:    http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html
>
> Moderator:  billb eskimo.com
>             William J. Beaty
>             7040 22nd Ave NW
>             Seattle, WA 98117
>             206-781-3320 USA
>
> *************************************************************************
> 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.
>
> Unsubscribe:
>
>   To unsubscribe, send a blank message to vortex-L-request eskimo.com
>   with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
> 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 forwards each received message within minutes or hours of
>   receipt.  Vortex-digest collects messages, then sends them as single
>   large chunks.  Vortex-L and Vortex-digest are two separate lists.  It is
>   possible to subscribe to one or the other, or both.
>
> Help:
>   To obtain a copy of this file, send a blank email with the word
>   "help" in the subject line.  Send it to vortex-L-request eskimo.com
>
> 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.  If you still have access to
>   the older account address, you can unsubscribe yourself using
>   that address.
>
> *************************************************************************
>
> WARNING: THE "UNSUBSCRIBER" MIGHT GET YOU
>
>   Vortex-L software contains a mechanism which might automatically
>   unsubscribe you.
>
>   This will happen if your email address starts bouncing all vortex-L
>   email for several days.  This is done in order to stop possible
>   email-loops, and to prevent the eskimo.com software from being
>   overwhelmed by email-bounce warning messages.
>
>   When the Unsubscriber takes you off, it sends you a message explaining
>   its action.  Unfortunately this message will usually bounce also.  From
>   your viewpoint the message traffic from Vortex-L will suddenly cease.
>
>   If the email server on your internet service has a habit of overloading
>   or crashing for several days at at time, you will probably encounter the
>   Unsubscriber.  If vortex-L traffic seems to suddenly stop, or if your
>   messages to the group are returned with warnings that you are not
>   subscribed, simply resubscribe to Vortex-L.  Missed messages are
>   available as textfiles on the Vortex-L webpage, or go to the escribe
>   archive at http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex/
>
> **************************************************************************
> Vortex-L Rules:
>
> 1. If VORTEX-L proves very useful or interesting to you, please consider
>    making a $10US/yr donation to help cover operating expenses.  If you
>    cannot afford this, please feel free to participate anyway.  If you
>    would like to give more, please do!  Direct your check to the
>    moderator, address above.  Any help you can give is sincerely
>    appreciated.
>
> 2. This is not the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup; ridicule, debunkery, and
>    namecalling between believers and skeptics are forbidden.  The tone
>    should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate.
>    Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having
>    some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave
>    in disgust.  But if your mind is open, hop on board!  Help us test
>    "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away.
>    (For a good analysis of the negative aspects of skepticism, see ZEN AND
>    THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by D. Drasin, on WEIRD SCIENCE page.)
>
> 3. Small email files please.  The limit is set to 40K right now, those
>    exceeding the limit will be forwarded to Bill Beaty.  If you wish to
>    start extremely off-topic discussions, please feel free to exchange
>    initial messages on vortex-L, but MOVE THE DISCUSSION TO PRIVATE MAIL
>    IMMEDIATELY.  Some members are on limited service, or have to pay for
>    received email.  Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to me or John
>    Logajan and posted on our webpages for viewing.
>
> 4. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: when you reply to a message DON'T include the
>    ENTIRE message in your reply.  Always edit it a bit and delete
>    something.  The more you delete, the less traffic overload.  The entire
>    message should really only be included if: (A) you are replying to a
>    message that is many days old, or (B) you are doing a point-by-point
>    reply to many parts of a message.  Many vortex users must pay by the
>    kilobyte for receiving message traffic, and large amounts of redundant
>    messages are irritating and expensive.  So, when including a quoted
>    message in your reply, ALWAYS DELETE SOMETHING, the more the better.
>
> 5. Please do not include any other email list in the TO line or the CC
>    line of your messages to vortex-L.  In the past this has caused
>    thread leakage between different list and redundant messages as
>    replies from subscribers go to both lists.  It's OK to manually forward
>    mail from other lists to vortex-L, as long as the TO line and CC line
>    has only vortex-L and no other list.
>
> 6. "Junkmail" email advertizing will not be tolerated.  While not illegal
>    yet, widecasting of junk-email ads to listservers is against the
>    Unwritten Rules of the Internet.  Anyone who spams vortex-L with
junkmail
>    will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team.  ;)
>    Occasional on-topic advertizing by long-time vortex-L users is
acceptable.
>



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 11:19:27 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA06495;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:18:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:18:38 -0700
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <37839A84.DF2 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 11:20:52 -0700
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Mallove &(vs) Parks
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"vo1MZ.0.Pb1.-dvWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28953
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 7, 1999

Well I remembered so far!

Today is the day of the radio interview on KPCC (89.3 FM) Pasadena CA,
of E. Mallove (of IE) and Robert Parks (of APS). 6-7 PM PDST. 
Segment arranged by Michael shermer, host of Science Talk on KPCC. 
I will be recording off air (provided my memory still serves, :)). 
Let's hear what happens.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 12:29:50 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA01159;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 12:26:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 12:26:05 -0700
Message-Id: <199907071924.PAA10001 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Reminder: Malloove vs. Park on radio today
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:23:26 -0000
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: "Eugene 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: <"eC_ex1.0.sH.CdwWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28954
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


All,

***** ANNOUNCEMENT ***

On July 7, 1999 from  6-7 p.m. ( PST), Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, 
Editor-in-Chief of Infinite Energy Magazine: Cold Fusion and New Energy 
Technology will engage in a radio debate/discussion on cold fusion with 
Professor Robert L.  Park of the University of  Maryland Dept. of 
Physics, who is also a spokesman for the American Physical Society.

This program was kindly arranged by Michael Shermer, editor of The 
Skeptic Magazine. Michael Shermer is the host of SCIENCE TALK on KPCC, 
89.3 FM, the  NPR affiliate for Southern California, from 6:00-7:00pm 
Wednesdays, PST. This  is drive-time Los Angeles and the radio station 
has a large and loyal following. 

The  show will be conducted  by telephone link up, with Eugene Mallove in 
New Hampshire and Robert Park  in Maryland. Michael Shermer and  his 
co-host Larry Mantle will moderate. 

Michael  Shermer described the show to Eugene Mallove in a recent e-mail: 
"It is a very conservative show (no shouting, etc.) and the format is 
what we call "intelligent talk." We have a  million listeners sitting in 
their automobiles stuck in traffic, so we get some great car-phone calls 
(it is a call-in show). We'll do the first half  hour or so with just 
discussing cold fusion and other forms of energy and  then go to the 
phones. There are no commercials (this is NPR) and just a couple of 
traffic and news breaks, so there is plenty of time for thoughtful 
discussion (i.e., we don't need to have just sound bites)."

This will be an excellent opportunity for those who are interested in the 
cold fusion controversy to listen to two quite opposite viewpoints on the 
significance of data that are being reported by scientists world-wide in 
what has come to be known as the cold fusion or low-energy nuclear 
reaction (LENR) field.

I look forward to an open discussion with Dr. Park of the scientific 
evidence, theories, and the history, and the socio-political dynamics of 
this field.

Sincerely,

Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief
Infinite Energy Magazine
Cold Fusion Technology, Inc.
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Ph:  603-228-4516
Fax: 603-224-5975

editor infinite-energy.com
www.infinite-energy.com

*******

ORDERING TAPE  -- info gotten by Bob Horst

The radio talk show Gene will be on has a web page at:

http://www.kpcc.ORG/newstalk/airtalk/home.htm


This page also has instructions on how we will be able to order a tape of 
the show for $15.  There is nothing on the site that would suggest a 
RealAudio feed that would allow us to hear it live.

-- Bob Horst







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 13:58:50 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA02714;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 13:55:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 13:55:45 -0700
Message-ID: <001c01bec8ba$10d4b400$1d8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "Ron" <Ron.Brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Iron in  Activated  Carbon Catalysts
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 14:47:22 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"nZJGW2.0.Kg.HxxWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28955
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

In Wood:   74% - 83% Volatile Matter
                  17% - 23%  Fixed Carbon
                    Ash 0.5% - 2.2%
                   Fe2O3 >> 0.5%

In Bituminous Coal  Ash:   Fe2O3    5% - 35%
                                         CaO       1% - 20%
                             Na2O - K2O     1% - 4%

The weight loss of wood in making Charcoal:    75%,   Volume loss 50%

By the time the Charcoal is "Activated" With H2O or CO2 , The reactions:

H2O + C --->   CO + H2

CO + C  --->  2 CO

nCO +  Fe2O3 ---->    Fe(CO)x   +  CO2

Fe(CO)x ---->    Fe   +  CO

If   there is  a Bose Condensate turning Carbon into Iron, the High Pressure
Physics People
with their cryogenically cooled diamond anvils should see the anvils turn to
iron.   :-)

I think someone is confusing Bose Condensate with Too Much Booze Condensate.
:-)

Regards,      Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 14:37:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA18386;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 14:36:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 14:36:24 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3a96218c564 [207.8.127.78]>
In-Reply-To: <378362AC.27236D92 ix.netcom.com>
References: <v01530500b3a809795ab9 [12.21.211.141]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:25:35 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: A Blizzard of Nonsense?
Resent-Message-ID: <"YCj_82.0.CV4.OXyWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28957
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>
>> Creativity with models leads to creativity in experiments.  This approach
>> may be bad from a rigorous scientific standpoint, but is very good from the
>> Edisonian point of view.  There is a big pool of amateurs and students that
>> might be tapped to do varied explorative experiments if sufficient
>> information is available and the effort not socially repressed.  One thing
>> is for sure: Fred Sparber has not been socially suppressed (yea!) and he
>> has been a wonderful source of ideas for amateurs like me.  More ideas can
>> only be good as there is little cost in discarding them.  I think it is up
>> to the individual to sort through the available ideas, add some of his own,
>> and pick an avenue that is affordable to explore.  I realize this point of
>> view may be very foreign to scientists who are accustomed to having very
>> specific programs with concrete results and time lines plus reasonable and
>> well founded expectations for success in order to obtain NSF grants or
>> other government funding.  It is a more commonly held view amongst
>> entrepreneurs, hacks, and wild eyed radicals like me.
>
>I agree with your approach, Horace.  Creative ideas are needed and a
>variety of
>experimental approaches are essential.  Indeed, I can think of dozens of
>methods
>and possible variables needing study.  However, this field has several unique
>problems.  We do not understand the basic mechanism and we do not have
>funding to
>try every idea.  Therefore, the work needs to be focused on what has the
>greatest
>chance of success based on past experience.

***{I don't agree with this at all. "Past experience" means nothing unless
an attempt has been made to analyze it in a way that reveals hidden
patterns. It is only *after* such a pattern has been detected that one can
begin to get an idea where the probabilities of success lie, and in the
endeavor to detect such a pattern, an outsider is just as capable of
identifying the elusive commonality as is the person with "experience." If
we generously assume, for example, that Ed Storms is the source of 1% of
the data, and other researchers are the source of 99%, then if Ed Storms is
going to be the one to find the elusive commonality which links these
experiments together, his "advantage" over an outsider who originated 0% of
the data and relies 100% on external sources is too slight to mention.
Worse, Ed Storms' immersion in one specific area may blind him to the
importance of the approaches pursued by others, thereby *preventing* him
from seriously examining crucial information which would support a solution
to the connundrum posed by these experiments. Bottom line: you overestimate
the importance of "experience" and, as a consequence, you underestimate the
potential contributions of those who approach this field from what is
primarily a theoretical perspective. --Mitchell Jones}***

 In addition, amateur efforts usually
>are done without knowledge or control of important variables.

***{Whereas the professionals have a clear idea of what variables produce
the effect, right? (That's why Mizuno, for example, has been able to
quickly and easily explain to Scott how his replication efforts ought to be
focused, and that's why Scott was immediately successful in replicating the
effect. :-) --MJ}***

 As a result, the
>work, even if successful, can not be duplicated and frequently can not be
>interpreted.

***{Whereas the work of the "professionals" in the CF arena *can* be
duplicated, right? (Listen up, Scott! :-) --MJ}***

 After all, we have a hard enough time with this problem even when
>the work is done properly.

***{This is just the same old song, ten-thousandth verse: "If you can't
replicate our efforts, it isn't because we have made errors; it's because
you don't know what you are doing." Well, as I have noted in the past when
Jed has made similar comments: both possibilities are alive and well, and,
with the passage of more and more time, the possibility that these
"results" are simply errors becomes stronger and stronger. --Mitchell
Jones}***

>
>Besides, I see an unpleasant process developing.  A person with time on
>his hands
>and an active imagination thinks up all kinds of experiments and models,
>most of
>which are nonsense.

***{If they are nonsense, then shoot them down--politely, of course. That
is one of the most important functions of a group such as this. And if you
don't have time to shoot down all the ideas that you perceive to be
"nonsense," then I say: "Welcome to the club." I, for example, have let
pass a number of nonsensical ideas put forth by you, due to lack of time,
and I suspect that I will have occasion to pass over more in the future for
the same reason. You will not, however, see me complaining about the low
quality of the ideas here, and suggesting that others should rein in their
disorderly minds in order to not annoy me. I simply accept the fact that
others will frequently post things with which I disagree, and if you will
accept it also, then the blizzard of crackpot ideas which you apparently
see descending on this group will come to annoy you less and less. --MJ}***

Later, a professional following careful logic and hard won
>experience tries one of these ideas and it works.  At this point, the ideaman
>makes a big point of claiming the idea and the result of the experiment
>for his
>own.  In other words, the effort is mainly an ego trip which contributes
>nothing
>of value.

***{So a "professional" has a license to steal, right? I think not. Credit
should be given to the sources of one's important ideas, as a matter of
course. (And, if the idea arose independently in one's own mind, then
credit should *not* be given, even if someone else got into print with it
first. No one is responsible for acknowledging "sources" with which he is
unfamiliar.) --MJ}***

 On the other hand, if the ideaman actually tried the experiment using
>his own money and time, I would have more respect for him and the process.

***{Many persons who are scientifically inclined have not been able to
build a lab of their own, usually because more than half of their lifetime
income has been looted from them and used, in part, to build palatial
laboratories for politically connected "scientists." If such a "scientist"
does an experiment using facilities that have been looted from others, he
gets no respect from me; and the victims from whom the funding was extorted
do not get my disrespect, either. --MJ}***

 I
>suggest, only after the field is properly supported will the ideaman be
>useful.
>Meanwhile, help in getting such support is more useful than thinking up
>all kinds
>of ideas which look ridiculous even to people in the field and make people
>outside of the field laugh louder.

***{If you refer to support from government, I suggest that you not hold
your breath while you wait. A valid "free energy" technology would
transform the world in ways that the power elite would find very
threatening, and you will discover that the night of the long knives will
truly begin on the day that a real proof of this technology threatens to
emerge. While the response of the power structure to the original
Pons-Fleischmann announcement was ugly and brutal, it will be nothing by
comparison to what will happen if someone tries to actually mass market a
working device. My advice to anyone who contemplates doing so is simple: be
very, very afraid. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 14:37:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA18376;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 14:36:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 14:36:24 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3a95de1c796 [207.8.127.78]>
In-Reply-To: <01c101bec88e$4ea06bc0$8cb4bfa8 default>
References: <000201bec88d$bad333a0$240a16cf computer>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:33:45 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: An Ed Storms coup d'etat?
Resent-Message-ID: <"iHTa32.0.zU4.NXyWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28956
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ed Wall <ewall infinite-energy.com>
>To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 9:31 AM
>Subject: RE: NERL's new water flow calorimeter
>
>
>> Horace (in abstensia),
>
>Now that Storms has set himself up as List-Master of Vortex-L, superceding
>List Owner Bill Beaty's Charter, I expect a lot of (in abstensia) revenue
>loss for good ole Bill B.  :-)
>
>Regards,   Frederick

***{For the record, I don't really think Ed is attempting a coup. I just
think this group is a bit too disorderly for his liking. :-) And, of
course, he is perfectly within his rights to voice that opinion, just as we
are within ours when we disagree.

--Mitchell Jones}***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 15:50:06 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA07585;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:47:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:47:23 -0700
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: O/T: RE: A Blizzard of Nonsense?
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:46:52 -0400
Message-ID: <000601bec8ca$9b208020$240a16cf computer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
In-Reply-To: <v04011701b3a96218c564 [207.8.127.78]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Importance: Normal
Resent-Message-ID: <"6NL4E.0.Ms1.xZzWt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28958
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



> ***{If you refer to support from government, I suggest that you not hold
> your breath while you wait. A valid "free energy" technology would
> transform the world in ways that the power elite would find very
> threatening, and you will discover that the night of the long knives will
> truly begin on the day that a real proof of this technology threatens to
> emerge. While the response of the power structure to the original
> Pons-Fleischmann announcement was ugly and brutal, it will be nothing by
> comparison to what will happen if someone tries to actually mass market a
> working device. My advice to anyone who contemplates doing so is
> simple: be
> very, very afraid. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
I would not anticipate support from the government, unless officials are
simply embarassed into it by an overwhelming constituency.  I will not live
my life governed mainly by fear.  Economically beneficial, but power
de-centralizing discoveries and technologies do exist, but are not
developed, and are plausibly suppressed.  The rationalizations for seamless
domination of the masses is nauseating in power elite society, and it is not
hard to see.  Read *The Science of Coercion*, a book that won high accolades
from Science magazine.  Psychological subjugation is what this is about, at
any cost.  It spells the end of one's power if one does not adapt to change.
The most powerful are well aware of that, or they would have never harnessed
so much power.  It is not hard to recognize the legitimacy of cold fusion as
a scientific endeavor, and it is impossible to suppress all efforts to
investigate it.  The powerful can be forced to adapt.

Suppression by violent means is seen as passe when the well developed means
described in that book are understood.  It is a history of communication
theory, a subject whose mastery is mandatory for every college student who
expects to have a career in journalism.  Any subject, no matter how well
developed, is free from its roots.  The roots of communication theory are
academic studies of horrifyingly effective methods developed by Josef
Goebbels, the NKVD, KGB, CIA, etc. for 'winning' by any means.  The question
answered by such research is not "What is human communication?," but "How
can communication be used for domination?"  Implicit in its underlying
assumptions is the belief that those using this knowledge are free from
moral restraint and worthy to hold such power.

Ed Wall

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 17:10:35 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA07981;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:09:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:09:29 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b3a99b3e382c [207.8.127.30]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 19:07:25 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Diffusion Rate Calculation
Resent-Message-ID: <"DtEuq3.0.Vy1.vm-Wt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28959
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{The other day I noted that I had posted my comments about possible
geological contaminants in the Russ George cell to spf, and reposted them
here. Since then I have discovered that, rather than attack the Russ George
cell, I am having to spend my time on spf defending it from what I consider
to be unwarranted attacks. Here is my latest effort in that regard.
--Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

> >
> > :>: {Russ George calculated that the maximum concentration due to diffusion
> > :>: under these conditions would be 1.2 ppm. --MJ}***
> >
> > : > We've also been over this:  George's calculation was incorrect; even
> > : > Mr. La Joie admits that.
> >
> > : ***{For the record, I didn't claim that his calculation was correct. As a
> > : matter of curiosity, how did his calculation proceed, and where,
> > : precisely, was the error, in your opinion? --MJ}***
> >
> > I have no idea what he did wrong.  It's a simple PV=nRT type of
>calculation.
>
> ***{No it isn't. There is no time factor in the osmotic pressure equation.
> Thus when you use it to compute an equilibrium concentration, you have no
> way of knowing whether the equilibrium will require 10 seconds or 10,000
> years to achieve. Unfortunately, time is of the essence here, and so this
> cannot be treated as a textbook case of diffusion across an idealized
> "semipermeable membrane." Instead, we are faced with diffusion through
> gasketing material in which the rate of diffusion depends on the types,
> dimensions, and thickness of the material, and we are not interested in
> the equilibrium concentration, but rather in how much movement toward
> equilibrium will be possible in the finite time--28 days--that is
> available.

***{Hi Richard. After further reflection, I would like to elaborate on the
above.

First, I have found a reference indicating that Ag-110 will diffuse into
iron at a mere 748 deg C, and so it seems extremely likely that He-4 will
diffuse through stainless steel at 200 deg C. Thus it is probable that Russ
George calculated the 1.2 ppm limit concentration (above) with that
assumption in mind, rather than with leakage through gasketing material in
mind.

Second, it seems obvious based on first principles that the volume
(expressed at standard conditions) of a gas that will diffuse through a
barrier per unit of time will, at a given instant, be equal to the product
of the permeability of the barrier to the gas, the partial pressure
difference, and the surface area of the barrier, divided by the thickness
of the barrier. Let Vs represent the volume of gas that has diffused
through the barrier at a given instant, converted to standard conditions of
temperature and pressure. Let k represent the permeability, Po the outside
partial pressure, Pi the inside partial pressure, S the surface area of the
barrier perpendicular to the direction of diffusion, and L the thickness of
the barrier. Thus we have:

dVs/dt = k(Po-Pi)S/L.     (1)

In the above, we have three variables: Vs, t, and Pi. As helium diffuses
into Russ George's stainless steel flask the value of dVs/dt will be
highest at the beginning, when Pi is lowest and, as t increases, Pi will
rise and dVs/dt will decline, settling at zero when Po = Pi.

To use the above expression to calculate the partial pressure of He in Russ
George's cell at the end of 28 days, we need to reduce the number of
variables to Pi and t, which means we need to eliminate Vs from the
equation. Since Vs expresses the volume of He that has diffused into the
flask as it would be under standard conditions, we can use the combined gas
law:

PsVs/Ts = PiVi/Ti.

In the above, Pi, Vi, and Ti are the values of partial pressure, volume,
and temperature, respectively, of the He as it exists inside the cell at a
given time t, and Vs is the volume occupied by the same atoms at standard
pressure (Ps) and temperature (Ts). Thus in Russ George's cell, Vi = 47.5
ml (free space plus space inside the carbon catalyst, calculated by
subtracting the space 10 gm of diamond would occupy from the 20 ml occupied
by the 10 gms of catalyst), and Ti = 473 deg A. By the definition of
standard conditions, Ps = 1013.25 mbar, and Ts = 273 deg A. Substituting in
the above, we obtain:

(1013.25)Vs/273 = Pi(47.5)/473.

Solving for Vs, we obtain

Vs = Pi(273)(47.5)/(1013.25)(473), or

Vs = .0271Pi

Substituting the above back into equation (1), we obtain:

d[.0271Pi]/dt = k(Po-Pi)S/L, or

dPi/dt =k(Po-Pi)S/L(.0271).

Separating variables, we obtain:

dPi/(Po-Pi) = kSdt/L(.0271).     (2)

Here we are faced with some guesswork, because we do not know the shape or
wall thickness of Russ George's stainless steel flask, and so determining
values for S and L is going to be difficult. All he said in his paper was
that the reactants were "in 50cc stainless steel (SS) Nupro sample flasks
(25mm x 135mm)." If we take the 25 mm to be the width of the opening at the
top of the flask, and the 135 mm to be the diameter at the widest point,
then two possible shapes come to mind: spherical, and conical. If
spherical, then a diameter of 13.5 cm gives a volume of
4/3)(pi)[(13.5/2)^3] = 1288.2 ml. That is too far off, and, obviously,
assuming a conical shape will not work either. Therefore perhaps these
"flasks" are cylinders, 25 mm wide and 135 mm long. In that case, the
volume would be pi(2.5/2)^2](13.5) = 66.27 ml. Bingo. That works, given the
space occupied by the stopper and the walls. Since the stopper is probably
of the screw-in variety, it is likely to be fairly thick, so I am going to
assume 2 cm. That gives a surface area for diffusion (S) of roughly
pi(2.5)(11.5) = 90 cm^2. (We could take the average of the outside and
inside surface areas, but let's be conservative.) Since pi[(2.5 -
2L)/2]^2(11.5) = 50, or (1.25 - L)^2 = 50/(11.5)pi , or 1.5625 -2.5L + L^2
= 1.384, or L^2 - 2.5l + .179 = 0. Solving, we find that L = .0735 cm.
Substituting these values for S and L into (2), above, we get:

dPi/(Po - Pi) = k(90)dt/(.0735)(.0271), or

dPi/(Po - Pi) = 45184kdt.

INT dPi/(Po - Pi) = INT 45184kdt

-INT d[-Pi]/(Po - Pi) = 45184kt + C

-INT d[Po-Pi]/(Po - Pi) = 45184kt + C

-ln (Po - Pi) = 45184kt + C.

Since Po = (5.22x10^-6)(1013.25) = .00529 mbar, we get:

-ln (.00529 - Pi) = 45184kt + C.

According to Russ George, the initial He concentration was .1 ppm, so when
t = 0, Pi = (10^-7)(3.4)(1013.25) = 3.445x10^-4 mbar, and we obtain:

C + 45184k(0) = -ln (.00529 - 3.445x10^-4), and

C = -ln .00495 = 5.31

Since Russ George started with Pi = 3.45x10^-4 mbar, our final equation is:

-(3.45x10^-4, Pi)[ln (.00529- Pi] = 45184kt + 5.31

Now if I could find the permeability of stainless steel to He in units of
cm^3 of flow per sec per cm thickness per millibar of partial pressure
difference, we would be able to solve for the value of Pi after 28 days
(which is t = 28(24)(3600) = 2,419,200 sec). However, the only helium
permeability number I have is for Pyrex glass: k = 4.9x10^-14. Using that
value, we get:

-(3.45x10^-4, Pi)[ln (.00529- Pi] = 45184(4.9x10^-14)(2419200) + 5.31, or

-(3.45x10^-4, Pi)[ln (.00529- Pi] = 5.31, or

-{ln [.00529- Pi] - [ln (.00529 - .000345)]} = 5.31, or

-ln [.00529- Pi] + [ln (.00495)] = 5.31, or

-ln [.00529- Pi] + [-5.31] = 5.31, or

-ln [.00529- Pi]  = 10.62, or

ln [.00529- Pi]  = -10.62, or

e^(-10.62) = .00529 - Pi, or

Pi = .00529 - e^(-10.62), or

Pi = .00529 - 2.45x10^-5, or

Pi = .00527 mbar, which is 5.27x10^-3/(3.4)(1013.25) = 1.53 ppm.

(Note: the helium concentration in the cell in ppm is equal to the partial
pressure of He in millibars divided by the total pressure in millibars.)

In other words, the calculated concentration of He inside Russ George's
cell after 28 days, assuming no source other than diffusion, is 1.53 ppm.
Such a result is very close to Russ George's figure of 1.2 ppm, despite my
using the permeability of Pyrex instead of that of stainless steel, and
despite my having to estimate the values of S and L. Bottom line: I see no
evidence thus far to support your claim that his calculation is in error.
The final verdict, of course, will not be in until someone comes up with
the actual permeability of stainless steel to helium. [If anyone knows a
reference where this sort of info can be found, please supply it. (This is
something I need in my library.) Thanks in advance.]

The above calculation is, of course, a can of worms, and criticisms are
strongly encouraged.

--Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

> >
> > -----
> > 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
> > -----
> > ". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
> > impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
> >    -- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article
><EEI1oz.43q world.std.com>
> =====================================================

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 17:12:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA10461;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:11:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:11:35 -0700
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: RE: A Blizzard of Nonsense?
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 20:11:05 -0400
Message-ID: <000701bec8d6$5ebdb4c0$240a16cf computer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
In-Reply-To: <000601bec8ca$9b208020$240a16cf computer>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Importance: Normal
Resent-Message-ID: <"YQ6W51.0.NZ2.so-Wt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28960
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Sorry Vorts,

I wrote:  "Any subject, no matter how well developed, is free from its
roots."

"free" is supposed to be "not free"

Ed Wall

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 20:59:52 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA20226;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 20:52:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 20:52:24 -0700
Message-Id: <199907080350.XAA18568 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Robert Park behaved as expected
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 23:49:39 -0000
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: "Eugene 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 UAA20209
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z8Tdg1.0.yx4.u12Xt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28961
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

All,

I am glad that the Mallove-Park debate on KPPC in LA came and went - all 
one-hour's worth this evening. Park showed his true nature ‹ at one point 
blatantly stating that I was "fired" from MIT for promoting a cold fusion 
meeting on hydrons -- Fred Mayer's cold fusion theory and lecture at MIT 
in 1991. The record is absolutely clear that I resigned in protest of 
numerous MIT-related anti-cold fusion scandals, including the MIT PFC 
data-fudging fraud and the various unethical decptions by PFC Ronald 
Parker. Park knows that very well, but he prefers to make up stories.  I 
challenged this blatant Park Big Lie on air in no uncertain terms, 
referencing the 55-page report that I did in Inifinite Energy #24

This man Park, true to form, has no scruples, no ethics -- he is capable 
of total fabrications and distortions of the truth.   He showed himself  
--as I expected --unable to deal with the basic facts and experimental 
evidence. He could not answer my numerous questions about why his demand 
for helium results in 1989-1991 was not satisfied by the plethora of 
excess heat and helium results that have built up.  He said that "nothing 
has happened since 1989." This is the idiotic refrain of a beaten -- or 
nearly beaten man. He is a coward. He kept up the refrain:   "I want to 
see a device" -- meaning that data is irrelevant, he needs to see K-Mart 
products before he'll be satisfied.  That is science turned on its head.

I will let others judge how the debate went and how I performed relative 
to Park. As for myself, I am satisfied that I did honor to the cold 
fusion field by presenting facts in a calm manner and experimental 
results rather than name-calling and distortion as was Park's on-air 
tactic.

We audio-taped the program and KPCC will send me a tape as back up. I 
will ask the station and Shermer whether we can transcribe the interview. 
 At the very least, we will have a full report with extensive quotes in a 
future IE.  I trust Park will be continuing his distortions on "What's 
New."  ( "What's New this Week that I Hate")

Please do not ask me for a copy of the tape.    KPCC is selling them. 
Please purchase one from the station at their www site.

>http://www.kpcc.ORG/newstalk/airtalk/home.htm

>This page also has instructions on how to order a tape of 
>the show for $15.  

I want to publicly Thank Michael Shermer, Larry Mantle, and KPCC for 
putting on this fine program.


Best,

Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief
Infinite Energy Magazine
Cold Fusion Technology, Inc.
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Ph:  603-228-4516
Fax: 603-224-5975

editor infinite-energy.com
www.infinite-energy.com

*******

***** ANNOUNCEMENT ***

On July 7, 1999 from  6-7 p.m. ( PST), Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, 
Editor-in-Chief of Infinite Energy Magazine: Cold Fusion and New Energy 
Technology will engage in a radio debate/discussion on cold fusion with 
Professor Robert L.  Park of the University of  Maryland Dept. of 
Physics, who is also a spokesman for the American Physical Society.

This program was kindly arranged by Michael Shermer, editor of The 
Skeptic Magazine. Michael Shermer is the host of SCIENCE TALK on KPCC, 
89.3 FM, the  NPR affiliate for Southern California, from 6:00-7:00pm 
Wednesdays, PST. This  is drive-time Los Angeles and the radio station 
has a large and loyal following. 

The  show will be conducted  by telephone link up, with Eugene Mallove in 
New Hampshire and Robert Park  in Maryland. Michael Shermer and  his 
co-host Larry Mantle will moderate. 

Michael  Shermer described the show to Eugene Mallove in a recent e-mail: 
"It is a very conservative show (no shouting, etc.) and the format is 
what we call "intelligent talk." We have a  million listeners sitting in 
their automobiles stuck in traffic, so we get some great car-phone calls 
(it is a call-in show). We'll do the first half  hour or so with just 
discussing cold fusion and other forms of energy and  then go to the 
phones. There are no commercials (this is NPR) and just a couple of 
traffic and news breaks, so there is plenty of time for thoughtful 
discussion (i.e., we don't need to have just sound bites)."

This will be an excellent opportunity for those who are interested in the 
cold fusion controversy to listen to two quite opposite viewpoints on the 
significance of data that are being reported by scientists world-wide in 
what has come to be known as the cold fusion or low-energy nuclear 
reaction (LENR) field.

I look forward to an open discussion with Dr. Park of the scientific 
evidence, theories, and the history, and the socio-political dynamics of 
this field.

Sincerely,

Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief
Infinite Energy Magazine
Cold Fusion Technology, Inc.
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Ph:  603-228-4516
Fax: 603-224-5975

editor infinite-energy.com
www.infinite-energy.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 21:46:45 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA01434;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:41:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:41:14 -0700
Message-ID: <37842BD8.96D370CE ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 22:41:51 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: A Blizzard of Nonsense?
References: <v01530500b3a809795ab9 [12.21.211.141]> <v04011701b3a96218c564@[207.8.127.78]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Scgck1.0.GM.gl2Xt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28962
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:

> >
> >I agree with your approach, Horace.  Creative ideas are needed and a
> >variety of
> >experimental approaches are essential.  Indeed, I can think of dozens of
> >methods
> >and possible variables needing study.  However, this field has several unique
> >problems.  We do not understand the basic mechanism and we do not have
> >funding to
> >try every idea.  Therefore, the work needs to be focused on what has the
> >greatest
> >chance of success based on past experience.
>
> ***{I don't agree with this at all. "Past experience" means nothing unless
> an attempt has been made to analyze it in a way that reveals hidden
> patterns. It is only *after* such a pattern has been detected that one can
> begin to get an idea where the probabilities of success lie, and in the
> endeavor to detect such a pattern, an outsider is just as capable of
> identifying the elusive commonality as is the person with "experience." If
> we generously assume, for example, that Ed Storms is the source of 1% of
> the data, and other researchers are the source of 99%, then if Ed Storms is
> going to be the one to find the elusive commonality which links these
> experiments together, his "advantage" over an outsider who originated 0% of
> the data and relies 100% on external sources is too slight to mention.
> Worse, Ed Storms' immersion in one specific area may blind him to the
> importance of the approaches pursued by others, thereby *preventing* him
> from seriously examining crucial information which would support a solution
> to the connundrum posed by these experiments. Bottom line: you overestimate
> the importance of "experience" and, as a consequence, you underestimate the
> potential contributions of those who approach this field from what is
> primarily a theoretical perspective. --Mitchell Jones}***

Well. Mitchell, I see that we occupy two different realities.  Of course, past
experience includes an analysis of its meaning.  This issue is trivial and is not
worth debating because we completely agree.  On the other hand, experience does
count.  Such experience can take many forms including direct experimental study,
a complete examination of other people's work, and many years of experience in
science. While everyone is blind to some extent, some people are more blind than
others.  The problem is finding a way to share that part of reality we each see
in order to create a more complete picture.  I have no problem in attempting this
process provided the reality being offered is presented in a way which is
susceptible to analysis.  In addition, the other person must be willing to accept
some ideas for the sake of argument and make a good faith effort to arrive at an
understanding.  Simply saying you don't believe cold fusion, or what ever, is
real because I have not shot down all of your explanations is not the way to get
the job done.

>  In addition, amateur efforts usually
> >are done without knowledge or control of important variables.
>
> ***{Whereas the professionals have a clear idea of what variables produce
> the effect, right? (That's why Mizuno, for example, has been able to
> quickly and easily explain to Scott how his replication efforts ought to be
> focused, and that's why Scott was immediately successful in replicating the
> effect. :-) --MJ}***

Ignoring your sarcasm, I think most people will agree that professionals know
more than amateurs.  I would not presume to debate astronomy, for example, with a
professional even though I have some opinions on the subject.  This is not to say
that professional know everything, but they certainly have a better background
than someone who just got off the train.  If Mizuno and Scott were in the same
room, seeing the same experiment, I bet the problems would disappear rather
quickly.

>  After all, we have a hard enough time with this problem even when
> >the work is done properly.
>
> ***{This is just the same old song, ten-thousandth verse: "If you can't
> replicate our efforts, it isn't because we have made errors; it's because
> you don't know what you are doing." Well, as I have noted in the past when
> Jed has made similar comments: both possibilities are alive and well, and,
> with the passage of more and more time, the possibility that these
> "results" are simply errors becomes stronger and stronger. --Mitchell
> Jones}***

Here again, we do not share the same value-system.  Of course, the experiments
contain errors, some of which can distract from a clear picture of what is
happening.  However, the studies have been replicated too often by too many
experienced scientists for the basic conclusions to be influenced by error.  Your
failure to acknowledge this simple fact means either you have not studied the
field or you do not want to see what is obvious to people who have done such
study..  Time has no relevance here. You must surely know this is true without my
having to show the many examples of discoveries which took a long time to be
accepted.

>
> >Besides, I see an unpleasant process developing.  A person with time on
> >his hands
> >and an active imagination thinks up all kinds of experiments and models,
> >most of
> >which are nonsense.
>
> ***{If they are nonsense, then shoot them down--politely, of course. That
> is one of the most important functions of a group such as this. And if you
> don't have time to shoot down all the ideas that you perceive to be
> "nonsense," then I say: "Welcome to the club." I, for example, have let
> pass a number of nonsensical ideas put forth by you, due to lack of time,
> and I suspect that I will have occasion to pass over more in the future for
> the same reason. You will not, however, see me complaining about the low
> quality of the ideas here, and suggesting that others should rein in their
> disorderly minds in order to not annoy me. I simply accept the fact that
> others will frequently post things with which I disagree, and if you will
> accept it also, then the blizzard of crackpot ideas which you apparently
> see descending on this group will come to annoy you less and less. --MJ}***

I apologize, I did not mean for you to take this comment personally.  I also
apologize to anyone else who feels restrained in his comments by my statements. I
find many of the suggestions of error sources in experimental work to be very
useful. Many of the people contributing clearly have impressive knowledge and
experience in experimental science.  However, my comment was addressed to other
kinds of suggestions.  Speculations about the nature of the nuclear reaction, for
example, are not useful at this time, especially the shoot from the hip
approach.  You should realize that dozens of theories have been proposed by
people who have taken time to expand on their idea in detail in publications.
This approach is useful because the work has been refined by careful thought and
can be debated by a wide audience.  If you have a good idea, I suggest you do the
same. Until then, you are shooting in the dark at a target no one can see while
hoping to hit the bulls eye by chance alone.

Part of my ill humor is caused by the frustration in not having the support
needed to get the necessary information.  This lack of support comes from the
attitude that the claims are nonsense, an attitude you apparently share.  If this
were a normal field of study, most of the questions would have been answered by
now and your contribution would be based on solid facts, and I would be much
happier.

>
> Later, a professional following careful logic and hard won
> >experience tries one of these ideas and it works.  At this point, the ideaman
> >makes a big point of claiming the idea and the result of the experiment
> >for his
> >own.  In other words, the effort is mainly an ego trip which contributes
> >nothing
> >of value.
>
>  On the other hand, if the ideaman actually tried the experiment using
> >his own money and time, I would have more respect for him and the process.
>
> ***{Many persons who are scientifically inclined have not been able to
> build a lab of their own, usually because more than half of their lifetime
> income has been looted from them and used, in part, to build palatial
> laboratories for politically connected "scientists." If such a "scientist"
> does an experiment using facilities that have been looted from others, he
> gets no respect from me; and the victims from whom the funding was extorted
> do not get my disrespect, either. --MJ}***

Well Mitchell, I see you have a reason to be bitter also.

>  I
> >suggest, only after the field is properly supported will the ideaman be
> >useful.
> >Meanwhile, help in getting such support is more useful than thinking up
> >all kinds
> >of ideas which look ridiculous even to people in the field and make people
> >outside of the field laugh louder.
>
> ***{If you refer to support from government, I suggest that you not hold
> your breath while you wait. A valid "free energy" technology would
> transform the world in ways that the power elite would find very
> threatening, and you will discover that the night of the long knives will
> truly begin on the day that a real proof of this technology threatens to
> emerge. While the response of the power structure to the original
> Pons-Fleischmann announcement was ugly and brutal, it will be nothing by
> comparison to what will happen if someone tries to actually mass market a
> working device. My advice to anyone who contemplates doing so is simple: be
> very, very afraid. --Mitchell Jones}***

Perhaps, but other countries have a need for this technology and will not be
stopped by our local power structure.  What do you think would happen if Japan
discovered the secret and began to sell such power supplies?  Do you think our
government is so stupid as not to have thought of this possibility?  I suggest
your bitterness is blinding you to an obvious threat.  Of course, you might be
right about the stupidity of the power structure.

Regards,

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  7 22:14:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA13686;
	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:09:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:09:46 -0700
Message-ID: <19990708050959.2957.rocketmail web105.yahoomail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 9 (simulated excess heat)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"_fTbu3.0.mL3.QA3Xt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28963
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott,

I like your demonstration of of a simulated excess heat signal in your
calorimeter.

With respect to the compensation of your calorimeter Pout signal by the
formula I provided, the formula is exact if the signal is low-pass filtered
by a single pole in the complex plane, like an RC electrical low pass filter,
which yields a single exponential approach to a new level after a step change
of the input level. Of course, a calorimeter has a more complicated response.
Upon studying your signals, I would say that you have successfully
compensated the largest low frequency pole response of your system. There is
also a faster, higher frequency pole with an e-fold-like time of about 3
minutes that is left over. There is also a very slow response that takes on
the order of half an hour. I suspect that this very slow component results
from heat diffusing into or out of your outer insulation. This is a slow
process, and it is only a small part of your system's total heat capacity. I
have seen this in my own calorimeters. Diffusion is not represented by a
single pole in the complex frequency plane, but by an infinite sum of poles.
It cannot be corrected by a formula of my type.

I think you are overcompensating the main, large, low frequency pole a bit,
maybe by about 10%. This gives the overshoot in your compensated Pout
signals. If you make C in my formula a little smaller, you will eliminate the
overshoot. You will still have a long, uncompensated tail (diffusion)
response, but it will be pretty small, and there will be no overshoot. I
rather fear that, when your signals with the overshoot artifact get
circulated without proper explanation, armchair theoreticians will proclaim
all kinds of strange new phenomena to be present in your data.

Also, if you get rid of the overshoot, then you might be able to pass the
once-compensated signal through the formula again, with a smaller C, and
maybe sharpen up your leading edges even more. There will still be a long,
small diffusion tail.
===
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 04:50:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA08903;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 04:49:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 04:49:33 -0700
Message-ID: <007001bec936$ee6d25a0$1d8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 05:41:12 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"P2O9Z2.0.yA2.D19Xt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28964
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The 200,000 cubic feet of water per second dropping 160-167 ft at Niagara
Falls should have a temperature rise of about 0.215 deg F at the bottom of
the falls.

If it is over this, then  the  dE = h/dt ZPE Extraction due to
atomic/molecular collisions is using Solar Pumping, unlike the
Huffman-Griggs-Potapov pumps that are fossil fuel powered.  :-)

Got a thermometer, Colin?

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 05:08:39 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA14206;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 05:07:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 05:07:11 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: swindon.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:07:06 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi swindon
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Website and paper
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990708130434.10571B-100000 swindon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"cZInU3.0.uT3.kH9Xt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28965
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortex,
I have my paper on Thermo-electric convertors improved and now in web
format. The site may change and the style of the website may change with
better web tactics being used. Just bare with the download and all will go
well.

Go to the link for the paper. Experimental details will be posted, like
a picture of the apparatus.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 05:16:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA17305;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 05:14:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 05:14:21 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: swindon.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:14:16 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi swindon
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Website and paper
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990708130434.10571B-100000 swindon>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990708131340.10571E-100000 swindon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"s42-f3.0.IE4.TO9Xt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28966
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

http://www.city.ac.uk/~remi/Index.htm

On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Cornwall RO wrote:

> Vortex,
> I have my paper on Thermo-electric convertors improved and now in web
> format. The site may change and the style of the website may change with
> better web tactics being used. Just bare with the download and all will go
> well.
> 
> Go to the link for the paper. Experimental details will be posted, like
> a picture of the apparatus.
> Remi.
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 06:31:41 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA00333;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 06:28:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 06:28:33 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990708083038.00ade37c mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 08:30:38 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 9 (simulated excess heat)
In-Reply-To: <19990708050959.2957.rocketmail web105.yahoomail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"blUKk2.0.75.1UAXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28967
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 22:09 7/7/99 -0700, Michael Schaffer wrote:

>I think you are overcompensating the main, large, low frequency pole a bit,
>maybe by about 10%. This gives the overshoot in your compensated Pout
>signals. If you make C in my formula a little smaller, you will eliminate the
>overshoot.

Done! Now, when the power is shut off at the end of the run, you can
clearly see the two additional components you mentioned.  I was determining
C using a least-squares fit and it was trying to fix all three things with
one coefficient.  I had to reduce C from 20 to 16 to get the new plot.

>I
>rather fear that, when your signals with the overshoot artifact get
>circulated without proper explanation, armchair theoreticians will proclaim
>all kinds of strange new phenomena to be present in your data.

Armchair theoreticians,...heaven forbid!  I have stealthily replaced the
old, misleading plot with the new one.

http://www.eden.com/~little/Inc-W/2ndtry/run9.html

>Also, if you get rid of the overshoot, then you might be able to pass the
>once-compensated signal through the formula again, with a smaller C, and
>maybe sharpen up your leading edges even more. There will still be a long,
>small diffusion tail.

An interested exercise which I might undertake some day.  At the moment,
I've satisfied my internal setpoint for data massaging.

Thanks again for your excellent assistance.



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 Jul  8 07:16:07 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA10919;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 07:13:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 07:13:06 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990708100759.00eaed80 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 10:07:59 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 9 (simulated excess heat)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990708083038.00ade37c mail.eden.com>
References: <19990708050959.2957.rocketmail web105.yahoomail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"QPm3d3.0.Og2.o7BXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28968
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:30 AM 7/8/99 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
>At 22:09 7/7/99 -0700, Michael Schaffer wrote:
>
>>I think you are overcompensating the main, large, low frequency pole a bit,
>>maybe by about 10%. This gives the overshoot in your compensated Pout
>>signals. If you make C in my formula a little smaller, you will eliminate
the
>>overshoot.
>
>Done! Now, when the power is shut off at the end of the run, you can
>clearly see the two additional components you mentioned.  I was determining
>C using a least-squares fit and it was trying to fix all three things with
>one coefficient.  I had to reduce C from 20 to 16 to get the new plot.
>
>>I
>>rather fear that, when your signals with the overshoot artifact get
>>circulated without proper explanation, armchair theoreticians will proclaim
>>all kinds of strange new phenomena to be present in your data.
>
>Armchair theoreticians,...heaven forbid!  I have stealthily replaced the
>old, misleading plot with the new one.
>
>http://www.eden.com/~little/Inc-W/2ndtry/run9.html
>
>>Also, if you get rid of the overshoot, then you might be able to pass the
>>once-compensated signal through the formula again, with a smaller C, and
>>maybe sharpen up your leading edges even more. There will still be a long,
>>small diffusion tail.
>
>An interested exercise which I might undertake some day.  At the moment,
>I've satisfied my internal setpoint for data massaging.
>
>Thanks again for your excellent assistance.



  Two points.  First, the control is good but it only demonstrates
heat (not excess heat) during a run. It is insufficient because it
should be compared to a very long baseline study (eg. 8 hours) 
in which is it used without the system active.  Then, with both, you
will see the impact of the gas stream loss upon the system's
sensivitiy and accuracy - and thus precision.

   Second, why modify the output by the transformation without first
obtaining the necessary longterm calibration and background studies,
without the superposition of both the signal and the joule heater?
 With the formula you obscure the measured information which actually
characterizes your system, moving the info into your variable C. 
  Thus, by the transformation without the longterm calibration data
separating signal and control (perhaps you have it elsewhere?),
you appear to be massaging your output data making it difficult to
see clues as to the imperfections of your calorimeter, and the 
activity of your materials. 
   So why would you want to change the output to remove that info?
  [  It makes as much sense as avoiding, or not examining, points in
the operating space that would have maximum likelihood of 
the wanted behavior.  ]


   Have a good day.
      Mitchell Swartz




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 08:19:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA32369;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:18:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:18:49 -0700
Message-Id: <199907081517.LAA22958 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: White elephant for sale to Iran
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:16:06 -0000
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: "Eugene 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: <"SEfLR.0.hv7.P5CXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28969
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP 
news 
report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise 
distributed 
without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Canada's Fusion Lab To Be Dismantled

.c The Associated Press

  
OTTAWA (AP) - Canada's only fusion laboratory, built with an estimated 
$110 
million in public money, is for sale at a bargain price - and Iran is the 
most likely buyer. 

The dismantling of the Canadian Center for Fusion Magnetics at Varennes, 
Quebec, marks the end of Canada's participation in the international 
quest 
for fusion, which many scientists see as the energy source of the future. 

``We have lost our foothold in fusion research,'' said Real Decoste, 
director 
of the center, who confirmed Wednesday that negotiations with the 
Iranians 
are nearing the final stages. 

Decoste said the laboratory was effectively doomed in 1996 when the 
federal 
government pulled out of the project, leaving its partners, including 
several 
agencies of the Quebec government, in disarray. 

Most of the staff, including about 40 researchers and 60 engineers, have 
already dispersed. 

The amount obtained from the sale - if it goes through - will be only a 
fraction of what was originally invested, Decoste said. 

Sean Rowan, a Foreign Affairs Department spokesman, said the sale 
requires 
several types of federal approval, and no export of militarily sensitive 
equipment to Iran will be permitted. He said consideration of the export 
application is in the early stages. 

Murray Stewart, president of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said the 
fusion equipment is incapable of being diverted to military purposes. 
Most of 
the processes involved have been in the public domain for years, he 
added. 

Stewart said Iran has a long-standing, non-military, commercial nuclear 
program and its interest in the project was not surprising. 

AP-NY-07-07-99 2217EDT

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 08:26:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04347;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:25:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:25:34 -0700
Message-ID: <3784C3D6.A9218BD2 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 08:29:27 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>,
        "Eugene F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Mallove &(VS) Park
References: <199907080350.XAA18568 mercury.mv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"En2Ls3.0.p31.kBCXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28970
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 8, 1999

Vortex,

I am glad Gene did a self review of a portion of the KPCC program. The talk
(debate) was getting to be personal with personal bias starting to show up
about the field on both sides.  For most listeners, these details probably
was irrelevent.

With ten years of CF work,  less than hour's worth of moderated differences
does not do the field justice. The debate was to highlight the differences
between Gene's belief in cf and Park's continuing disbelief in cf. The final
remark by Park was the agreement that an acceptable experimental evidence is
what would make CF acceptable. And he seems to deny all evidence produced so
far as acceptable.

The screened callers (3) covered:
1. Another futurist (Crim?) beside Clarke made a cold fusion prediction in
1979 and also referred to an article covering the 1998 APS presentation by
Russ George on his cf sonofusion results.

Asked about the George's work, Park said he was familiar with the work but
made no additional related comments. Nothing from Mallove. Arthur Clarke's
belief toward cf was minimized by Park.

2. A Case-Western Reserve graduate claims to have worked, with her class, on
a cold-fusion replication effort at one time without results. Gene recognized
the instructor there as friends with Bokris, a successful CFer.

3. A caller, through the moderater, asked about the current status of Pons
and Fleischmann.
Fleischmann is back  in England and a cf consultant. Pon's in France working
in science.

I used to be in a troop "Drum & Bugle Corp" in the Boy Scouts. And Gene
struck me as a one man drum & bugle corp tooting and banging the drum  music
for the CF cause. I got tired of playing the same music in festival parades
hearing the same notes time after time. But you realize that each time the
street audience is different and for them, it is the first time. So as I
listen to these public programs covering CF, I sympathise Gene for these
efforts he is undertaking. He is trying to repair and correct the damage done
to the cf effort in the beginning and promote the field at the same time. I
also realize he has some tendency to fall into ruts as I listen. Park has
remained in the rut he dug himself since 1989 and never tried to climb out.
Oh well, nobody's perfect.

Shermer, the sociologist-skeptic Science program segment moderator, tried to
buttress Park's skeptical remarks with his own but Gene parried them ok. He
kind of reminds you of the late(on the Vortex) Rich Murray. I kinda of gotten
the impression that he(his office is nearby) and his Cal-Tech CF skeptics
hatched this program. Larry Mantle, the overall program moderator, kept the
pace moving along.

> I am glad that the Mallove-Park debate on KPPC in LA came and went - all
> one-hour's worth this evening. Park showed his true nature ‹ at one point
> blatantly stating that I was "fired" from MIT for promoting a cold fusion
> meeting on hydrons -- Fred Mayer's cold fusion theory and lecture at MIT
> in 1991. The record is absolutely clear that I resigned in protest of
> numerous MIT-related anti-cold fusion scandals, including the MIT PFC
> data-fudging fraud and the various unethical decptions by PFC Ronald
> Parker. Park knows that very well, but he prefers to make up stories.  I
> challenged this blatant Park Big Lie on air in no uncertain terms,
> referencing the 55-page report that I did in Inifinite Energy #24

<snip>

> We audio-taped the program and KPCC will send me a tape as back up.

This part isn't quite clear: Is this in reference my recording (which I did
and you requested a copy a while back) or from somewhere else? Let me know. I
could save a lot of postage today if you already have it.

-AK-



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 08:54:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA15230;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:53:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:53:38 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19990708085044.009f9530 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 08:53:23 -0700
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <007001bec936$ee6d25a0$1d8f85ce default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"rVHQO2.0.tj3.2cCXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28971
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Beautiful example of how easy it is to overlook important, significant
details.  The heating due to gravitational action is small by comparison to
the cooling due to evaporative cooling on the way down.

On a hot day, along the rivers in the mountains where I live, the
temperature can be warm in one branch of a river, and too freezing to get
in on another branch.  The difference, waterfalls.  The temperature
difference on two otherwise equivalent rivers can easlily be 20 degrees F.

rt



At 05:41 AM 7/8/99 -0600, you wrote:
>The 200,000 cubic feet of water per second dropping 160-167 ft at Niagara
>Falls should have a temperature rise of about 0.215 deg F at the bottom of
>the falls.
>
>If it is over this, then  the  dE = h/dt ZPE Extraction due to
>atomic/molecular collisions is using Solar Pumping, unlike the
>Huffman-Griggs-Potapov pumps that are fossil fuel powered.  :-)
>
>Got a thermometer, Colin?
>
>Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 09:09:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA20322;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:08:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:08:03 -0700
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0215B256 XCH-CPC-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: PLEC: Run 9 (simulated excess heat)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:07:53 -0700 
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"rsVud2.0.Oz4.ZpCXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28972
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Michael, Scott
	This formula is a high pass filter, and as such passes high
frequency noise, in fact it amplifies it. Usually one works such
compensation with both a zero and a higher frequency pole, to constrain the
noise.  F(s) = (1+t1*s)/(1+t2*s) with 
t1 > t2, and s=sqrt(-1)*2*pi*f. t1 is the time constant which removes your
fundamental pole, and t2 is a time constant to roll off your tramnsfer
function F(s) at high freqencies.

Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Michael Schaffer[SMTP:schaffermj yahoo.com]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Wednesday, July 07, 1999 10:09 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: PLEC: Run 9 (simulated excess heat)
> 
> Scott,
> 
> I like your demonstration of of a simulated excess heat signal in your
> calorimeter.
> 
> With respect to the compensation of your calorimeter Pout signal by the
> formula I provided, the formula is exact if the signal is low-pass
> filtered
> by a single pole in the complex plane, like an RC electrical low pass
> filter,
> which yields a single exponential approach to a new level after a step
> change
> of the input level. Of course, a calorimeter has a more complicated
> response.
> Upon studying your signals, I would say that you have successfully
> compensated the largest low frequency pole response of your system. There
> is
> also a faster, higher frequency pole with an e-fold-like time of about 3
> minutes that is left over. There is also a very slow response that takes
> on
> the order of half an hour. I suspect that this very slow component results
> from heat diffusing into or out of your outer insulation. This is a slow
> process, and it is only a small part of your system's total heat capacity.
> I
> have seen this in my own calorimeters. Diffusion is not represented by a
> single pole in the complex frequency plane, but by an infinite sum of
> poles.
> It cannot be corrected by a formula of my type.
> 
> I think you are overcompensating the main, large, low frequency pole a
> bit,
> maybe by about 10%. This gives the overshoot in your compensated Pout
> signals. If you make C in my formula a little smaller, you will eliminate
> the
> overshoot. You will still have a long, uncompensated tail (diffusion)
> response, but it will be pretty small, and there will be no overshoot. I
> rather fear that, when your signals with the overshoot artifact get
> circulated without proper explanation, armchair theoreticians will
> proclaim
> all kinds of strange new phenomena to be present in your data.
> 
> Also, if you get rid of the overshoot, then you might be able to pass the
> once-compensated signal through the formula again, with a smaller C, and
> maybe sharpen up your leading edges even more. There will still be a long,
> small diffusion tail.
> ===
> Michael J. Schaffer
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 09:18:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA22956;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:13:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:13:42 -0700
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: "Vortex" <vortex-l mail.eskimo.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:12:55 -0400
Message-ID: <000201bec95c$bce12b00$370a16cf computer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Resent-Message-ID: <"lXkxy.0.bc5.suCXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Unidentified subject!
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28973
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vo,

I've heard the interview and Gene is not exaggerating.

One caller very pleasantly surprised us by stating that the tobacco industry
had no trouble coming up with lots of scientists to state that their
products are safe, so why wouldn't the energy industry, which is much more
pervasive and powerful, do the same thing?  The timing of that comment was
perfect.  Another caller stated that she had done experimental CF work and
found no evidence, which was the only really 'negative' call from our
perspective.

The radio hosts, as usual, had done little in the way of mental preparation.
For instance, Park's blatant lie about Mallove's being fired from MIT should
have been shot down by the host, but it seems the host did not read IE #24,
which meticulously documents Gene's attempts to bring about an official
review of the experiment and circumstances surround it that weighed so
heavily against Fleischman and Pons, before resigning in protest.  That
issue even has articles by other authors about the resignation.

Preparing for this debate by reviewing literature or other factual evidence
was pointless.  Instead, for practice, Gene should have been faced with
insinuating cynics, whose method consisted of the 'hint and run' (to borrow
McKubre's phrase) way of creating enough doubt to cause an unknowledgable
audience to be unable to reach any conclusion.

Park's only points were made when he ridiculed Gene for having made failed
predictions, to which he could respond that such predictions could have come
true if the support were there.  Blame for its absense could be squarely
placed on pathological skeptics like Park.

Ed Wall

New Energy Research Laboratory
http://www.infinite-energy.com   email:ewall infinite-energy.com
Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Bow, NH 03302-2816
(603) 226-4822   fax 224-5975

"It is scientific only to say what's more likely and less likely and not to
be proving all the time possible and impossible."
Richard Feynman, 1964

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 09:38:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA32544;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:37:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:37:22 -0700
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Mallove &(VS) Park
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:36:47 -0400
Message-ID: <000401bec960$124afbe0$370a16cf computer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
In-Reply-To: <3784C3D6.A9218BD2 ix.netcom.com>
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZbNf02.0.Jy7.1FDXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28974
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Aki,

> 
> This part isn't quite clear: Is this in reference my recording 
> (which I did
> and you requested a copy a while back) or from somewhere else? 
> Let me know. I
> could save a lot of postage today if you already have it.
> 
I made a tape.  Thanks anyway.

Ed Wall

New Energy Research Laboratory
http://www.infinite-energy.com   email:ewall infinite-energy.com
Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Bow, NH 03302-2816
(603) 226-4822   fax 224-5975 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 11:42:51 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA25009;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3aa7452a6a3 [207.8.127.30]>
In-Reply-To: <37842BD8.96D370CE ix.netcom.com>
References: <v01530500b3a809795ab9 [12.21.211.141]>
 <v04011701b3a96218c564 [207.8.127.78]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:32:04 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: A Blizzard of Nonsense?
Resent-Message-ID: <"bYDSI1.0.f66.P-EXt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28975
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I agree with your approach, Horace.  Creative ideas are needed and a
>> >variety of
>> >experimental approaches are essential.  Indeed, I can think of dozens of
>> >methods
>> >and possible variables needing study.  However, this field has several
>>unique
>> >problems.  We do not understand the basic mechanism and we do not have
>> >funding to
>> >try every idea.  Therefore, the work needs to be focused on what has the
>> >greatest
>> >chance of success based on past experience.
>>
>> ***{I don't agree with this at all. "Past experience" means nothing unless
>> an attempt has been made to analyze it in a way that reveals hidden
>> patterns. It is only *after* such a pattern has been detected that one can
>> begin to get an idea where the probabilities of success lie, and in the
>> endeavor to detect such a pattern, an outsider is just as capable of
>> identifying the elusive commonality as is the person with "experience." If
>> we generously assume, for example, that Ed Storms is the source of 1% of
>> the data, and other researchers are the source of 99%, then if Ed Storms is
>> going to be the one to find the elusive commonality which links these
>> experiments together, his "advantage" over an outsider who originated 0% of
>> the data and relies 100% on external sources is too slight to mention.
>> Worse, Ed Storms' immersion in one specific area may blind him to the
>> importance of the approaches pursued by others, thereby *preventing* him
>> from seriously examining crucial information which would support a solution
>> to the connundrum posed by these experiments. Bottom line: you overestimate
>> the importance of "experience" and, as a consequence, you underestimate the
>> potential contributions of those who approach this field from what is
>> primarily a theoretical perspective. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>Well. Mitchell, I see that we occupy two different realities.  Of course, past
>experience includes an analysis of its meaning.  This issue is trivial and
>is not
>worth debating because we completely agree.  On the other hand, experience
>does
>count.  Such experience can take many forms including direct experimental
>study,
>a complete examination of other people's work, and many years of experience in
>science.

***{Ed, my objection to your point-of-view has been, in essence, an
objection to your perceived elitism--that is, to the notion, which you have
repeatedly conveyed, that only those persons who are experienced *in the
field of CF research* are capable of competently criticising that research.
In other words, I have developed the distinct impression, based on your
repeated comments in many posts, that you were referring to people such as
yourself, who have done a lot of lab work in the "cold fusion" area, when
you used the term "experienced," and it was with that understanding in mind
that I challenged your point-of-view. Now, however, you have responded by
broadening your usage of the term "experienced" to include everyone who is
intellectually capable of doing such work, if they choose to, and, in the
process, you have abandoned the premise on which my criticism was based. In
response I can only say, "Congratulations and welcome aboard!" --Mitchell
Jones}***

 While everyone is blind to some extent, some people are more blind than
>others.  The problem is finding a way to share that part of reality we
>each see
>in order to create a more complete picture.  I have no problem in
>attempting this
>process provided the reality being offered is presented in a way which is
>susceptible to analysis.  In addition, the other person must be willing to
>accept
>some ideas for the sake of argument and make a good faith effort to arrive
>at an
>understanding.  Simply saying you don't believe cold fusion, or what ever, is
>real because I have not shot down all of your explanations is not the way
>to get
>the job done.

***{Yes, of course: the problem you are now describing is the problem of
dealing with idiots, rather than with persons who "lack experience in the
field." Indeed, there are idiots *in* the field--that is, people who are
hidebound in their views and who do not, in your words, make "a good faith
effort to arrive at an understanding." An idiot is simply a person who
makes no discernable effort to argue from strength. If he states a false
view and provokes a lengthy argument in which his position is thoroughly
demolished, there is no effect. A day, or a week, or a month later, if the
topic comes up again, the same imbecilic nonsense will come pouring forth
from his mouth again. Worse, he will in all likelihood exhibit little or no
recollection of the line of reasoning that was used to demolish his
position in the past, because he will have studiously avoided thinking
about the topic in the interim.

The proper approach--the cure for idiocy, as it were--is for a person to
take note of the fact that he is having difficulty defending one of his
beliefs, and to devote serious effort to correcting that state of affairs.
This means that, after the conversation is over, he should think about the
arguments he could not refute, rather than pushing them out of his mind and
forgetting them. It means that, as part of such after-the-fact research, he
should home in on potential weaknesses in those arguments and attempt to
improve his ability to deal with them. And it means, subsequent to such
efforts, that he should deliberately seek out the person or persons who
demolished his position earlier, to see if they can do so again, rather
than avoiding such persons. And, most crucially, if despite serious efforts
to correct deficiencies in his position, he just gets shot down again, then
he should take proper note of that state of affairs by reversing his
position and beginning to argue the other way. (After all, if, subsequent
to such a reversal, he encounters someone who can demolish his new
position, he can always switch back again. Thus changing an opinion is
*not* the end of the world.) In short, if people would simply get in the
habit of arguing from strength, they would cease to be idiots. Indeed, the
notion of an idiot who argues from strength is a contradiction in terms.
(Of course, the true idiot *cannot* argue from strength, because his
highest priority is not finding the truth, but fitting in with some group
of slobbering half-wits.)

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>  In addition, amateur efforts usually
>> >are done without knowledge or control of important variables.
>>
>> ***{Whereas the professionals have a clear idea of what variables produce
>> the effect, right? (That's why Mizuno, for example, has been able to
>> quickly and easily explain to Scott how his replication efforts ought to be
>> focused, and that's why Scott was immediately successful in replicating the
>> effect. :-) --MJ}***
>
>Ignoring your sarcasm, I think most people will agree that professionals know
>more than amateurs.

***{Sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. That's why a person who
is interested in determining the truth will reject the argument from
authority, and seek to determine which side can best defend its position.
Once he knows which side has the stronger arguments, *that* should be the
side which, when the topic comes up again, he seeks to defend. As an
illustration of the process, let me describe an unpleasant experience that
I had back during my chess-playing days. It seems that I had driven some
500 miles to play in a chess tournament, and in the first round I was
paired with a fellow who had a much lower rating. Thus I expected to have
an easy time of it, despite the fact that he had the white pieces and,
consequently, the first move. The game began routinely: 1. d4  d5. But then
he played a move I had never seen: 2. e4. Since I did not expect much from
the guy, I didn't hesitate, playing 2. ... dxe4, accepting the free pawn.
He then played 3. f3, attacking my "free" pawn, so I responded with 3. ...
exf3. He responded with 4. Nxf3, and at that point I noticed that he had a
huge lead in development and control of the center--a *lot* of compensation
for the "free" pawn. To make a long story short, over the next 15 moves or
so, this guy annihilated me. He literally blew me off of the board. His
positional advantage grew rapidly, becoming overwhelming, and ended in a
spectacular tactical display. Result: I resigned in less than 20 moves,
beaten by a player whose rating was several hundred points less than mine.
Not being an idiot, however, I did *not* force the experience out of
consciousness. Instead, I did research, and discovered that the odd line he
had played was an obscure variation called the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.
Result: I "booked up" on the line and decided that I liked it so much I
would start playing it myself. Result: I discovered that the line was in
keeping with my psychology, and, partially due to playing it, my own rating
subsequently rose some 300 points. Bottom line: no group has a monopoly on
truth, whether it be "professionals" or "chessplayers with higher ratings"
or "professors" or "the educated" or anyone else. Truth is where you find
it, and the only real qualifications anyone has to state an opinion are the
arguments by which he supports that opinion. --Mitchell Jones}***


I would not presume to debate astronomy, for example, with a
>professional even though I have some opinions on the subject.  This is not
>to say
>that professional know everything, but they certainly have a better background
>than someone who just got off the train.

***{Then make them prove it. If you lose the argument, you learn. What's
wrong with that? (Remember: "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but
words will never hurt you." :-) --MJ}***

  If Mizuno and Scott were in the same
>room, seeing the same experiment, I bet the problems would disappear rather
>quickly.

***{Maybe, but if they did, I'll bet that the reason would be that Scott
found an error in Mizuno's protocol. --MJ}***

>
>>  After all, we have a hard enough time with this problem even when
>> >the work is done properly.
>>
>> ***{This is just the same old song, ten-thousandth verse: "If you can't
>> replicate our efforts, it isn't because we have made errors; it's because
>> you don't know what you are doing." Well, as I have noted in the past when
>> Jed has made similar comments: both possibilities are alive and well, and,
>> with the passage of more and more time, the possibility that these
>> "results" are simply errors becomes stronger and stronger. --Mitchell
>> Jones}***
>
>Here again, we do not share the same value-system.  Of course, the experiments
>contain errors, some of which can distract from a clear picture of what is
>happening.  However, the studies have been replicated too often by too many
>experienced scientists for the basic conclusions to be influenced by error.

***{The problem, Ed, is that all of the positive results are arguable, and
I do *not* mean that they are merely subject to "nit picking." For example,
all of the electrolysis experiments, and also the mechanical cavitation
devices (e.g., Griggs) are vulnerable to the undermeasurement of input
power due to the presence of jagged waveforms in the input, and, so far as
I can determine, *none* of the supposed "professionals" who are conducting
such studies has bothered to focus his efforts on such matters. They appear
to not know the sampling rates and widths of their meters, or the
algorithms used to calculate power, and they seldom bother to place an
oscilloscope on their inputs. If you deny this, then I challenge you to
cite a single paper exhibiting clear "over unity," where the researcher
goes into detail about such matters. Frankly, I don't think you can do it.
Instead, when such matters are brought up, the response is that we should
merely trust the instruments. After all, so the argument goes, there are
hundreds of researchers making these sorts of claims, and there is great
variation in the instruments used. Therefore, by a process of elimination,
the instruments cannot be the source of the problem. Unfortunately, (1) we
live in a "monkey see-monkey do world," in which the shameless copying of
designs is routine, and thus the presence of different brand names on
instruments does *not* imply that there will be significant differences in
terms of what is going on inside, and (2) most of these experimenters are
usually *not* "over unity," which gives rise to the suspicion that
occasional errors are being touted as proof of a nonexistent effect.
--Mitchell Jones}***

   Your
>failure to acknowledge this simple fact means either you have not studied the
>field or you do not want to see what is obvious to people who have done such
>study..  Time has no relevance here.

***{Time is very relevant. At some point, given enough time, there should
be some replicable experiments producing clear "over unity" effects, if the
phenomenon is real. Granted, commercialization and widespread use can be
delayed for decades, or restricted to "politically correct" niche markets.
(Nuclear fission, for example, would have yielded small scale, household
nuclear power plants thirty years ago, under capitalism, and the market
which you "cold fusion" guys are seeking to serve would already be taken.
Under fascism, however, we have all been kept dependent on the massive,
wasteful, government controlled power grid, and hoping to be rescued from
our dependency by valiant researchers into "cold fusion.") Nevertheless,
despite the government's proven ability to kill or control an emergent
technology, they cannot prevent a proof of concept. Only reality can do
that. (If the government had banned nuclear power outright from the
beginning, as various drooling imbeciles have long advocated, they would by
that very act have acknowledged that the proof of concept has already been
accomplished.) --Mitchell Jones}***

You must surely know this is true without my
>having to show the many examples of discoveries which took a long time to be
>accepted.

***{As noted aboved, under fascism commercialization can be limited or
banned altogether. Preventing a proof of concept, however, is something
else again. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>
>> >Besides, I see an unpleasant process developing.  A person with time on
>> >his hands
>> >and an active imagination thinks up all kinds of experiments and models,
>> >most of
>> >which are nonsense.
>>
>> ***{If they are nonsense, then shoot them down--politely, of course. That
>> is one of the most important functions of a group such as this. And if you
>> don't have time to shoot down all the ideas that you perceive to be
>> "nonsense," then I say: "Welcome to the club." I, for example, have let
>> pass a number of nonsensical ideas put forth by you, due to lack of time,
>> and I suspect that I will have occasion to pass over more in the future for
>> the same reason. You will not, however, see me complaining about the low
>> quality of the ideas here, and suggesting that others should rein in their
>> disorderly minds in order to not annoy me. I simply accept the fact that
>> others will frequently post things with which I disagree, and if you will
>> accept it also, then the blizzard of crackpot ideas which you apparently
>> see descending on this group will come to annoy you less and less. --MJ}***
>
>I apologize, I did not mean for you to take this comment personally.

***{Ed, I didn't take it personally. Do not mistake my forceful manner of
presentation for irritation or anger. You strike me as a gentle soul who is
not used to the rough and tumble of usenet debate, or even to the somewhat
milder form that prevails here on vortex, and so you are perceiving that
you have given offense where none has been taken. For the record, I
consider you to be a gentleman in every respect, and do not feel that you
have been out of line in anything you have said. I simply disagree here and
there, that's all. (I also agree with much that you say, as it happens; but
it would be boring to talk about that. :-) --MJ}***

 I also
>apologize to anyone else who feels restrained in his comments by my
>statements. I
>find many of the suggestions of error sources in experimental work to be very
>useful. Many of the people contributing clearly have impressive knowledge and
>experience in experimental science.  However, my comment was addressed to
>other
>kinds of suggestions.  Speculations about the nature of the nuclear
>reaction, for
>example, are not useful at this time, especially the shoot from the hip
>approach.  You should realize that dozens of theories have been proposed by
>people who have taken time to expand on their idea in detail in publications.
>This approach is useful because the work has been refined by careful
>thought and
>can be debated by a wide audience.  If you have a good idea, I suggest you
>do the
>same. Until then, you are shooting in the dark at a target no one can see
>while
>hoping to hit the bulls eye by chance alone.

***{You paint with too broad a brush here. As I noted earlier, I think your
difficulty arises from lack of usenet experience. You need to recognize
that this is a disorderly medium in which ideas of varied quality are mixed
together, and, as a consequence, you need to carefully pick and choose who,
and to what, you respond. Moreover, for your own peace of mind, you need to
accept the presence of the idiots. They, like the truth, are "out there,"
and there isn't much that you, or I, can do about it. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Part of my ill humor is caused by the frustration in not having the support
>needed to get the necessary information.  This lack of support comes from the
>attitude that the claims are nonsense, an attitude you apparently share.

***{No. As I have said repeatedly, I am presently arguing against the "cold
fusion" claims because I regard those arguments as the stronger. If that
state of affairs changes, I will happily reverse my position and begin to
argue for them again, as I have done in the past. If you will read my
comments about the Russ George paper on sci.physics.fusion, for example,
you will discover that I have *not* impugned his intelligence or the
quality of his experimental design. In fact, I have explicitly disagreed
with those (e.g., Richard Schultz) who have done so. --Mitchell Jones}***

 If this
>were a normal field of study, most of the questions would have been
>answered by
>now and your contribution would be based on solid facts, and I would be much
>happier.

***{I am open to any facts or logic that you may care to supply. Please
recognize, however, that so long as they remain unsupplied, my opinions
will remain unaffected. (And, no, I am not saying you are obligated to
supply me with any information whatsoever. All I am saying is that my
opinions are based on arguments that I have seen in the light of day, not
on arguments that someone claims to have in his closet. :-) --MJ}***

>
>>
>> Later, a professional following careful logic and hard won
>> >experience tries one of these ideas and it works.  At this point, the
>>ideaman
>> >makes a big point of claiming the idea and the result of the experiment
>> >for his
>> >own.  In other words, the effort is mainly an ego trip which contributes
>> >nothing
>> >of value.
>>
>>  On the other hand, if the ideaman actually tried the experiment using
>> >his own money and time, I would have more respect for him and the process.
>>
>> ***{Many persons who are scientifically inclined have not been able to
>> build a lab of their own, usually because more than half of their lifetime
>> income has been looted from them and used, in part, to build palatial
>> laboratories for politically connected "scientists." If such a "scientist"
>> does an experiment using facilities that have been looted from others, he
>> gets no respect from me; and the victims from whom the funding was extorted
>> do not get my disrespect, either. --MJ}***
>
>Well Mitchell, I see you have a reason to be bitter also.

***{It's not just me, Ed. Every person who is alive today has reason to
regret the fact that he is living under fascism, because if we had spent
our lives under capitalism, the average wealth and average life expectancy
would be vastly greater by now. For the present population, in fact, the
fascists will be the murderers of virtually everyone, including themselves.
They will do this by slowing progress, ostensibly for our benefit or on
allegedly "moral" grounds, while the true purpose is to further their own
narrow, parasitic interests. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>  I
>> >suggest, only after the field is properly supported will the ideaman be
>> >useful.
>> >Meanwhile, help in getting such support is more useful than thinking up
>> >all kinds
>> >of ideas which look ridiculous even to people in the field and make people
>> >outside of the field laugh louder.
>>
>> ***{If you refer to support from government, I suggest that you not hold
>> your breath while you wait. A valid "free energy" technology would
>> transform the world in ways that the power elite would find very
>> threatening, and you will discover that the night of the long knives will
>> truly begin on the day that a real proof of this technology threatens to
>> emerge. While the response of the power structure to the original
>> Pons-Fleischmann announcement was ugly and brutal, it will be nothing by
>> comparison to what will happen if someone tries to actually mass market a
>> working device. My advice to anyone who contemplates doing so is simple: be
>> very, very afraid. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>Perhaps, but other countries have a need for this technology and will not be
>stopped by our local power structure.  What do you think would happen if Japan
>discovered the secret and began to sell such power supplies?  Do you think our
>government is so stupid as not to have thought of this possibility?  I suggest
>your bitterness is blinding you to an obvious threat.  Of course, you might be
>right about the stupidity of the power structure.

***{Fear results when a danger is recognized. But fear only stops cowards
from acting. Non-cowards respond by calculating a way to achieve their
goals without succumbing to the threat. And that's what anyone who comes up
with a working "cold fusion" device (or a household fission power plant,
for that matter) should do. If marketing such a device requires emigrating
to a nation where the fascists are less threatening--e.g., New Zeland--then
do it, and develop your technology there. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 12:43:12 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA04553;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:41:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:41:38 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990708153632.010e35d0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 15:36:32 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Mallove &(VS) Park - Sounds of pathologic skepticism
In-Reply-To: <3784C3D6.A9218BD2 ix.netcom.com>
References: <199907080350.XAA18568 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA04516
Resent-Message-ID: <"QTpmk3.0.u61.oxFXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28976
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 




At 08:29 AM 7/8/99 -0700, Akira Kawasaki wrote:
>I am glad Gene did a self review of a portion of the KPCC program. The talk
>(debate) was getting to be personal with personal bias starting to show up
>about the field on both sides.  For most listeners, these details probably
>was irrelevent.
>
>With ten years of CF work,  less than hour's worth of moderated differences
>does not do the field justice. The debate was to highlight the differences
>between Gene's belief in cf and Park's continuing disbelief in cf. The final
>remark by Park was the agreement that an acceptable experimental evidence is
>what would make CF acceptable. And he seems to deny all evidence produced so
>far as acceptable.


   Thank you, Akira!

   Pathological skeptics routinely dismiss evidence 
through a hand-waving denial rather than address it scientifically. 

  Similarly, rather than examine what the nature of Bremsstrahlung 
would actually be, the pathological skeptic (often lazy 'physicists' 
and other peanut gallery wanna-bees) often merely quote the "graduate 
student problem".  
  These are fabricated straw-man issues used with the 
ostrich-like denials.  Signs of pathologic skepticism.


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

  Gene correctly wrote:
>> I am glad that the Mallove-Park debate on KPPC in LA came and went - all
>> one-hour's worth this evening. Park showed his true nature ‹ at one point
>> blatantly stating that I was "fired" from MIT for promoting a cold fusion
>> meeting on hydrons -- Fred Mayer's cold fusion theory and lecture at MIT
>> in 1991. The record is absolutely clear that I resigned in protest of
>> numerous MIT-related anti-cold fusion scandals, including the MIT PFC
>> data-fudging fraud and the various unethical decptions by PFC Ronald
>> Parker. Park knows that very well, but he prefers to make up stories.  I
>> challenged this blatant Park Big Lie on air in no uncertain terms,
>> referencing the 55-page report that I did in Inifinite Energy #24
><snip>

   Gene is correct, and his resignation  was witnessed by 
possibly ~hundred people. I was at the meeting at MIT - 
when and where Gene resigned in protest before scores of 
individuals in attendance.


  Implication:
   Another sign of pathological skepticism are these 
false statements and ad hominem -- in an attempt to divert 
attention from the fact that cold fusion is simply another 
scientific and engineering field.

      Mitchell Swartz






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 12:55:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA09372;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:54:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:54:09 -0700
Message-ID: <378502B3.860F8938 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 12:57:39 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>,
        "Eugene F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>,
        Ed Wall <ewall infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Mallove &(VS) Park
References: <000401bec960$124afbe0$370a16cf computer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"63W5T.0.MI2.X7GXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28977
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 8, 1999

Vortex,

Ed, in answering for Mallove, says thanks anyway, we got the recording
ourselves.
Fine, next time Gene himself should have the courtesy to decline a copy
he requested before I have to suspect, even as a personal use copy was
being made, that maybe he does not need it by his vortex post. Common
courtesy? Also the copy was for his personal use, not his company where
you work.
Now as for commercial or public use of the recording, it follows by laws
that this be cleared with the copyright owners whoever they are.

-AK-

Ed Wall wrote:

> > This part isn't quite clear: Is this in reference my recording
> > (which I did
> > and you requested a copy a while back) or from somewhere else?
> > Let me know. I
> > could save a lot of postage today if you already have it.
> >
> I made a tape.  Thanks anyway.
>
> Ed Wall
>
> New Energy Research Laboratory
> http://www.infinite-energy.com   email:ewall infinite-energy.com
> Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Bow, NH 03302-2816
> (603) 226-4822   fax 224-5975



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 13:36:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA24029;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:32:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:32:50 -0700
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Mallove &(VS) Park
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:32:17 -0400
Message-ID: <000801bec980$f850e300$370a16cf computer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
In-Reply-To: <378502B3.860F8938 ix.netcom.com>
Resent-Message-ID: <"k1aum1.0.It5.ohGXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28978
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Akira,

Gene was not aware that we had the ability to record the phone conversation
until last night.  The legal ownership should be less in doubt than a
recording made off the air, as you planned to do, because this was made by a
party to a phone conversation.  The 'ownership' of the conversation, common
sense would dictate, would equally belong to the parties who shared it.  If
he owns it, I believe he can use it for his corporate purposes, providing he
does not infringe on NPR's or whoever's business of selling tapes by
marketing his own.

The radio station certainly has no misgivings about us having a tape.  They
are sending us a complimentary copy.

Ed Wall

New Energy Research Laboratory
http://www.infinite-energy.com   email:ewall infinite-energy.com
Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Bow, NH 03302-2816
(603) 226-4822   fax 224-5975

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akira Kawasaki [mailto:aki ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 3:58 PM
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com; Eugene F. Mallove; Ed Wall
> Subject: Re: Mallove &(VS) Park
>
>
> July 8, 1999
>
> Vortex,
>
> Ed, in answering for Mallove, says thanks anyway, we got the recording
> ourselves.
> Fine, next time Gene himself should have the courtesy to decline a copy
> he requested before I have to suspect, even as a personal use copy was
> being made, that maybe he does not need it by his vortex post. Common
> courtesy? Also the copy was for his personal use, not his company where
> you work.
> Now as for commercial or public use of the recording, it follows by laws
> that this be cleared with the copyright owners whoever they are.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 19:57:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA25878;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:54:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:54:57 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990709115119.006956a4 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 11:51:19 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: A Blizzard of Nonsense?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"bXRa-1.0.GK6.1IMXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28979
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

REALITY CHECK: This experiment is being performed by three professors:
Ohmori, Akimoto and Mizuno. They are in their 50s and 60s and between them
they have ~70 years of experience doing this sort of experiment, day in and
day out. I doubt that Scott Little can teach grandma how to suck eggs.
There may be something wrong with this experiment, but it is extremely
unlikely that it is the sort of error a person would spot immediately.

Ed Storms' comments about experts are right on the mark. I disagree with
many experts in various scientific and technical disciplines. I think the
people in charge of the Tokamaks, the Japanese breeder reactor program, and
the Space Shuttle made large errors of judgement stretching over many
decades. As any newspaper reader knows, I am not the only one who thinks so
-- experts in these fields have written detailed reports describing the
problems. The mistakes have been in cost-benefit analysis, estimates of
safety and of the long term difficulties in engineering. Of course these
analyses were horrendously difficult and it is no surprise that the best
predictions made in the 1950s and 60s proved wrong 40 years later. I would
not challenge these people's technical abilities, but when it comes to
larger issues of business, society, cost-benefit, and the technology we
will need 40 years in the future, they are no more expert than I am. With
the benefit of 40 years of hindsight I can out-guess them.

My point is, I think these experts are wrong, but I know they are not
stupid. They have not made simple mistakes which a technician would spot in
the first half-hour of a visit to the cite. Mitchell Jones seems to believe
that Mizuno and other professional electrochemists made obvious errors that
someone like Scott Little would see instantly. (I doubt Scott agrees.)
Frankly, this kind of thinking reflects inexperience and an inflated ego.

Scott Little reported "I'm probably going to wait for a report from Jed,
who is visiting Mizuno now,  before doing another run." That would be a
good idea. Actually, I am not visiting Mizuno quite yet. I am reading a 14
volume comic-book saga by Rumiko Takahashi, "Mezon Ikkoku" ('Momentary
Mansion') (Shogakukan, published between 1982 and 1987). Unfortunately,
Volumes 13 and 14 are missing so I may never learn whether the curvaceous
young widow Kyoko Otonashi decides to marry the endearing, bumbling,
poverty-stricken student or the wealthy man-about-the-town tennis instructor.

Akira Kawasaki wrote:

	I have visited Kojima and Takahashi's website awhile back but
	they were constructed by their grad students. And I do not
	think they have the foggiest notion of maintaining a website
	--- as it "befits" their elevated academic status (as is the
	'custom' in Japan).

I think it is more their elevated age. Takahashi can handle a $50 million
accelerator but I doubt he wants to master Windows 98. Mizuno admitted
frankly that he has no idea how to make a home page and no time to learn.
He is not proud of that, or ashamed either.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 23:41:54 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA31687;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:35:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:35:48 -0700
Message-ID: <19990709063606.10663.rocketmail web104.yahoomail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: PLEC: Run 9 (simulated excess heat)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"gT5ki1.0.1l7.3XPXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28980
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Henry Scudder wrote:

>	This formula is a high pass filter, and as such passes high
>frequency noise, in fact it amplifies it. Usually one works such
>compensation with both a zero and a higher frequency pole, to constrain the
>noise.  F(s) = (1+t1*s)/(1+t2*s) with 
>t1 > t2, and s=sqrt(-1)*2*pi*f. t1 is the time constant which removes your
>fundamental pole, and t2 is a time constant to roll off your tramnsfer
>function F(s) at high freqencies.

I know. Trying to dig out attenuated signal always raises noise level.
Actually, Scott takes the derivative over a number of points, which serves
the high frequency rolloff function.
===
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  8 23:47:28 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA00971;
	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:43:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:43:47 -0700
Message-ID: <19990709064405.11279.rocketmail web104.yahoomail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 9 (simulated excess heat)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"YZnGj3.0.5F.ZePXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28981
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>    Second, why modify the output by the transformation without first
> obtaining the necessary longterm calibration and background studies,
> without the superposition of both the signal and the joule heater?
>  With the formula you obscure the measured information which actually
> characterizes your system, moving the info into your variable C. 

Finding the value of C actually identifies one of the time constants of the
calorimeter. It teaches, not obscures.

>   Thus, by the transformation without the longterm calibration data
> separating signal and control (perhaps you have it elsewhere?),
> you appear to be massaging your output data making it difficult to
> see clues as to the imperfections of your calorimeter, and the 
> activity of your materials. 

With the medium frequency pole compensated, the slow diffusion "tail"
magnitude and duration are now more apparent. This is also something learned.
A remaining short time ocnstant component is also apparent. So now we know
that the calorimeter has at least three significant thermal capacities, and
we know how to compensate for one of them. I think this is sound progress.
===
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 00:30:23 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA07325;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:25:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:25:59 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990709032054.00dbccd0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 03:20:54 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 9 (simulated excess heat)
In-Reply-To: <19990709064405.11279.rocketmail web104.yahoomail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"KhLjo2.0.Io1.6GQXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28982
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:44 PM 7/8/99 -0700, Michael Schaffer wrote:
>Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>
>>    Second, why modify the output by the transformation without first
>> obtaining the necessary longterm calibration and background studies,
>> without the superposition of both the signal and the joule heater?
>>  With the formula you obscure the measured information which actually
>> characterizes your system, moving the info into your variable C. 
>
>Finding the value of C actually identifies one of the time constants of the
>calorimeter. It teaches, not obscures.


  Correct me if wrong, but in the system theory model used, 
does not the model assume that the system [calorimeter+controls+device+..]
is linear and time-invariant?


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

>>   Thus, by the transformation without the longterm calibration data
>> separating signal and control (perhaps you have it elsewhere?),
>> you appear to be massaging your output data making it difficult to
>> see clues as to the imperfections of your calorimeter, and the 
>> activity of your materials. 
>
>With the medium frequency pole compensated, the slow diffusion "tail"
>magnitude and duration are now more apparent. This is also something learned.
>A remaining short time ocnstant component is also apparent. So now we know
>that the calorimeter has at least three significant thermal capacities, and
>we know how to compensate for one of them. I think this is sound progress.

    
   I remain all for modeling of these systems.  But forced
coefficients, here with "c", and similarly with the activity coefficients 
in the Nernst equation, may not be appropriate if the system 
is not at equilibrium (in this case, linear and time invariant).

   Hence the suggestion for the longterm baseline, and uncoupled
effects of system operation and control.

   Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 00:51:07 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA10639;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:43:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:43:17 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990709033813.00dc64e0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 03:38:13 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Optimal Operating Point Analysis of Japanese data - v.6
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"69bM23.0.9c2.LWQXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28983
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


  Dear Vorts:

 The manuscript (version 5) involving Analysis of PLEC 
& other Japanese CF data was accepted for publication.  
Thank you all who helped.

  We will be putting up the latest version of the
draft manuscript involving analysis of PLEC & other Japanese CF 
data for comments from vorts [and other interested parties].  
This is a continuation of what was presented
at ICCF7; and will expand with what appears to be
more corroborating data, and info, not previously shown.
  
  To my great happiness another "vort" has
joined in (Ed Storms) and contributed his data to this
revision of manuscript. The new manuscript (v.6), now tentatively
entitled "GENERALITY OF OPTIMAL OPERATING POINT ANALYSIS 
[Addition of Dr. MIZUNO'S, Dr. ARATA's, Dr. STORMS' and OTHER DATA]"

  If interested, please send email back with this
header, and the URL (or a zip file) will be returned
when the assembled page is up, for a short
time for comments, feedback, criticism, suggestions.

      Mitchell Swartz


   

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 08:09:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA26862;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:07:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:07:37 -0700
Message-ID: <002301beca1b$bfffe960$f1b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:58:56 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"iV70t2.0.aZ6.v0XXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28984
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross Tessian wrote:
>
> The evaporation due to air cooling will drop the temperature.
>

I wrote, the temperature rise should be about 0.215 deg F, and anything over
that should be ZPE extraction heating.

At 200,000 ft^3/sec (12.5 million lbs/sec) in a "sheet" some 20 feet thick
by 3,000 feet  long, exposed to the air for about  3.2 seconds it would have
to get about  a million btus/second evaporation from the air to get a
temperature drop of 0.2 deg F.  :-)

The impact velocity is about 103 ft/second which, as I said, should get the
same OU effect as the
Huffman-Griggs-Potatov, "OU" pumps.

Maybe it would be worth checking for what the temperatures are. I think a
more noticeable delta T would be seen at the lower temperatures?

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 08:15:03 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA30740;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:14:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:14:09 -0700
Message-ID: <378611E9.6B6E950B ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 09:15:00 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Analysis of PLEC & other Japanese data - v.6
References: <3.0.1.32.19990709033747.00dc0c70 world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"By_GV3.0.EW7.17XXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28985
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>
>    To my great happiness another "vort" has
> joined in (Ed Storms) and contributed his data which, although he does not
> think it "fits", FITS this paper, theory, and system, quite well.

The issue is not whether my data "fit" the paper. The issue is whether the
consequence of plotting applied power vs excess power provides any more
insight compared to current vs excess.  The answer to this question is NO.
Plotting power vs excess simply introduces another uncontrolled variable
which is the cell voltage. This voltage is very sensitive to current (i.e.
the resistance of the cell) at low currents where most of your data resides.
Of course there is an optimum in applied current, a fact which was known well
before your observation was made.  The question is, what factors influence
this optimum?  Introducing the voltage into the problem just adds an
additional complexity which is unnecessary.

Sorry that you had so much trouble opening the figures.  I put them in the
PICT(Mac) format because this seems to be the easiest for people to open.  Do
you have a better format? I will send the numbers some time this evening.  I
hope you could open the figure of resistance vs current and understand the
significance of this relationship.

As for Scott's data, you should not use data that are not supported by the
experimenter.  If Scott says the values are wrong, then they should be
discarded no matter how well they fit your model.  To me, this just shows
that your model will accept anything, even wrong data.

Ed Storms


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 08:31:12 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04615;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:30:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:30:12 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990709103218.00aed078 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 10:32:18 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of PLEC & other Japanese data - v.6
In-Reply-To: <378611E9.6B6E950B ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990709033747.00dc0c70 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"JdBJh2.0._71.3MXXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28986
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:15 7/9/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:

>The issue is not whether my data "fit" the paper. The issue is whether the
>consequence of plotting applied power vs excess power provides any more
>insight compared to current vs excess.  The answer to this question is NO.
>Plotting power vs excess simply introduces another uncontrolled variable
>which is the cell voltage.

I agree.  If we are going to look for an optimum _operating_ point, then it
should be found by plotting performance vs whatever independent variable is
under direct control of the operator.  In most Pd-D2O experiments, the
independent variable is current.  In the incandescent-cathode experiments
it is voltage.  In both of these cases, input power is not directly under
operator control and will vary widely depending upon conditions in the cell.

However, in the Case experiment, where the electrical input only powers a
Joule heater, input power IS the independent variable controlled by the
operator.



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 Jul  9 09:04:32 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA14084;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:56:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:56:32 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990709114507.00ec31c0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 11:45:07 -0400
To: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>,
        Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of PLEC & other Japanese data - v.6
Cc: BriggsRO aol.com, hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner),
        Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>,
        knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman), Mitchell Jones <mjones@jump.net>,
        "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>,
        Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>, little@mail.eden.com,
        "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>,
        "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>,
        Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>, Tstolper@aol.com,
        "ATP" <ATP worldnet.att.net>, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com,
        halfox slkc.uswest.net, britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>,
        Dieter Britz <db kemi.aau.dk>, "George H. Miley" <g-miley@uiuc.edu>,
        "Frank, Alex MD" <FrankAl uhpcc.medserv.net>,
        edward lewis <elewis ariel.parkland.cc.il.us>,
        el <melmiles ridgecrest.ca.us>
In-Reply-To: <378611E9.6B6E950B ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990709033747.00dc0c70 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"krKCJ2.0.zR3.mkXXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28987
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 




At 09:15 AM 7/9/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>
>>
>>    To my great happiness another "vort" has
>> joined in (Ed Storms) and contributed his data which, although he does not
>> think it "fits", FITS this paper, theory, and system, quite well.
>
>The issue is not whether my data "fit" the paper. The issue is whether the
>consequence of plotting applied power vs excess power provides any more
>insight compared to current vs excess.  The answer to this question is NO.


  Ed (and the manuscript workshop):

  Your statement here, and others below, is(are) wrong.

  Figure 3 demonstrates the answer is YES.
  More insight is provided.

  The plots which you sent me, Ed, do NOT show where to drive the system
which you had.  These do.  Is that not important to you? 
  Some of your own theories may be opposite this point. 
    Is that true?


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


>Plotting power vs excess simply introduces another uncontrolled variable
>which is the cell voltage. This voltage is very sensitive to current (i.e.
>the resistance of the cell) at low currents where most of your data resides.
>Of course there is an optimum in applied current, a fact which was known well
>before your observation was made.  The question is, what factors influence
>this optimum?  Introducing the voltage into the problem just adds an
>additional complexity which is unnecessary.

   Sorry we disagree.  As discussed in the manuscript, and as well
known to electrical engineers, electrophysicists, and material
scientists, electrical conductivity is a lumped parameter and
involves MANY things.  Power fixes all of that, and is used
in impedance matching in electrical, optical, mechanical, and
civil engineering.


  On your demeaning of Scott's data.
  If Scott removes his claims published on the internet, or
states that his 'claims are not supported by the experimenter'
then that interpretation would be most reasonable.
  If Scott now thinks his values are wrong, he should put that
on his web site too.  Did you see that disclaimer there?

  Does Scott think his other values on the Mills setup, the KSbeads
etc. are now also wrong?  I doubt it.  


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

>As for Scott's data, you should not use data that are not supported by the
>experimenter.  If Scott says the values are wrong, then they should be
>discarded no matter how well they fit your model.  To me, this just shows
>that your model will accept anything, even wrong data.
>
>Ed Storms

  The model is corroborated by the data, despite your unsupported
denigration (vide infra).

  No doubt, the model of optimal operating points may
not be consistent with, or may be at variance with, your models, Ed.
However, the data speaks for itself to any engineer.  
Just take a look at figures 1 and 3.


  Your last statement is denigration based upon your handwaving.
Can you prove the "model will accept anything, even wrong data"?
Do you really believe you own (Storms) data now bad and wrong?
as you also demean Szpak, Mills, Arata, and our considerable data, Ed?

   Have a good day.

     Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 09:27:58 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA25218;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:26:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:26:17 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19990709092327.009ffd70 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 09:25:59 -0700
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <002301beca1b$bfffe960$f1b4bfa8 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NDsH2.0.p96.eAYXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28988
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:58 AM 7/9/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Ross Tessian wrote:
>>
>> The evaporation due to air cooling will drop the temperature.
>>
>
>I wrote, the temperature rise should be about 0.215 deg F, and anything over
>that should be ZPE extraction heating.
>
>At 200,000 ft^3/sec (12.5 million lbs/sec) in a "sheet" some 20 feet thick
>by 3,000 feet  long, exposed to the air for about  3.2 seconds 

This fails to account for the breaking up into droplets and the tremendous
surface area for evaporative cooling.  Also, the droplets terminal velocity
in air is not the same as the falling sheet, and the time is also longer
for a substantial volume of water.

In any case, I have already gone swimming in the rivers in the Sierra
Mountains many times.  The water is always cooler beneath waterfalls, and
OBVIOUSLY so  (meaning, it is obvious that upstream of the water falls the
water is warmer, so if we want warm water that is where we go.  

rt

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 09:56:53 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA32314;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:54:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:54:36 -0700
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <37862A2D.6CA5 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 09:58:21 -0700
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: The 'enemy' is us?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-DNfb2.0.qu7.CbYXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28989
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 9, 1999

Vortex,

In reference to Pd-D setups, I bought some books related on the subject
some time back. In one, I found an interesting contribution.
 
'Fundamentals of Gas-Surface Interactions'.
1967 Academic Press, 'Proceedings of the Symposium held on Dec. 14-16,
1966 at San Diego, California.
Sponsored by by the General Atomics Division of General Dynamics
Corporation and
Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
Office of Aerospace Research, USAF (under AFOSR contract AF 49(638)-1690

The Air Force at the time was involved, along with NASA on things Space,
therefore the co-sponsorship of the symposium.
  
There is a Paper, 'Isotopic Mixing in the Oxidation of Carbon Monoxide
on Palladium'. Surprise! it was presented by a Robert L. Park. I think
it's the same Park we are familiar with. The time scale seems about
right. Then he is no stranger to Palladium and that much harder on CF. :
) 

Robert L. Park at the time worked at Sandia. He also took part in the
discussion group on the subject title. Well experienced in things
palladium but perhaps like the late Seaborg, unfortunately past their
prime to take seriously or pass judgement on things CF. Planck marches
on, on us too.

 -AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 12:14:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA17884;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:13:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:13:01 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 20:12:52 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <002301beca1b$bfffe960$f1b4bfa8 default>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990709201106.13995A-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"tfiAS3.0.MN4.zcaXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28990
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Frederick Sparber wrote:

> I wrote, the temperature rise should be about 0.215 deg F, and anything over
> that should be ZPE extraction heating.

QED is mathematically very difficult stuff. Have the basics even been
mastered? Go on then, what's a Hilbert Space? What's a Poisson Bracket?
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 12:38:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA27620;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:34:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:34:14 -0700
Message-ID: <37864EF3.9FA8829 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 13:36:14 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Optimal Operating Point Analysis of Japanese data - v.6
References: <3.0.1.32.19990709033813.00dc64e0 world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Em7-p.0.Ul6.qwaXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28991
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>   Dear Vorts:
>
>  The manuscript (version 5) involving Analysis of PLEC
> & other Japanese CF data was accepted for publication.
> Thank you all who helped.
>
>   We will be putting up the latest version of the
> draft manuscript involving analysis of PLEC & other Japanese CF
> data for comments from vorts [and other interested parties].
> This is a continuation of what was presented
> at ICCF7; and will expand with what appears to be
> more corroborating data, and info, not previously shown.

Mitchell, I read your latest manuscript and have no problem with your
description of my data. However, I still have a problem with the
treatment.  You are plotting my data as the efficiency for producing
excess energy vs applied power.  While I acknowledge this is a
legitimate way to analyze data, it is an engineering approach without
scientific value.  If we were proposing to build a commercial source of
energy, such information would be important.  However, the information
would apply only to the particular design and not to the phenomenon in
general.  My cell shows this relationship only because of its physical
size.  A cell containing a smaller cathode or a higher concentration of
LiOD in the electrolyte would have a different behavior. This being the
case, no general conclusions about how to improve cell behavior can be
obtained from your approach.  We know already that the higher the
current, up to a limit, the greater the excess power. Increased
temperature also seems to increase the amount of excess.  The problem is
to discover other variables which can increase the amount of excess.  I
do not see how your approach can do this.  For example, the voltage,
which is basic to your model, is not an independent variable, being
dependent on current, temperature, electrolyte concentration, and degree
of loading. Please tell me what improvements in cell design your model
would suggest, beyond what we already know.

Regards,
Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 12:44:23 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA31017;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:41:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:41:49 -0700
Message-ID: <000801beca42$0de4bfe0$c68f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Info Niagara presents our Daredevil Gallery of Niagara Falls
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:34:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECA0F.C0262C80"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"wReV53.0.Ua7.y1bXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28992
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_0005_01BECA0F.C0262C80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

There's a Hilbert Space in a barrel waiting just for you, Remi.  

 http://www.infoniagara.com/f-barrel.html

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECA0F.C0262C80
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Info Niagara presents our Daredevil Gallery of Niagara Falls.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Info Niagara presents our Daredevil Gallery of Niagara Falls.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.infoniagara.com/f-barrel.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.infoniagara.com/f-barrel.html
Modified=200E7AA441CABE0116

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECA0F.C0262C80--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 12:46:36 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA32686;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:45:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:45:12 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990709153952.0081d2a0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 15:39:52 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Optimal Operating Point Analysis of Japanese data - v.6
In-Reply-To: <37864EF3.9FA8829 ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990709033813.00dc64e0 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"xfw-S.0.e-7.75bXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28993
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 01:36 PM 7/9/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:

>Mitchell, I read your latest manuscript and have no problem with your
>description of my data. However, I still have a problem with the
>treatment.  You are plotting my data as the efficiency for producing
>excess energy vs applied power.  While I acknowledge this is a
>legitimate way to analyze data, it is an engineering approach without
>scientific value. 


  Ed:

  Thank you for the attention to the problem[s], but we disagree.

  Also, first, please let us not have a repeat of the physics vs. chemistry
attacks
of '89, but an understanding that engineering approaches DO have
scientific value.  Science is sytematized knowledge, and engineering
includes just that.  Trust me on that, Ed.

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


> If we were proposing to build a commercial source of
>energy, such information would be important. 

  Just as material science and corrosion are important from the
tiniest wire connection, roof bolt, through the largest ship
propellor, engineering is relevant and important irrespective
of scale.  Gather we simply disagree on this, too Edmund.  ;-)X


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



> However, the information
>would apply only to the particular design and not to the phenomenon in
>general.  My cell shows this relationship only because of its physical
>size.  A cell containing a smaller cathode or a higher concentration of
>LiOD in the electrolyte would have a different behavior. This being the
>case, no general conclusions about how to improve cell behavior can be
>obtained from your approach.  We know already that the higher the
>current, up to a limit, the greater the excess power. Increased
>temperature also seems to increase the amount of excess.  The problem is
>to discover other variables which can increase the amount of excess.  I
>do not see how your approach can do this.  For example, the voltage,
>which is basic to your model, is not an independent variable, being
>dependent on current, temperature, electrolyte concentration, and degree
>of loading. 

  Please dont push a "strawman" issue into my work, Edmund.
  If you want to accurately know what variables are important, read
my published peer reviewed papers in Fusion Technology, and the others,
and you will is basic to the Q1D model.
Swartz, M., 1992, "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of
Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300.  
Swartz, M., 1994, "Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled To Reactions At An
Electrode". Fusion Technology, 96, 4T, 74-77  
Swartz. M., 1997, "Codeposition Of Palladium And Deuterium", Fusion
 Technology, 32. 126-130 (1997)  


   I recommend you get the late (incredibly smart)Jim Melcher's book 
on "Continuum Electromechanics" as background.


   Best wishes.
    Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 12:58:12 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA07713;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:55:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:55:12 -0700
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:59:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990709201106.13995A-100000 exeter>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990709155410.18155B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"LeCvx3.0.Iu1.WEbXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28994
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Dear Vo.,

	I am very poor at math.  When I can replicate an experiment
that shows clear cut results... and NO MATH is required to adjust or
interpret the data then it carries a lot of fish with me.

	A poisson bucket, is, I think a FISH container ... :)

	Math is fine..... but it is a framework devised by humans to help
to understand observations and the universe....  
	THE MATH IS NOT THE Universe.

_____________________________________

	There are 3 kinds of mathmaticians

	Those who can count

	AND

	Those who can't

________________________________


On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Cornwall RO wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Frederick Sparber wrote:
> 
> > I wrote, the temperature rise should be about 0.215 deg F, and anything over
> > that should be ZPE extraction heating.
> 
> QED is mathematically very difficult stuff. Have the basics even been
> mastered? Go on then, what's a Hilbert Space? What's a Poisson Bracket?
> Remi.
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 13:18:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA15401;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:15:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:15:58 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990709160804.0081b420 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 16:08:04 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
Cc: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990709155410.18155B-100000 college.antioch-c
 ollege.edu>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990709201106.13995A-100000 exeter>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"yJJw61.0.Sm3.zXbXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28996
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:59 PM 7/9/99 -0400, John Schnurer wrote:
>	I am very poor at math.  When I can replicate an experiment
>that shows clear cut results... and NO MATH is required to adjust or
>interpret the data then it carries a lot of fish with me.
>	A poisson bucket, is, I think a FISH container ... :)
>
>	Math is fine..... but it is a framework devised by humans to help
>to understand observations and the universe....  
>	THE MATH IS NOT THE Universe.
>
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Cornwall RO wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>> 
>> > I wrote, the temperature rise should be about 0.215 deg F, and
anything over
>> > that should be ZPE extraction heating.
>> 
>> QED is mathematically very difficult stuff. Have the basics even been
>> mastered? Go on then, what's a Hilbert Space? What's a Poisson Bracket?
>> Remi.


  Hilbert Space transformations relate the real part of the 
complex permittivity of a material (also known as the dielectric constant)
to the imaginary part (which is related to the electrical conductivity).
The real and imaginary parts are k' and k''.

  To do this, you need to know k'(for all frequencies) 
or k''(for all freq).


 They are obviously related without the math, on a gut level, because
polarization follows electrical migration (conductivity).

 Get Arthur von Hippel's books [there are three major good ones), and 
Hildebrand.  Math is the key to the Universe.  ;-)X

  Hope that helps.

  Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 13:18:05 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA15193;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:14:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:14:42 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990709160921.00dd5640 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 16:09:21 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of PLEC & other Japanese data - v.6
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990709103218.00aed078 mail.eden.com>
References: <378611E9.6B6E950B ix.netcom.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990709033747.00dc0c70 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"150iN3.0.Jj3.oWbXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28995
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



 At 10:32 AM 7/9/99 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
>At 09:15 7/9/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>>The issue is not whether my data "fit" the paper. The issue is whether the
>>consequence of plotting applied power vs excess power provides any more
>>insight compared to current vs excess.  The answer to this question is NO.
>>Plotting power vs excess simply introduces another uncontrolled variable
>>which is the cell voltage.
>
>I agree.  If we are going to look for an optimum _operating_ point, then it
>should be found by plotting performance vs whatever independent variable is
>under direct control of the operator.  In most Pd-D2O experiments, the
>independent variable is current.  In the incandescent-cathode experiments
>it is voltage.  In both of these cases, input power is not directly under
>operator control and will vary widely depending upon conditions in the cell.


  Scott:

  Not under operator control?
             LOL.
  If you drive a car, you had better be able to control the momentum,
as it is rarely equipment malfunction.
  
  We -- http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html -- have designed systems for 
decades to control the electrical power delivered to several types of 
systems.

  In this case, we have suggested, and noted repeatedly, its importance, 
long after the initial observations, to share this matter with the
cold fusion (and perhaps o/u) community.  It contributes to some of 
the explanation of why CF has been difficult to achieve.


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


>However, in the Case experiment, where the electrical input only powers a
>Joule heater, input power IS the independent variable controlled by the
>operator.


 Yes, Horace explicitly suggested that, in his comments on the manuscript.
Perhaps someone [Russ? Les? Michael? Ed?) might plot it, or send me the 
data  ;-)X  to see if Horace's hypothesis is correct.

    Have a good day.

    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 13:53:54 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA12341;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199907092040.PAA19925 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990709155410.18155B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu> from John Schnurer at "Jul 9, 99 03:59:14 pm"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:40:50 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pXED73.0.l03.-wbXt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28997
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Schnurer wrote:
> 	Math is fine..... but it is a framework devised by humans to help
> to understand observations and the universe....  
> 	THE MATH IS NOT THE Universe.

Math is a subset of logic, logic is a statement of causality.

Arguments may be illogical and equations may be in error, but
nature continues to obey a rather rigid causality, and that
can indeed be described precisely using logic and math.
It is not merely a convenient association.

-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com  --  651-633-8928 -
 - 4234 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 14:07:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA04805;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:05:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:05:34 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 22:05:24 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <199907092040.PAA19925 mirage.skypoint.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990709220353.14942B-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"nFIeZ.0.-A1.UGcXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29000
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

You said it! It's a logical universe. Just imagine the rules changing
everytime you turned your back.

Experiment and theory. Not wishful thinking.
Remi.

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, John Logajan wrote:

> John Schnurer wrote:
> > 	Math is fine..... but it is a framework devised by humans to help
> > to understand observations and the universe....  
> > 	THE MATH IS NOT THE Universe.
> 
> Math is a subset of logic, logic is a statement of causality.
> 
> Arguments may be illogical and equations may be in error, but
> nature continues to obey a rather rigid causality, and that
> can indeed be described precisely using logic and math.
> It is not merely a convenient association.
> 
> -- 
>  - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com  --  651-633-8928 -
>  - 4234 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
>  -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 14:07:53 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA02663;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:02:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:02:34 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990709170503.02e03400 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 17:05:03 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <007001bec936$ee6d25a0$1d8f85ce default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"V25mg1.0.Rf.fDcXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28998
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 05:41 AM 7/8/1999 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
>The 200,000 cubic feet of water per second dropping 160-167 ft at Niagara
>Falls should have a temperature rise of about 0.215 deg F at the bottom of
>the falls.
>
>If it is over this, then  the  dE = h/dt ZPE Extraction due to
>atomic/molecular collisions is using Solar Pumping, unlike the
>Huffman-Griggs-Potapov pumps that are fossil fuel powered.  :-)

    Not quite.  The water is moving fairly fast when it reaches the lip of
the falls, and the net loss in flow energy (more water at a slower average
speed) should also contribute a heat rise.

    This may sound like a trivial contribution, but it is not.  The
original hydroelectric plants in Niagara (and some still in operation
today) both took water from and returned water to the Niagara River above
the falls.  I don't remember offhand what the drop in the river is, but it
is substantial.  (Look on a map for the height of Lakes Erie and Ontario,
then subtract out Naigara Falls.)  There are some rapids which will heat
the water above the falls, but the kinetic energy in the water at the lip
of the falls is substantial.  Ask anyone who got a boat too close to the
falls and survived.

    Of course the way that many of the survivors survived is also pretty
astonishing.  The hydroelectric plant that spans the falls (the intakes are
well upriver, guess why), is controlled from a tower on the Canadian side.
By international agreement they can only take 50% of the water during the
daytime, and 75% at night.  (Yep, in Niagara Falls they turn the noise down
at night.)
But in an emergency--i.e. to save a life--they can take all the water.  So
if the tower spots someone getting pulled towards the edge, they open the
gates and take all the water.  It takes about five minutes for the effect
to be felt, but then the falls dry up.  (In fact a few years ago they did
this intentionally for several months to inspect and repair the lip of the
falls and the footings of the observation stations.)

                                        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 Jul  9 14:08:06 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03366;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:03:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:03:33 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 22:03:20 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990709160804.0081b420 world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990709214217.14942A-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"5LCDP2.0.Nq.aEcXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/28999
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>   Hilbert Space transformations relate the real part of the 
> complex permittivity of a material (also known as the dielectric constant)
> to the imaginary part (which is related to the electrical conductivity).
> The real and imaginary parts are k' and k''.
> 
You wot? A Hilbert Space is an infinite dimensional vector space. Wait - I
am learning this stuff too. The engineer's next clothes are the
physicist's cast offs (who got his clothes from the mathematician) It's
all team work paractical intuition and theoretical intuition.

Aparently its a bit like Fourier analysis where you are summing lots of
waves to make a wave packet. They call the waves 'basis functions' and
draw an analogy with a common vector, each of these functions is a kind of
co-ordinate. In QM the wave function is everything; operators act on it to
determine the energy and momentum.

If you can understand a text like Landau and Liftschift 'Quantum
Electrodynamics' you're pretty good and able to do detailed calculations
and back up your hypothesis. That is not to say that the engineer's
intuition is not worthy - just don't talk like its obvious or you're
privvy to some special knowledge.  Such talk is beginning of quackery. 

To truly be able to do QED, you will have mastered: Relativity in tensor
formulation, Advanced Electromagnetics, Hamiltonian and Lagrangian
Dynamics, Advanced QM.

No my point was about the high faluting talk about zpe and the handwaving: 
if you want to tap an energy source should know its characteristics by
now,
a) its manifestation - is it coherent? etc
b) a mechanism
c) likely phenomena
d) materials problems
e) engineering

What make a person think that a little heat at the bottom of a waterfall
is zpe. That's like Perry mason going into overdrive in the small claims
court or getting Superman to open vacuum packet cheese. Think of the
alternatives first and then know what it isn't.

It never ceases to amaze me what people *want to believe* in this field.
I've witnessed people who can't do an Ohm's Law calculation when
electrolysisng water wax lyrical about 'orgone Energy' la di dah, handwavy
time, 'Fluroplasmic fields' dum de dum throw jargon about, look
intelligent.

To summarise: You should know by now the characteristics of something you
believe in.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 14:17:00 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA11303;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:13:15 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:13:15 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b3ac0ba8ece4 [207.8.127.103]>
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.GSO.3.96.990709155410.18155B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990709201106.13995A-100000 exeter>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:38:18 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
Resent-Message-ID: <"srFm11.0.Xm2.hNcXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29001
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>	Dear Vo.,
>
>	I am very poor at math.  When I can replicate an experiment
>that shows clear cut results... and NO MATH is required to adjust or
>interpret the data then it carries a lot of fish with me.
>
>	A poisson bucket, is, I think a FISH container ... :)

***{Poisson is what the Brits gave Napoleon while he was interned on Elba.
(They didn't stop until after he was interred on Elba.) If memory serves, I
believe arsenic was the specific poisson that they used. :-) --MJ}***

>
>	Math is fine..... but it is a framework devised by humans to help
>to understand observations and the universe....
>	THE MATH IS NOT THE Universe.

***{Math is more fun than a house full of pit bulls. --MJ}***

>
>_____________________________________
>
>	There are 3 kinds of mathmaticians
>
>	Those who can count
>
>	AND
>
>	Those who can't
>
>________________________________
>
>
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Cornwall RO wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>>
>> > I wrote, the temperature rise should be about 0.215 deg F, and
>>anything over
>> > that should be ZPE extraction heating.
>>
>> QED is mathematically very difficult stuff. Have the basics even been
>> mastered? Go on then, what's a Hilbert Space? What's a Poisson Bracket?
>> Remi.
>>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 14:28:31 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA14562;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:18:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:18:36 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 22:17:57 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: no intention to bully
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990709221214.14942C-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"k6k8E1.0.GZ3.iScXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29002
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vo,
I have no intention to bully. I just have a part of me that hates fraud. I
call myself an engineer until I have a thorough grounding in all of
physics. Until at the drop of a hat I can drive every formula from first
principles I am not worthy of the title 'physicist'.

I have seen the spectcle of barely educated mechanics talking like
professors and taking money of people. They hurt themselves, the
philantopist and everybody else in the field.

No bluffing, bamboozling, just learn learn learn. Make mistakes, correct
them, move on. Be humble.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 14:38:53 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA25131;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:36:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:36:41 -0700
Message-ID: <00a401beca52$18aa5e20$f1b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990709170503.02e03400 spectre.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:27:42 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"L6Txr1.0.b86.fjcXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29003
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Robert I. Eachus <eachus mitre.org>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?

Hold it there for a second, Robert while I run through Hilbert's Spaces and
Poissons Brackets, to figure the 167/778 ft-pounds ~= 0.215 btu given to a
pound of water after it falls for about 3.5 seconds.  I would think that if
I measure the temperature at the "lip" and then in the stream below, I would
see the 0.215 degree temperature rise. 200,000 ft^3/second is not exactly
what you would see in the waterfalls/rapids of a mountain brook.

I visited the Canadian side in 1960, they made us wait until the Mayor of
Moscow and his entourage got though a tour.  I was there on the American
side in the late 60's when it was shut down for repairs.

Meantime I'll let Cornwall brag about how little he knows.  :-)

Regards,     Frederick




> At 05:41 AM 7/8/1999 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
> >The 200,000 cubic feet of water per second dropping 160-167 ft at Niagara
> >Falls should have a temperature rise of about 0.215 deg F at the bottom
of
> >the falls.
> >
> >If it is over this, then  the  dE = h/dt ZPE Extraction due to
> >atomic/molecular collisions is using Solar Pumping, unlike the
> >Huffman-Griggs-Potapov pumps that are fossil fuel powered.  :-)
>
>     Not quite.  The water is moving fairly fast when it reaches the lip of
> the falls, and the net loss in flow energy (more water at a slower average
> speed) should also contribute a heat rise.
>
>     This may sound like a trivial contribution, but it is not.  The
> original hydroelectric plants in Niagara (and some still in operation
> today) both took water from and returned water to the Niagara River above
> the falls.  I don't remember offhand what the drop in the river is, but it
> is substantial.  (Look on a map for the height of Lakes Erie and Ontario,
> then subtract out Naigara Falls.)  There are some rapids which will heat
> the water above the falls, but the kinetic energy in the water at the lip
> of the falls is substantial.  Ask anyone who got a boat too close to the
> falls and survived.
>
>     Of course the way that many of the survivors survived is also pretty
> astonishing.  The hydroelectric plant that spans the falls (the intakes
are
> well upriver, guess why), is controlled from a tower on the Canadian side.
> By international agreement they can only take 50% of the water during the
> daytime, and 75% at night.  (Yep, in Niagara Falls they turn the noise
down
> at night.)
> But in an emergency--i.e. to save a life--they can take all the water.  So
> if the tower spots someone getting pulled towards the edge, they open the
> gates and take all the water.  It takes about five minutes for the effect
> to be felt, but then the falls dry up.  (In fact a few years ago they did
> this intentionally for several months to inspect and repair the lip of the
> falls and the footings of the observation stations.)
>
>                                         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 Jul  9 14:54:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA28732;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:47:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:47:55 -0700
Message-ID: <37866E46.D586C5FC ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 15:50:08 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Analysis of PLEC & other Japanese data - v.6
References: <3.0.1.32.19990709033747.00dc0c70 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19990709114507.00ec31c0@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PS6u6.0.m07.AucXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29004
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>
>
>   The plots which you sent me, Ed, do NOT show where to drive the system
> which you had.  These do.  Is that not important to you?
>   Some of your own theories may be opposite this point.
>     Is that true?

OK, Mitchell, I will try to answer your questions.  You introduce the idea of
where to "drive the system".  Your plot of my data would have you propose I drive
my system at 15 watts applied power (AP).  However, the excess power at this
applied power is only 0.75 watts.  By going to 35 watts AP, I can produce 1.5
watts of excess.  Don't you think it is better to produce more excess rather than
maximize the power gain?   I am trying to demonstrate the reality of the effect,
not run a toaster for the least cost.

I am only trying to discover how your approach will give me more insight than I
already have. At the present time, I believe a minimum current is required to
achieve a critical deuterium concentration. Increased current can be visualized
as converting an increased fraction of the surface to the necessary composition.
At very high current, bubbles mask the surface and allow local deloading.
Consequently, the behavior shows a maximum in excess power vs current (or applied
power).  Because none of these variables show a linear relationship, a maximum
will also exist in the efficiency of the cell.  This is a mathematical
consequence of the way the variables behave and not a new insight.  Perhaps you
can show me clearly why this is not true without sending me to your previous
work, which I have the same trouble understanding.  I have no objection to using
an engineering approach in analyzing the data when such a method gives useful
information.  . I do not find us at that point yet.

>
> >Plotting power vs excess simply introduces another uncontrolled variable
> >which is the cell voltage. This voltage is very sensitive to current (i.e.
> >the resistance of the cell) at low currents where most of your data resides.
> >Of course there is an optimum in applied current, a fact which was known well
> >before your observation was made.  The question is, what factors influence
> >this optimum?  Introducing the voltage into the problem just adds an
> >additional complexity which is unnecessary.
>
>    Sorry we disagree.  As discussed in the manuscript, and as well
> known to electrical engineers, electrophysicists, and material
> scientists, electrical conductivity is a lumped parameter and
> involves MANY things.  Power fixes all of that, and is used
> in impedance matching in electrical, optical, mechanical, and
> civil engineering.

Yes, this is true but I do not see how this is relevant to an electrolytic cell
in which a nuclear reaction occurs in isolated regions of the cathode.  All of
these examples use impedance matching to improve the efficiency of the process.
In my case, I do not care how much power I waste if I can demonstrate a large
excess.  The power used by my constant temperature baths makes all this talk of
efficiency pointless anyway.

>
>   On your demeaning of Scott's data.
>   If Scott removes his claims published on the internet, or
> states that his 'claims are not supported by the experimenter'
> then that interpretation would be most reasonable.
>   If Scott now thinks his values are wrong, he should put that
> on his web site too.  Did you see that disclaimer there?

I saw that Scott told you very clearly why the data points you used were not
indicating excess power.  What more do you want?

>   No doubt, the model of optimal operating points may
> not be consistent with, or may be at variance with, your models, Ed.
> However, the data speaks for itself to any engineer.
> Just take a look at figures 1 and 3.
>
>   Your last statement is denigration based upon your handwaving.
> Can you prove the "model will accept anything, even wrong data"?
> Do you really believe you own (Storms) data now bad and wrong?
> as you also demean Szpak, Mills, Arata, and our considerable data, Ed?

I am not demeaning the data.  I suggest that your model is not introducing any
new information about the phenomenon.  Let's keep on track. Please show me what
new insight you are proposing.

Regards,
Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 15:25:43 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA09711;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:22:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:22:46 -0700
Message-ID: <001101beca58$894b5160$c68f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Off Topic: Emotional Intelligence 
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:15:17 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01BECA26.3C130500"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"-0ncz1.0.fN2.sOdXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29005
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_000E_01BECA26.3C130500
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Weekend homework. This is what you get being married to a master social
worker/psychologist going for her doctorate.  :-)    FJS

 http://www.virtent.com/eq.htm

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BECA26.3C130500
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="The Emotional Intelligence Home Page.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="The Emotional Intelligence Home Page.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.virtent.com/eq.htm

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.virtent.com/eq.htm
Modified=A094D6DF57CABE01C9

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BECA26.3C130500--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 16:09:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA23168;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:08:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:08:39 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990709190315.00dc48a0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 19:03:15 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of PLEC & other Japanese data - v.6
In-Reply-To: <37866E46.D586C5FC ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990709033747.00dc0c70 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990709114507.00ec31c0 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"HIuO52.0.wf5.s3eXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29006
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:50 PM 7/9/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>OK, Mitchell, I will try to answer your questions.  You introduce the idea of
>where to "drive the system".  Your plot of my data would have you propose
I drive
>my system at 15 watts applied power (AP).  However, the excess power at this
>applied power is only 0.75 watts.  By going to 35 watts AP, I can produce 1.5
>watts of excess.  Don't you think it is better to produce more excess
rather than
>maximize the power gain?   I am trying to demonstrate the reality of the
effect,
>not run a toaster for the least cost.


   Ed:

  You said that you dont like engineering.  
  THIS is engineering.  IMHO it is important.


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


>I am only trying to discover how your approach will give me more insight
than I
>already have. At the present time, I believe a minimum current is required to
>achieve a critical deuterium concentration. Increased current can be
visualized
>as converting an increased fraction of the surface to the necessary
composition.
>At very high current, bubbles mask the surface and allow local deloading.
>Consequently, the behavior shows a maximum in excess power vs current (or
applied
>power).  Because none of these variables show a linear relationship, a
maximum
>will also exist in the efficiency of the cell.  This is a mathematical
>consequence of the way the variables behave and not a new insight.  

  You are using the wrong single variable (see the Q1D paper), and
if you write out the equations (either by the method of the Q1D paper
or the alternative method of Szpak) you WILL get insights.
Sorry that the mathematics is not easy. But that is how it is, IMO.


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


>> >Plotting power vs excess simply introduces another uncontrolled variable
>> >which is the cell voltage. This voltage is very sensitive to current (i.e.
>> >the resistance of the cell) at low currents where most of your data
resides.
>> >Of course there is an optimum in applied current, a fact which was
known well
>> >before your observation was made.  The question is, what factors influence
>> >this optimum?  Introducing the voltage into the problem just adds an
>> >additional complexity which is unnecessary.


  There once was a race of blind folks.  They wanted to drive, and when
one of them invented "vision", the rest of the blind complained, moaning
that seeing only would add further complexity.

  The problems, and solutions, begin BTW with the electric field intensity
which is applied, so it is hardly an additional complexity which is
"unnecessary".


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


>>    Sorry we disagree.  As discussed in the manuscript, and as well
>> known to electrical engineers, electrophysicists, and material
>> scientists, electrical conductivity is a lumped parameter and
>> involves MANY things.  Power fixes all of that, and is used
>> in impedance matching in electrical, optical, mechanical, and
>> civil engineering.
>
>Yes, this is true but I do not see how this is relevant to an electrolytic
cell
>in which a nuclear reaction occurs in isolated regions of the cathode.
All of
>these examples use impedance matching to improve the efficiency of the
process.
>In my case, I do not care how much power I waste if I can demonstrate a large
>excess. 

   You should do science and measure results, Ed.  If you understood
"betas" in the time of galena -catwhiskers you would have had
transistors.  ;-)X   

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


> The power used by my constant temperature baths makes all this talk of
>efficiency pointless anyway.

   Actually you should examine the role of that, too.   :-)X
 for reasons already discussed in the papers.


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




>>   On your demeaning of Scott's data.
>>   If Scott removes his claims published on the internet, or
>> states that his 'claims are not supported by the experimenter'
>> then that interpretation would be most reasonable.
>>   If Scott now thinks his values are wrong, he should put that
>> on his web site too.  Did you see that disclaimer there?
>
>I saw that Scott told you very clearly why the data points you used were not
>indicating excess power.  What more do you want?

   His data points speak for themselves. 
   What more do YOU want? 
        [Why dont you just post to s.p.f., Ed?  ]

   I suggest that he/ and you/ get better data, better controls,
better longterm baselines, and rule it in or out, or -- better yet --
go back and look at the optimal operating points -- and do it right.


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


>>   No doubt, the model of optimal operating points may
>> not be consistent with, or may be at variance with, your models, Ed.
>> However, the data speaks for itself to any engineer.
>> Just take a look at figures 1 and 3.
>>
>>   Your last statement is denigration based upon your handwaving.
>> Can you prove the "model will accept anything, even wrong data"?
>> Do you really believe you own (Storms) data now bad and wrong?
>> as you also demean Szpak, Mills, Arata, and our considerable data, Ed?
>
>I am not demeaning the data.  I suggest that your model is not introducing
any
>new information about the phenomenon.  

   The optimal operating point states what to do. You, above,
point out, "Your plot of my data would have you propose I drive
my system at 15 watts applied power (AP)"  
   That sounds new, Ed, although you apparently disagree.  ;-)X

  Have a good day.
   Mitchell Swartz




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 16:56:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA03633;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:55:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:55:22 -0700
Message-ID: <19990709235449.57197.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [130.126.15.100]
From: "e lewis" <elewis1 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: could someone publish the radioactivity article?
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 16:54:49 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"yBuUJ2.0.hu.gleXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29007
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

There are some newsletter and periodical publishers who read this
list.

I did experiments back in 1997 showing that radioactivity has the effect of 
promoting radioactivity from a cold fusion type electrolysis microsphere 
cell in G. Miley's lab.

I couldn't get this published back in 1997, so I wrote a new one after 
hearing of Conte's use of a little radioactivity earlier in the year
published in Infinite Energy.

You can see the new article online at http://207.225.33.111/radiation.html
No one has published this as far as I know.

This effect would be important since it seemed that it might have powerful 
results, as in Conte's experiment, and it might be quite reproducible.  Just 
put some radioactive object next to an operating cell and check the results.

Evidence that a Radioactive Object Promoted Radioactivity in an Electrolysis 
Cell, dated March 1999.









_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 17:21:30 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA11973;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 17:17:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 17:17:14 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990709201208.00dc15c0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 20:12:08 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of PLEC & other Japanese data - v.7
In-Reply-To: <378611E9.6B6E950B ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990709033747.00dc0c70 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"UwdUD3.0.vw2.A4fXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29008
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:15 AM 7/9/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:

>I will send the numbers some time this evening.  I
>hope you could open the figure of resistance vs current and understand the
>significance of this relationship.


  Thanks Ed. 

  Your final data is in figure 3 which shows the impact 
of loading over 7 days.  Check out figure 3.   

  We here believe your data has confirmed my discovery
of optimal operating points, and optimal operating phase
space manifold AND has superbly demonstrated the
maturation of the OOP manifold with loading and time.

  Thanks again.  Best wishes.

       Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 17:39:57 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA16273;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 17:34:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 17:34:18 -0700
Message-ID: <19990710003344.4263.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [130.126.15.100]
From: "e lewis" <elewis1 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: reading my book on-line for 10 dollars
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 17:33:43 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"6NVtl3.0.8-3.AKfXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29009
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Advertisement for my book, THE PERIODIC PRODUCTION OF RATIONALIZED PHENOMENA 
AND THE PAST PERIODIC DEPRESSIONS (c) 1990-1999.

How about reading my book for 10 dollars on-line in html format?

People interested in the cold fusion phenomena and ball lightning and how to 
understand this all would be interested in my book.  I've developed a theory 
that cold fusion and a bunch of other anomalies such as ball lightning and 
anomalous atmospheric and geological phenomena can be understood as what I 
call plasmoid phenomena, using a term used by an important experimental 
physicist named W. Bostick and already widely used.  In the book, I try to 
explain the theory to some extent, though it is difficult to find the time 
to write on the the myriad details and evidence.  The theory would 
encompasses many phenomena including explaining gravity and time as plasmoid 
phenomena.
Simply, what we call gravity, substance cohesion and situation, and the rate 
of change of phenomena (time) can be explained as plasmoid phenomena.  There 
are many anomalies to QM and Relativity theory concerning time such as the 
effect on "time," the rate of change of a accurate atomic clock or of other 
plasmoid processes, that I'm predicting people might find around cold fusion 
cells or volcanic activity.

If you are willing to spend 10 dollars and call or fax in your credit card 
number long distance to Australia (probably a 2 minute phone call), you can 
read the text copy of the book online in html format.  The book is called 
THE PERIODIC PRODUCTION OF RATIONALIZED PHENOMENA AND THE PAST PERIODIC 
DEPRESSIONS (c) 1990-1999.  It is based on a theory developed 10 years ago 
and still has proven correct in the basic predictions possible based on the 
theory if the future patterns match the past.

You can check on the major predictions that were made about scientific, 
technological and economic development in an on-line article 
http://207.225.33.111/booktext.html


You can read the manuscript text online for 10 dollars by calling the credit 
card payments line in Australia: 61-395-455-755.
Or send your credit card  number by fax: 61-395-488-707

Make sure you mention that the money is for Edward Lewis and that you give 
your email address clearly.
Within a few days at most, I should receive notification of your payment and 
then I'll send you the information to your email address for accessing the 
book.  You'll be able to read the book on-line in html format and download 
it for personal use as often as you wish, until the procedure for how this 
is done is changed which probably won't be for two more weeks at least.  It 
is now July 9, 1999.

Research in Physics

I'm a cold fusion and new science researcher and have published articles in 
a lot of periodicals including Cold Fusion Times, Infinite Energy, Frontier 
Perspectives, and Extraordinary Science.  I worked with G. Miley a little 
and while working in that lab discovered an effect of radioactivity inducing 
radioactivity in a microsphere-type electrolysis cell.  This is a little 
similar to an effect reported by Conte and Pieralice in 1999.

My main work as you can see from reading my articles on my web site is to 
develop a theory of plasmoids which I think is also a theory of cold fusion. 
Both Shoulders and H. Fox used to call these EVs.

In the early 1990s, based on Matsumoto's early CF work and prior research on 
ball lightning, I understood the role of the microscopic ball lightning in 
various transmutation and new energy devices.  I then developed a theory 
that even atoms may act like ball lightning, and a general theory of the 
structures that I call plasmoids which includes both galaxies and particles. 
This required a new theory of physical organization.

Research in Economics and History and Philosophy of Science

In the late 1980s, I developed a philosophy of science based partly on 
Thomas Kuhn's ideas.  It emphasizes that new paradigm development happens 
when prior fundamental hypotheses are contradicted so that novel fundamental 
phenomena are produced. You can read about this at 
http://207.225.33.111/booktext.html

I show that the development of science has been highly periodic with
scientific revolutions in physics on the scale of Einstein, Faraday, and 
Franklin happening every 80 years almost to the year, and try to explain why 
this is so. This periodicity has continued unabated since Copernicus, at 
least.

In fact, it was while developing this theory of scientific and econonomic 
periodicity in the Spring of 1989 that I realized that if the 80 year timing 
was continuing, there must be a scientific revolution on the scale of the 
one with Einstein happening in the mid 1980s.  I realized this even before I 
heard of news of the cold fusion announcements.  So I started collecting 
information on what I thought were serious anomalies of the prior theories 
such as superconductivity.  When I heard about cold fusion, I started 
researching this topic, and then started to research ball lightning.
I think there had been a scientific revolution type crisis period during the 
1970s, 1980s, and 1990s but I think that since I've formulated plasmoid 
theory, the crisis period is over.

Scientific development seems to keep this 80 year timing through wars,
revolutions, great cultural changes...  It seems somehow endogenous and not 
tied to changes in economics.

On my web site: http://207.225.33.111 you can read more information about 
both the science theory and the physics theories.


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 19:19:10 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA09945;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:15:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:15:08 -0700
Message-ID: <19990710021435.72392.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [130.126.15.100]
From: "e lewis" <elewis1 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: reading my book on-line for 10 dollars
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 19:14:34 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bqint3.0.JR2.hogXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29010
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Advertisement for my book, THE PERIODIC PRODUCTION OF RATIONALIZED PHENOMENA 
AND THE PAST PERIODIC DEPRESSIONS (c) 1990-1999.

How about reading my book for 10 dollars on-line in html format?

People interested in the cold fusion phenomena and ball lightning and how to 
understand this all would be interested in my book.  I've developed a theory 
that cold fusion and a bunch of other anomalies such as ball lightning and 
anomalous atmospheric and geological phenomena can be understood as what I 
call plasmoid phenomena, using a term used by an important experimental 
physicist named W. Bostick and already widely used.  In the book, I try to 
explain the theory to some extent, though it is difficult to find the time 
to write on the the myriad details and evidence.  The theory would 
encompasses many phenomena including explaining gravity and time as plasmoid 
phenomena.
Simply, what we call gravity, substance cohesion and situation, and the rate 
of change of phenomena (time) can be explained as plasmoid phenomena.  There 
are many anomalies to QM and Relativity theory concerning time such as the 
effect on "time," the rate of change of a accurate atomic clock or of other 
plasmoid processes, that I'm predicting people might find around cold fusion 
cells or volcanic activity.

If you are willing to spend 10 dollars and call or fax in your credit card 
number long distance to Australia (probably a 2 minute phone call), you can 
read the text copy of the book online in html format.  The book is called 
THE PERIODIC PRODUCTION OF RATIONALIZED PHENOMENA AND THE PAST PERIODIC 
DEPRESSIONS (c) 1990-1999.  It is based on a theory developed 10 years ago 
and still has proven correct in the basic predictions possible based on the 
theory if the future patterns match the past.

You can check on the major predictions that were made about scientific, 
technological and economic development in an on-line article 
http://207.225.33.111/booktext.html


You can read the manuscript text online for 10 dollars by calling the credit 
card payments line in Australia: 61-395-455-755.
Or send your credit card  number by fax: 61-395-488-707

Make sure you mention that the money is for Edward Lewis and that you give 
your email address clearly.
Within a few days at most, I should receive notification of your payment and 
then I'll send you the information to your email address for accessing the 
book.  You'll be able to read the book on-line in html format and download 
it for personal use as often as you wish, until the procedure for how this 
is done is changed which probably won't be for two more weeks at least.  It 
is now July 9, 1999.

Research in Physics

I'm a cold fusion and new science researcher and have published articles in 
a lot of periodicals including Cold Fusion Times, Infinite Energy, Frontier 
Perspectives, and Extraordinary Science.  I worked with G. Miley a little 
and while working in that lab discovered an effect of radioactivity inducing 
radioactivity in a microsphere-type electrolysis cell.  This is a little 
similar to an effect reported by Conte and Pieralice in 1999.

My main work as you can see from reading my articles on my web site is to 
develop a theory of plasmoids which I think is also a theory of cold fusion. 
Both Shoulders and H. Fox used to call these EVs.

In the early 1990s, based on Matsumoto's early CF work and prior research on 
ball lightning, I understood the role of the microscopic ball lightning in 
various transmutation and new energy devices.  I then developed a theory 
that even atoms may act like ball lightning, and a general theory of the 
structures that I call plasmoids which includes both galaxies and particles. 
This required a new theory of physical organization.

Research in Economics and History and Philosophy of Science

In the late 1980s, I developed a philosophy of science based partly on 
Thomas Kuhn's ideas.  It emphasizes that new paradigm development happens 
when prior fundamental hypotheses are contradicted so that novel fundamental 
phenomena are produced. You can read about this at 
http://207.225.33.111/booktext.html

I show that the development of science has been highly periodic with
scientific revolutions in physics on the scale of Einstein, Faraday, and 
Franklin happening every 80 years almost to the year, and try to explain why 
this is so. This periodicity has continued unabated since Copernicus, at 
least.

In fact, it was while developing this theory of scientific and econonomic 
periodicity in the Spring of 1989 that I realized that if the 80 year timing 
was continuing, there must be a scientific revolution on the scale of the 
one with Einstein happening in the mid 1980s.  I realized this even before I 
heard of news of the cold fusion announcements.  So I started collecting 
information on what I thought were serious anomalies of the prior theories 
such as superconductivity.  When I heard about cold fusion, I started 
researching this topic, and then started to research ball lightning.
I think there had been a scientific revolution type crisis period during the 
1970s, 1980s, and 1990s but I think that since I've formulated plasmoid 
theory, the crisis period is over.

Scientific development seems to keep this 80 year timing through wars,
revolutions, great cultural changes...  It seems somehow endogenous and not 
tied to changes in economics.

On my web site: http://207.225.33.111 you can read more information about 
both the science theory and the physics theories.





_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 19:26:22 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA12771;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:23:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:23:37 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990709222621.02e16eb0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 22:26:21 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <199907092040.PAA19925 mirage.skypoint.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990709155410.18155B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"iXza31.0.T73.fwgXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29011
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:40 PM 7/9/1999 -0500, John Logajan wrote:
 
>Arguments may be illogical and equations may be in error, but
>nature continues to obey a rather rigid causality, and that
>can indeed be described precisely using logic and math.

    Are you sure?  Most physicists currently believe that you can have two
of (special) relativity, causality, and quantum mechanics.  There are
others that believe that causality is inconsistant with quantum mechanics
absent relativity.

    I happent to believe that there will be a replacement for causality
that is consistant with QM, and that causality as currently stated is
inconsisant with experiment.  I don't know if you noticed but they are
killing Schrodinger's cat in the lab now.  The results seem to indicate
that the collapse of an indeterminate quantum state is a exponential decay
where the more particles involved, the faster the decay.  The experiment is
very clever, and it involves determining the state of a particle without
observing it in the QM sense.

    And as for the math, are you familiar with Godel's proof?  There are
theorems that are undecidable in any system of mathematics.  And this is
not just an abstract exercise.  Any compiler for any language will either
have a legal program it can't compile, or will accept incorrect input.
Translation every compiler (or interpreter) on your computer has at least
one bug in it.  Or to take it back to physics, it is possible to build a
machine whose actions are not predictable even if you know everything
possible about it's starting state and all future inputs--and you are
looking at one right now.



                                        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 Jul  9 19:35:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA15600;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:34:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:34:48 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990709223731.02e0f2e0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 22:37:31 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <00a401beca52$18aa5e20$f1b4bfa8 default>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990709170503.02e03400 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NhaVV.0.bp3.85hXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29012
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:27 PM 7/9/1999 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
 
>Hold it there for a second, Robert while I run through Hilbert's Spaces and
>Poissons Brackets, to figure the 167/778 ft-pounds ~= 0.215 btu given to a
>pound of water after it falls for about 3.5 seconds.  I would think that if
>I measure the temperature at the "lip" and then in the stream below, I would
>see the 0.215 degree temperature rise. 200,000 ft^3/second is not exactly
>what you would see in the waterfalls/rapids of a mountain brook.

    Gee, I must not have been clear.  The temperature differential can be
HIGHER than you calculate due to the initial velocity of the water.

    And yes, Niagara Falls is a lot different than a waterfall on a
mountain brook.  The falls are enough of a micro-climate that net
evaporation is zero at the bottom.  The falls have been moving toward Lake
Erie for thousands of years, and the chasm it has been digging is narrow
and deep.  It takes a pretty strong wind blowing the right direction to get
the relative humidity below 99% at the bottom.
 

                                        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 Jul  9 20:04:50 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA21565;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 20:03:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 20:03:54 -0700
Message-ID: <010e01beca7f$cfaafee0$f1b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990709170503.02e03400 spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.5.32.19990709223731.02e0f2e0@spectre.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 20:55:08 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"VfBee1.0.tG5.QWhXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29013
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Robert I. Eachus <eachus mitre.org>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?

Would you settle for dropping water balloons off the leaning tower of Pisa,
Robert?

Or, a water gun fired into a chamber, where all you need to know is the
intial temperature and velocity?  Conversely, firing 30.06 slugs into a
bucket of water, if you know their mass, velocity, and temperature at the
point of impact.

> At 03:27 PM 7/9/1999 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
>
> >Hold it there for a second, Robert while I run through Hilbert's Spaces
and
> >Poissons Brackets, to figure the 167/778 ft-pounds ~= 0.215 btu given to
a
> >pound of water after it falls for about 3.5 seconds.  I would think that
if
> >I measure the temperature at the "lip" and then in the stream below, I
would
> >see the 0.215 degree temperature rise. 200,000 ft^3/second is not exactly
> >what you would see in the waterfalls/rapids of a mountain brook.
>
>     Gee, I must not have been clear.  The temperature differential can be
> HIGHER than you calculate due to the initial velocity of the water.

I calculated for the horseshoe falls: Q = 0.95*200,000  tt^3/sec  = Area*
Velocity where area  =
3,000 ft* thickness (lip thickness ~= 20 ft?)  ~= 3 ft/second for initial
velocity added to 103 ft/second for the splash velocity. IOW about 3%
difference.
>
>     And yes, Niagara Falls is a lot different than a waterfall on a
> mountain brook.  The falls are enough of a micro-climate that net
> evaporation is zero at the bottom.  The falls have been moving toward Lake
> Erie for thousands of years, and the chasm it has been digging is narrow
> and deep.  It takes a pretty strong wind blowing the right direction to
get
> the relative humidity below 99% at the bottom.

The literature says that there is a 192 ft deep  "gouge" under the horseshoe
splash, which should make for thorough mixing.

Regards,   Frederick
>
>
>                                         Robert I. Eachus
>
> with Standard_Disclaimer;
> use  Standard_Disclaimer;
> function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 20:29:14 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA28069;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 20:22:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 20:22:16 -0700
Message-ID: <000801beca82$607e4600$99b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PLEC: Cartridge Heater Bubble Generator (Nucleate Boiling)
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:14:43 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECA50.110B4BE0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"6DMAt.0.Qs6.enhXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29014
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_0005_01BECA50.110B4BE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

A fine mesh wirecloth wrapped around a cartridge heater acts as a good way
to promote nucleate boiling sites.

Perhaps the optimum operating point is where the bubbles are formed (and
collapse)on the cathodes, which would tie the
microcavitation/sonoluminescent to the electrolysis ou?

 http://www.wirecloth.com/

Regards,    Frederick

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECA50.110B4BE0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="democwc.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="democwc.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.wirecloth.com/

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.wirecloth.com/
Modified=80D5D10D81CABE013D

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECA50.110B4BE0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 21:12:57 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA06245;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:07:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:07:05 -0700
Message-Id: <199907100406.AAA20658 fh105.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 23:02:48 -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: <"PCZ423.0.VX1.eRiXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29015
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>     Are you sure?  Most physicists currently believe that you can have
two
> of (special) relativity, causality, and quantum mechanics.  There are
> others that believe that causality is inconsistant with quantum mechanics
> absent relativity.

Really? I am not aware of any process that violates causality...if there is
such, please, let us know.
 
>     I happent to believe that there will be a replacement for causality
> that is consistant with QM, and that causality as currently stated is
> inconsisant with experiment.  

Which experiments? If you are referring to EPR-Bell, it is not inconsistent
with causality...you simply must do what Bell suggested: mothball
relativity and reinstate a preferred frame of reference.

>I don't know if you noticed but they are
> killing Schrodinger's cat in the lab now.  The results seem to indicate
> that the collapse of an indeterminate quantum state is a exponential
decay
> where the more particles involved, the faster the decay.  The experiment
is
> very clever, and it involves determining the state of a particle without
> observing it in the QM sense.

Schrodinger's cat was killed long ago..or at least it should have been. The
idea that a cat can be both dead and alive, in a state of 'limbo' is
nonsense, a pipe dream if you will. That is like saying, "well, the cat is
mostly dead by now, but that is good news, because it is partly alive too."
(that statement not by me, but an experienced physicist) The cat is either
_dead_ or _alive_, there is just no information as to whether it is or not.
Either that, or the cat escaped...;)

What I am saying is, physicists nowadays are spending far too much time
playing with totally useless mind games and mathematical conjectures. We
are not making the progress we used to because many fields are considered
unphysical. If something unusual happens, we just come up with some
metaphysical garbage (which is conveniently impossible to prove) and
explain it away within the bounds of the standard model. Take for instance
Gunter Nimtz's experiment: he sends music through a barrier at FTL. What
does the scientific community have to say? One scientist (pseudo?) remarked
that it was like claiming Australia no longer existed...totally
preposterous. The scientists decided to keep theory over experiment, a
remarkably stupid and arrogant thing to do. A metaphysical, unprovable
hypothesis was conjectured to explain Nimtz's findings: no true signal was
sent, since the barrier was very small, and the signal was predetermined,
so it wasn't TRUE information transfer. So, I suppose I am not sending you
any information, since the data I will send is predetermined by me. Don't
worry, you didn't receive this. Was there even math to back up this crap?
Nope. The point is, metaphysics and math are not the end all. Remember the
scientific method...which most 'professional' scientists do not use
anymore...To quote Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe
and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Note to Robert:
the rant was not directed at you. Just the pipe dreamers who stifle
progress and toss metaphysical trash around.

--Kyle

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  9 21:48:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA13720;
	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:47:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:47:20 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990710004959.00c8d400 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 00:49:59 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara
  Falls?
In-Reply-To: <199907100406.AAA20658 fh105.infi.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"9zkO21.0.IM3.N1jXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29016
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:02 PM 7/9/1999 -0500, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
>
>>     Are you sure?  Most physicists currently believe that you can have two
>> of (special) relativity, causality, and quantum mechanics.  There are
>> others that believe that causality is inconsistant with quantum mechanics
>> absent relativity.
>
>Really? I am not aware of any process that violates causality...if there is
>such, please, let us know...
>
>Which experiments? If you are referring to EPR-Bell, it is not inconsistent
>with causality...you simply must do what Bell suggested: mothball
>relativity and reinstate a preferred frame of reference.

    Well your statement about neatly covers the first sentence--at a
minimum, phyicists believe that one of the three is wrong, and very few are
betting against QM.  The second statement is somewhat more controversial,
but it is the camp that I am in.  There is no way to reconcile causality
with some recent experiments, independent of relativity.

>>I don't know if you noticed but they are killing Schrodinger's cat in the
lab >>now.  The results seem to indicate that the collapse of an
indeterminate quantum >>state is a exponential decay where the more
particles involved, the faster the >>decay.  The experiment is very clever,
and it involves determining the state of >>a particle without observing it
in the QM sense.
>
>Schrodinger's cat was killed long ago..or at least it should have been. The
>idea that a cat can be both dead and alive, in a state of 'limbo' is
>nonsense, a pipe dream if you will...

    I'll see if I can find a good write up on the recent experiments, but
you do not seem to be aware of them.  It turns out to be possible to "see"
something without actually causing the probability function to collapse.
It is a complicated version of the two slit experiment, but the probability
that any photons go through the second slit is small.  You still get a
diffraction pattern only if the second slit is not blocked.  So you see
things without any photons actually interacting with the object.

    All that is detail, the reality is that physicists have used this trick
to peek inside the box, and actually seen the half-alive cat.  Of course a
cat is too big, and dies too slowly to make any observations, what is
acutally used is a small number of particles.  But in any case, you can
observe the probability function directly.  As I said you get to peek in
the box, and acually see a superposition of states. 

>What I am saying is, physicists nowadays are spending far too much time
>playing with totally useless mind games and mathematical conjectures. We
>are not making the progress we used to because many fields are considered
>unphysical. If something unusual happens, we just come up with some
>metaphysical garbage (which is conveniently impossible to prove) and
>explain it away within the bounds of the standard model.

    See above.  At one time Shrodinger's Cat and the Copenhagen model were
thought experiments only.  But now they are testable as is...

>                                                       Take for instance
>Gunter Nimtz's experiment: he sends music through a barrier at FTL. What
>does the scientific community have to say? One scientist (pseudo?) remarked
>that it was like claiming Australia no longer existed...totally
>preposterous. The scientists decided to keep theory over experiment, a
>remarkably stupid and arrogant thing to do. A metaphysical, unprovable
>hypothesis was conjectured to explain Nimtz's findings: no true signal was
>sent, since the barrier was very small, and the signal was predetermined,
>so it wasn't TRUE information transfer...

    Please understand, those phyicists unwilling to admit the result
understand all to well what admitting that Nimtz's experiment not only
requires them to discard causality, but to allow time travel as a
consequence.  (The experiment may be physical, but the actual interaction
is between a field and photons.  It is (relatively ;-) easy to create such
a field moving at a significant speed relative to the earth--synchrotrons
do it all the time.  In that situation Nimtz's music goes backwards in time
from the laboratory frame of reference.  You have to do an awful lot of
surgery on relativity to try and get "cosmic censorship."  (The concept
that yes, in theory you time travel is possible, but the universe as a
whole will prevent you from succeeding.)

    Most young physicists (I am not a physicist, and certainly not young)
know understand that relativity is on very shaky legs, and super-luminal
and even time-travel will happen. (QM provides a way of determining your
velocity with respect to space, even in a closed box.  The APS actually
announced at a recent convention that the overwhelming majority believed
that super-luminal travel was not only possible, but feasible.)

    Phyisics has gone through more revolution in the last few years than in
any previous period.  QM now has a way to "peek inside the box", it is
possible to measure velocity with respect to empty space, and in fact space
locally is not isotropic--there is a preferred direction, the cosmological
constant is back with a vengence, and papers on anti-gravity are showing up
in respected journals.

                                        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  Sat Jul 10 01:05:01 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA27556;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 01:02:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 01:02:26 -0700
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199907100802.DAA25145 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990709222621.02e16eb0 spectre.mitre.org> from "Robert I. Eachus" at "Jul 9, 99 10:26:21 pm"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 03:02:23 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"essiQ2.0.Uk6.IulXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29017
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> >Arguments may be illogical and equations may be in error, but
> >nature continues to obey a rather rigid causality, and that
> >can indeed be described precisely using logic and math.
> 
>     Are you sure? 

Yes.

>     I happent to believe that there will be a replacement for causality
> that is consistant with QM, and that causality as currently stated is
> inconsisant with experiment.

If humans find a (non-random, non-inconsistent) way to describe this new
view, then it will fulfill the original assertion. 

>     And as for the math, are you familiar with Godel's proof?  There are
> theorems that are undecidable in any system of mathematics.

Are they decidable on some days and not others?  Or is that property
consistent and predictable, including membership in the domain.

If you are looking for limits to knowledge, there are plenty, starting
with the general uncertainty principle (which is nicely described
by a mathematical equation which doesn't have to be changed on
odd numbered Tuesdays.)



-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com  --  651-633-8928 -
 - 4234 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 03:55:17 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA07654;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 03:49:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 03:49:12 -0700
Message-ID: <002b01becac0$ce78afe0$98b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?  (Supersonic water Jet)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 04:40:37 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"-D_K33.0.Rt1.dKoXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29018
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here you go, Robert.

A simple 3,000 psi cam-driven piston (water) pump, pushing 1.0 in^3/sec
through a 0.004 inch diameter orifice will give a 5,000 ft/sec  supersonic
"jet" of water that can exhaust into the bottom of a vertical stand-pipe,
and checked for ou heat. The velocity of sound in water is about 4,800
ft/sec.

If these jets can be used to cut brick and steel, they should be making some
fairly husky collisions that can break molecular bonds.

During the energy "crunch" my brother-in-law upped the water pressure at his
car-wash to about 1,000 psi, so that he didn't have to heat the water.
Worked great for de-scaling and paint removal, too. :-)

Regards,     Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 04:52:20 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA13649;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 04:51:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 04:51:47 -0700
Message-ID: <000801becac9$8ca651e0$268f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?  (Waterjet cutting)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 05:44:14 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECA97.3ED6F5A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"5nKg_1.0.BL3.IFpXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29019
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_0005_01BECA97.3ED6F5A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://www.hydratech.net/

The energy going into producing the high velocity waterjet is irrelevant,
the ou heat above the kinetic energy of the jet: K.E. = 1/2 mv2 = kT when
the jet is "stagnated" in a vertical water column is of interest.

FJS

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECA97.3ED6F5A0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Hydratech Industries.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Hydratech Industries.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.hydratech.net/

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.hydratech.net/
Modified=00065D5DC8CABE0111

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECA97.3ED6F5A0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 06:43:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA29109;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 06:40:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 06:40:48 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:40:41 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990709222621.02e16eb0 spectre.mitre.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990710143332.23752B-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"oGfOO2.0.k67.WrqXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29020
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> At 03:40 PM 7/9/1999 -0500, John Logajan wrote:
>  
> >Arguments may be illogical and equations may be in error, but
> >nature continues to obey a rather rigid causality, and that
> >can indeed be described precisely using logic and math.
> 
Robert
>     Are you sure?  Most physicists currently believe that you can have two
> of (special) relativity, causality, and quantum mechanics.  There are
> others that believe that causality is inconsistant with quantum mechanics
> absent relativity.

This is a huge problem. At the macroscopic level, everything seems causal
but then there's the Cat problem.

>     I happent to believe that there will be a replacement for causality
> that is consistant with QM, and that causality as currently stated is
> inconsisant with experiment.  I don't know if you noticed but they are
> killing Schrodinger's cat in the lab now.  The results seem to indicate
> that the collapse of an indeterminate quantum state is a exponential decay
> where the more particles involved, the faster the decay.  The experiment is
> very clever, and it involves determining the state of a particle without
> observing it in the QM sense.

Please tell more, I'd like to know of this '3rd way' in physics. There
also was an article in Scientific Am. about measurement with perturbing
the state of a system. It went something like this: start with the two
slit experiment, 50:50 outcome right. if you measure a photon on one leg,
you *know* it didn't go down the other. Then they some how 'nested' this
arrangement, between mirrors, got the path to bounce back and forth
several times so with vanishing probability the photn didn't go down the
path to your sample. I forgotten the jist of it.

>     And as for the math, are you familiar with Godel's proof?  There are
> theorems that are undecidable in any system of mathematics.  And this is
> not just an abstract exercise.  Any compiler for any language will either
> have a legal program it can't compile, or will accept incorrect input.
> Translation every compiler (or interpreter) on your computer has at least
> one bug in it.  Or to take it back to physics, it is possible to build a
> machine whose actions are not predictable even if you know everything
> possible about it's starting state and all future inputs--and you are
> looking at one right now.

Penrose's work on the Brain seems to point to qm processes that are
fundamentally non computable. We all know how we 'see' a solution before
we can prove it. 
Remi.
> 
> 
> 
>                                         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  Sat Jul 10 06:58:01 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA32228;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 06:57:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 06:57:12 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:57:05 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
Reply-To: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: ZPE
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990710144706.23752C-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"J8oZY2.0.Ut7.u4rXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29021
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortex,

Frederick, I was digging or bullying you, I was just wishing to saying
that sometimes I find things to fanciful. I believe that ZPE can be tapped
may be with a similar mechanism to how I know heat can be tapped - one
coheres random motion.

All I'm saying is don't be fanciful, random. Look where there is a smoking
gun. If an experimenter say observes the Zeeman effect (is that hyperfine
splitting of spectral lines) or Stimulated emission (Einstein
theoretically first) and the theoretician says we cannot explain this with
old theory but can with QED, then the Engineer should look to those
phenomena.

Engineer comes from the Latin root 'Ingin' something or other, *to
contrive*. 

To me, you must have matter, you must have something in an orbit that is
perturbed by the ZPF. Wishy washy but that's what my intuition is telling
me.

I'm not being flippant, but if you did know what a Poisson Bracket was,
the commutator, conjugate variables, an alternative way of stating the
Uncertainity Principle, you would have come a long way...

As to intuition, non computability, apparently Schrodinger and Dirac
*guessed*, yes guessed their equations.
Remi.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 07:11:10 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA03112;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 07:06:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 07:06:38 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:06:32 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Off Topic: Emotional Intelligence 
In-Reply-To: <001101beca58$894b5160$c68f85ce default>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990710150200.24479B-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"s3OY01.0.Tm.kDrXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29022
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vo,
Yes there is different manifestations of intelligence. Girls tend to have
a certain type of intelligence which is more people oriented, empathy,
knowing what people 'feel'. Arty types too. The kind of intelligence with
Science and Engineering tends to be a boyish, tom boy type thing. It's an
almost autistic locking away of oneself on the problem. 'People go hang,
leave me with my computer and manuals' kind of mentality.

To rate someone as intelligent because they are talkative and socible is,
well, bollocks. Have you heard your average DJ?
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 12:10:35 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA03472;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:09:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:09:34 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v04011700b3ac7661e0a4 [207.8.127.87]>
In-Reply-To: <19990709235449.57197.qmail hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:02:30 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: could someone publish the radioactivity article?
Resent-Message-ID: <"t-m571.0.4s.kfvXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29023
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>There are some newsletter and periodical publishers who read this
>list.
>
>I did experiments back in 1997 showing that radioactivity has the effect of
>promoting radioactivity from a cold fusion type electrolysis microsphere
>cell in G. Miley's lab.

***{This is very interesting. Back in 1995 I presented a theoretical
explanation for what might be happening in "cold fusion" electrolysis
cells, given the assumption that the excess heat phenomenon was real. I
called my theory the "protoneutron" theory, and one of the explicit
predictions of that theory was that the reaction ought to be facilitated by
nearby radiative sources, if it was real. While the protoneutron theory is
not the only explanation of CF that I consider to be plausible, it is the
only one I know of which specifically predicts that radiation will have a
stimulative effect on the process. If you are interested in reading the
lengthy debate that surrounded my presentation of the protoneutron theory
on usenet, check the sci.physics.fusion archives beginning in September,
1995. (They used to be at www.sunsite.edu, if memory serves.) Another
related point of interest: I heard an interview with Col. Philip Corso on
the Art Bell show the other night, in which Corso described one of the
artifacts allegedly recovered from the UFO crash at Roswell--a hand-held
laser core auger, I believe--which the government kicked around in a
storeroom for several years without knowing what it was, until one day
Corso walked into a lab that had a high radioactivity level with the thing
in his hand, and it suddenly turned on! Apparently, once it began working,
they were able to figure out what it was for. And, based on what you say,
the damn thing must have been powered by cold fusion!  :-) --Mitchell
Jones}***

>
>I couldn't get this published back in 1997, so I wrote a new one after
>hearing of Conte's use of a little radioactivity earlier in the year
>published in Infinite Energy.
>
>You can see the new article online at http://207.225.33.111/radiation.html
>No one has published this as far as I know.
>
>This effect would be important since it seemed that it might have powerful
>results, as in Conte's experiment, and it might be quite reproducible.  Just
>put some radioactive object next to an operating cell and check the results.
>
>Evidence that a Radioactive Object Promoted Radioactivity in an Electrolysis
>Cell, dated March 1999.

***{The post in which my original prediction was made, with some computer
generated typographical errors corrected, is presented below. The
protoneutron theory itself, in brief, holds that there is enough room in a
palladium unit cell to permit entry by an H+ ion, but there is not enough
room, after it picks up an electron, for that electron to orbit at the Bohr
radius. Result: it spirals down to what I termed "grazing altitude" above
the nucleus, producing an electrically neutral particle which I dubbed a
"protoneutron." The protoneutron, of course, is very unstable, and will
quickly transform itself into either a neutron (if it acquires the
necessary energy of .78 MeV), or into a neutral H atom (if it acquires the
necessary space). Thus it requires virtually zero kinetic energy and the
non-availability of radioacivity that  can supply the .78 MeV, in order to
exist. (The reason it needs near zero kinetic energy is that if it
possesses even the average energy that is thermally available, it will
quickly fly out of the confined spaces in the Pd lattice into regions where
its electron will have room to orbit at the Bohr radius, and will "pop"
into  a neutral H atom.) Thus it is a central postulate of the protoneutron
theory that there exists nodes in the lattice wave of palladium (and of
some other metals), where particles having virtually zero kinetic energy
can exist for long periods without being thermally disturbed. And, of
course, this is hardly a surprising idea. If you put sand on a drumhead,
and give it a thump, you will observe that the sand particles will jump
around until they find their way into regions of the drumhead--the
nodes--where the vibrations cancel, and will stop jumping. Thus it is not
surprising that similar regions might exist within a crystal lattice, and
it is not surprising that protoneutrons might accumulate within such
regions, just as sand accumulates on the nodes of a vibrating drumhead. As
for the relevance of radiation, well, when a radiant emission containing
.78 MeV or less passes through a node where lots of protoneutrons have
accumulated, it will either produce a cold neutron with a very high capture
cross section,or it will dislodge protoneutrons into the lattice. In either
case, the result will be transmutations, and the production of radiation in
the lattice. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

***{One of the 1995 posts to sci.physics.fusion in which I predicted that
radiation would speed up the cold fusion reaction is presented below,
between the lines of asterisks. --Mitchell Jones}***

****************************************************
I have received a couple of e-mail requests to explain the observed
transmutation of elements by "cold fusion" cells, in terms of the
protoneutron theory. My answer is that such events arise as a direct
consequence of the protoneutron chain reaction. As I have noted repeatedly,
the protoneutron (pn) is characterized by *energy rapacity.* To reestablish
the context, let me review the main points:

(a) The protoneutron is wildly unstable, and is desperately hungry for the
energy of transformation into a more stable state. If radiant energy of
more than .78 Mev passes in its vicinity, it subtracts .78 Mev and
transforms into a neutron. The neutron in question is a cold neutron: it
remains in the node of the lattice wave, with virtually zero kinetic
energy, like the protoneutron that produced it.

(b) If radiant energy of less than .78 Mev is available, that energy is
taken in the form of kinetic energy. The result is a protoneutron shooting
through the lattice with that amount of kinetic energy and, in the normal
case, it delivers its energy to the lattice in a series of collisions. In
most cases, such a speeding protoneutron quickly passes into an unocupied
unit cell and "pops" into a neutral hydrogen atom, which then becomes
lodged in whatever empty unit cell it finds itself in when its kinetic
energy has been transformed into heat. Other, less probable, scenarios
involve the separation of the proton from the electron in grazing
collisions with nuclei, and result in high speed protons and beta particles
bouncing around in the lattice until they, too, have given up their kinetic
energy as heat. Another scenario, enormously important for present
purposes, is the following: *sometimes the speeding protoneutrons make
centered hits on target nuclei, resulting in transmutations of elements.*

In the transmutation reactions, what happens is that the target nucleus
absorbs the proton, while the loosely bound electron is shaken free by the
collision and continues on its way as a beta particle. These reactions
occur with a vastly elevated proton capture cross section because the
proton comes into the nucleus as a component of a neutral protoneutron,
rather than as a naked proton. Result: it is not diverted away from the
nucleus by coulomb repulsion, and the capture cross section is enormously
increased. To understand the process of protoneutron transmutation of
elements, the best starting point is to open your Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics to the early section entitled "Table of the Isotopes." [In my 63rd
edition, this begins on pg. B-255.]

Looking at the section that describes the isotopes of palladium, you will
note that the following stable isotopes are present in concentrations of 1%
or more here on Earth:

46Pd106, 27.3%
46Pd108, 26.7%
46Pd105, 22.2%
46Pd110, 11.8%
46Pd104, 11.0%
46Pd102, 1.0%

These isotopes, mixed in the indicated proportions, comprise the palladium
that is mined on Earth and used in "cold fusion" electrodes. With addition
of a protoneutron, the following transmutation reactions are supported.
Halflives indicated are for the isotopes on the right side of the equations:

46Pd106 + pn --> 47Ag106 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 8.4 d)
46Pd108 + pn --> 47Ag108 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 2.42 min)
46Pd105 + pn --> 47Ag105 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 40 d)
46Pd110 + pn --> 47Ag110 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 253 d)
46Pd104 + pn --> 47Ag104 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 48 min)
46Pd102 + pn --> 47Ag102 + beta- + n  (Halflife:15 min)

Information about the halflives of the transmuted nuclei were taken from
the silver decay reactions listed under silver isotopes. Needless to say,
the likelihood of one of these transmuted isotopes being found depends upon
the percentage of the parent nucleus in the original palladium
electrode,the halflife of the transmuted nucleus, the duration of the
experimental run, and the time lag between completion of the experimental
run and testing of the cathode for transmuted nuclei. Best conditions for
detection involve long experimental runs followed by immediate testing of
the cathode. Even then, however, the likelihood of finding detectible
amounts of transmuted nuclei such as 47Ag108, 47Ag104, or 47Ag102 are very
slim, due to the short halflives. Nevertheless, the occurrence of these
transmutation events in detectible numbers is virtual proof of the validity
of the protoneutron theory, for the simple reason that no other theory
explains how the proton capture cross sections get high enough to support
these reactions at all. Since a protoneutron is a neutral particle, the
occurence of transmutation reactions in detectible amounts is a virtual
"smoking gun" signature of protoneutron transmutation.

Various other transmutation events arise due to contamination. For example,
an occasional contaminant of palladium is ruthenium. This occurs because
ruthenium co-ocurs with platinum and palladium in many ore bodies, and,
because of its closeness to palladium in atomic weight, it is sometimes not
separated out. Also, it is deliberately added to palladium as an electrode
hardener in many industrial applications and is thus frequently present in
recycled palladium from industrial sources. In nature, its isotopes are
present in the following proportions:

44Ru102, 31.6%
44Ru104, 18.6%
44Ru101, 17.1%
44Ru99, 12.7%
44Ru100, 12.6%
44Ru96, 5.5%
44Ru98, 1.9%

When ruthenium is present in a cathode, the following protoneutron
transmutation reactions, in addition to the palladium reactions given
above, are supported:

44Ru102 + pn --> 45Rh102 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 2.9 y)
44Ru104 + pn --> 45Rh104 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 5 min)
44Ru101 + pn --> 45Rh101 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 3.1 y)
44Ru99   + pn --> 45Rh99   + beta-  + n (Halflife: 16 d)
44Ru100 + pn --> 45Rh100 + beta-  + n (Halflife:20 h)
44Ru96   + pn --> 45Rh96   + beta-  + n (Halflife: 0 s) [Note: 45Rh96 has
never been detected.]
44Ru98   + pn --> 45Rh98   + beta-  + n (Halflife: 8.7 min)

Once again, the halflives given are taken the rhodium decay reactions given
in the rhodium section of the isotope table. The likelihood of detection of
particular transmutation daughter nuclei of ruthenium is determined by the
same considerations as described above, for palladium transmutations.

I would note, in passing, that the preceding considerations explain very
nicely the results of the experiment conducted by Dr. Kevin Wolf at Texas A
& M, as reported in Infinite Energy #2, pg. 30-32.

As noted above, platinum, palladium, and ruthenium are found together in
many orebodies. Thus platinum is an occasional contaminant of palladium,
and the same basic analysis given above applies again. The natiurally
occuring isotopes of platinum are:

78Pt195, 33.8%
78Pt194, 32.9%
78Pt196, 25.3%
78Pt198, 7.2%

When platinum is present as a contaminant in a palladium cathode,
therefore, the following protoneutron transmutation reactions are to be
expected:

78Pt195 + pn --> 79Au195 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 183 d)
78Pt194 + pn --> 79Au194 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 39.5 h)
78Pt196 + pn --> 79Au196 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 6.18 d)
78Pt198 + pn --> 79Au198 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 2.7 d)

The above considerations explain the detection of gold in some experiments.

Another contaminant sometimes found with palladium is silver. When silver
is present, the same sort of analysis predicts the production of cadmium by
protoneutron transmutation. I'll skip the details, since the analysis
should be clear enough based on the above examples. Here are the steps:
look up the contaminant isotopes in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
and list the isotopes that occur in nature in amounts in excess of 1%. Then
match up against the element of the next higher number (cadmium, in the
present case), and select out the isotopes with the matching atomic
weights. Then write down the reactions and record the halflives listed for
the transmutation daughter nuclei. It's simple!

When other cathode materials (e.g., titanium, nickel, etc.) are used, the
same approach applies: determine the transmutation byproducts of the
material used, and the transmutation byproducts of its various
contaminants. In a few cases, contamination of the electrode occurs via the
plating out of metals present in the electrolyte. Often the source of such
metals lies in the use of hard water rather than distilled water.
Potassium, for example, may plate out on the cathode and be transmuted into
calcium. An analysis conducted along these lines will explain virtually all
the observed results.

Conclusion: the observed transmutation events are a byproduct of the
protoneutron chain reaction. They occur in measurable quantities for one
reason only: because a protoneutron, in effect, is a neutral proton, and as
a result it isn't deflected by coulomb forces as it approaches a nucleus.
Result: the capture cross section of a proton, when embedded in a
protoneutron, is enormously enhanced. Since no other theory of "cold
fusion" explains this massive enhancement of the proton capture cross
section, I consider the transmutation reactions to be virtual proof of the
validity of the protoneutron theory.

--Mitchell Jones
****************************************************

***{Two final points. First, it goes without saying that lots of nuclear
reactions other than those discussed above are capable of resulting from
interactions between nuclei and either neutrons or protoneutrons. Second,
for the record,when I wrote the above I was thoroughly convinced that the
transmutations were, in fact, taking place. With the passage of time and
the continued absence of evidence of enhancement of the reaction by means
of radiation--until your post--my enthusiasm for the protoneutron theory
waned. Now, however, I find myself excited by it again, as I was shortly
after Pon's and Fleischmann's original announcement, when the germ of the
idea first appeared in my mind. Maybe this stuff is true after all!
--Mitchell Jones}***







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 12:18:30 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA05662;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:13:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:13:46 -0700
Message-Id: <199907101913.PAA25669 fh105.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at NiagaraFalls?
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:09:36 -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: <"G1wdM2.0.JO1.gjvXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29024
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> At 11:02 PM 7/9/1999 -0500, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:

>     Well your statement about neatly covers the first sentence--at a
> minimum, phyicists believe that one of the three is wrong, and very few
are
> betting against QM.  The second statement is somewhat more controversial,
> but it is the camp that I am in.  There is no way to reconcile causality
> with some recent experiments, independent of relativity.

You can have causality with anything, provided you allow a background rest
frame to exist through which 'true' rest and time exist. This was the
theory of Lorentz and Fitzgerald. Think of it as a one way door to the
future...you can go from past to future, but not the other way around.

>     I'll see if I can find a good write up on the recent experiments, but
> you do not seem to be aware of them.  It turns out to be possible to
"see"
> something without actually causing the probability function to collapse.

Very interesting. Please do send information on this. Call me old
fashioned, but I don't believe a cat can be both alive or dead at the same
time. If I am proven wrong _experimentally_, I'm moving to a cave in Alaska
:)

>     Please understand, those phyicists unwilling to admit the result
> understand all to well what admitting that Nimtz's experiment not only
> requires them to discard causality, but to allow time travel as a
> consequence.  

Not if you do what Bell suggested. See above: absolute rest frame. Time
travel does not occur with superluminal processes if you have that. If
there is an experiment demonstrating time travel, tell us about it. I would
be interested in it.

> In that situation Nimtz's music goes backwards in time
> from the laboratory frame of reference.  

Huh? All Nimtz saw was FTL...not time travel IIRC.
 
>     Most young physicists (I am not a physicist, and certainly not young)
> know understand that relativity is on very shaky legs, and super-luminal
> and even time-travel will happen. 

If you want FTL and time travel, you NEED relativity. I am of the opinion
that time travel is unphysical, and therefore relativity is wrong, since
FTL processes have been demonstrated...metaphysical garbage and ad hoc
immunizations of relativity notwithstanding.

> The APS actually announced at a recent convention that the overwhelming
majority believed
> that super-luminal travel was not only possible, but feasible.)

Really? That's not the case of sci.physics.relativity, where even the
'experts' are crackpots...I get annoyed at know-it-alls who go around
stating that FTL will never happen, when they don't know. I asked a
question about it in a particular situation about a year ago, and what
would happen if evidence for it was found. They replied that evidence will
never be found, because the theory says so. Stupidity and arrogance abound
there.
 
>     Phyisics has gone through more revolution in the last few years than
in
> any previous period.  QM now has a way to "peek inside the box", it is
> possible to measure velocity with respect to empty space, and in fact
space
> locally is not isotropic--there is a preferred direction, the
cosmological
> constant is back with a vengence, and papers on anti-gravity are showing
up
> in respected journals.

There is still much resentment to these new results though. While there is
progress, there are still those who wish to stifle progress. I'm not
yelling 'conspiracy, conspiracy" but it is obvious the establishment will
do anything to keep FTL out of the books.

--Kyle

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 14:15:16 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA02818;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:09:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:09:26 -0700
Message-ID: <000801becb17$7223fcc0$86b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pool-Nucleate Boiling in the Presence of Electric Fields
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:01:51 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECAE5.2454A080"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"39B051.0.yh.5QxXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29025
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_0005_01BECAE5.2454A080
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Looks like a good source on the effects of Electric Fields on Bubble
Formation etc.  FJS

 http://zeta.lerc.nasa.gov/6712/nahra/herman/science.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECAE5.2454A080
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="science.htm.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="science.htm.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://zeta.lerc.nasa.gov/6712/nahra/herman/science.htm

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://zeta.lerc.nasa.gov/6712/nahra/herman/science.htm
Modified=40523BF416CBBE0161

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECAE5.2454A080--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 14:44:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA10467;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:39:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:39:53 -0700
Message-ID: <001f01becb1b$b3f53660$86b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Thermocapillary Migration and Interaction of Bubbles and Droplets
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:31:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01BECAE9.478A76C0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"L0d8l1.0.TZ2.fsxXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29026
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_001C_01BECAE9.478A76C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/expr/bubble.htm

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BECAE9.478A76C0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Thermocapillary Migration and Interaction of Bubbles and Droplets.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Thermocapillary Migration and Interaction of Bubbles and Droplets.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/expr/bubble.htm

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/expr/bubble.htm
Modified=00F5EA6E1BCBBE01F2

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BECAE9.478A76C0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 16:51:41 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA32183;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 16:50:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 16:50:46 -0700
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:54:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject:  " ? Direction for Space ? "Metaphysics, was math.ZP NiagaraFalls?
In-Reply-To: <199907101913.PAA25669 fh105.infi.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990710194351.18412A-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"_rj7B1.0.ns7.MnzXt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29027
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Dear Vo., Kyle and all,

	Please see question [s] notes, comments....below.

	 Several cuts .....  Q:  question at flag below

On Sat, 10 Jul 1999, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:

> > At 11:02 PM 7/9/1999 -0500, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> 
> > Well your statement about neatly covers the first sentence--at a >
> minimum, phyicists believe .....  CUT ......

It turns out to be possible > to "see"  > something without actually
causing the probability function to collapse. 
>
	FLAG [1]  Cool!  How is this done ?

__________CUTS

	FLAG [2]

	Q:   Say WHAT ?!?!  ... [over]
> 
> > In that situation Nimtz's music goes backwards in time
> > from the laboratory frame of reference.  
> 
> Huh? All Nimtz saw was FTL...not time travel IIRC.
>  
	AND  Q: ... What is IIRC ?

	_____CUTS ___________

	BIG FLAG  BIG QUESTION

.......> > possible to measure velocity with respect to empty space, and
in fact> space  > > locally is not isotropic--there is a preferred
direction,


	UC .......... ULTRA COOL !!!
	
	WHICH "WAY" DOES SPACE "GO" ??? ... OR, RATHER.... IN WHICH
DIRECTION DOES IT GO?
	
	AND:	How can I see or determine this ... 'direction'

		Very Cool!



> There is still much resentment to these new results though. While there is
> progress, there are still those who wish to stifle progress. I'm not
> yelling 'conspiracy, conspiracy" but it is obvious the establishment will
> do anything to keep FTL out of the books.
> 
> --Kyle
> 

		John Schnurer

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 17:14:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA04977;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 17:10:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 17:10:35 -0700
Message-Id: <199907110010.UAA03851 fh105.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: " ? Direction for Space ? "Metaphysics, was math.ZP NiagaraFalls?
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:06:23 -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: <"n61W82.0.cD1.x3-Xt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29028
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


> > Huh? All Nimtz saw was FTL...not time travel IIRC.
> >  
> 	AND  Q: ... What is IIRC ?

An acronym for: If I Remember Correctly.
 
> 	WHICH "WAY" DOES SPACE "GO" ??? ... OR, RATHER.... IN WHICH
> DIRECTION DOES IT GO?
> 	
> 	AND:	How can I see or determine this ... 'direction'

Robert: what medium or effect was measured to determine the anisotropy? Are
you talking about Borge Nodland's work on polarization change across a
distance of space? Or something else? 

--Kyle

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 19:23:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA06505;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:19:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:19:45 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3adaa08cd2c [207.8.127.11]>
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3ac7661e0a4 [207.8.127.87]>
References: <19990709235449.57197.qmail hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:17:19 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: could someone publish the radioactivity article?
Resent-Message-ID: <"-wOHK1.0.Zb1.1z_Xt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29029
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

[snip}

>>
>>Evidence that a Radioactive Object Promoted Radioactivity in an Electrolysis
>>Cell, dated March 1999.
>
>***{The post in which my original prediction was made, with some computer
>generated typographical errors corrected, is presented below. The
>protoneutron theory itself, in brief, holds that there is enough room in a
>palladium unit cell

***{Note: the above should be a reference to a *loaded* unit cell--i.e.,
one which is already occupied by a neutral hydrogen atom. --MJ}***

to permit entry by an H+ ion, but there is not enough
>room, after it picks up an electron, for that electron to orbit at the Bohr
>radius. Result: it spirals down to what I termed "grazing altitude" above
>the nucleus, producing an electrically neutral particle which I dubbed a
>"protoneutron." The protoneutron, of course, is very unstable, and will
>quickly transform itself into either a neutron (if it acquires the
>necessary energy of .78 MeV), or into a neutral H atom (if it acquires the
>necessary space). Thus it requires virtually zero kinetic energy and the
>non-availability of radioacivity that  can supply the .78 MeV, in order to
>exist. (The reason it needs near zero kinetic energy is that if it
>possesses even the average energy that is thermally available, it will
>quickly fly out of the confined spaces in the Pd lattice

***{That is, out of the regions where the unit cells are loaded. --MJ}***

into regions where
>its electron will have room to orbit at the Bohr radius, and will "pop"
>into  a neutral H atom.) Thus it is a central postulate of the protoneutron
>theory that there exists nodes in the lattice wave of palladium (and of
>some other metals), where particles having virtually zero kinetic energy
>can exist for long periods without being thermally disturbed.

***{Note, again, that this should be a reference to the *loaded* regions of
the Pd lattice. --MJ}***

 And, of
>course, this is hardly a surprising idea. If you put sand on a drumhead,
>and give it a thump, you will observe that the sand particles will jump
>around until they find their way into regions of the drumhead--the
>nodes--where the vibrations cancel, and will stop jumping. Thus it is not
>surprising that similar regions might exist within a crystal lattice, and
>it is not surprising that protoneutrons might accumulate within such
>regions, just as sand accumulates on the nodes of a vibrating drumhead. As
>for the relevance of radiation, well, when a radiant emission containing
>.78 MeV or less passes through a node where lots of protoneutrons have
>accumulated, it will either produce a cold neutron with a very high capture
>cross section, or it will dislodge protoneutrons into the lattice. In either
>case, the result will be transmutations, and the production of radiation in
>the lattice. --Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

***{My apologies for the sloppy writing. I will try to put together a more
comprehensive and intelligible presentation as soon as I get the time. (Or,
alternatively, read the old posts in the sci.physics.fusion archives, where
the theory was presented in vast detail.) --MJ}***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 21:10:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA22041;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:02:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:02:45 -0700
Message-ID: <002e01becb51$2e665340$f0b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Bubble Chambers & Nucleation Sites on Electrolysis (Pd) Cathodes?
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:53:56 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"CRp2o2.0.JO5.bT1Yt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29030
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

If Microbubbles and their collapse (similar to microcavitation and
sonoluminescence) are responsible for ou effects at the electrolysis cell
cathode, or the Mizuno-Ohmuri cell,(surface) the positive ions could be the
predominant nucleation sites for stimulated bubble formation?

A full plate for thought.  :-)

Regards,    Frederick





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 21:17:05 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA24972;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:16:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:16:23 -0700
Message-ID: <002801becb53$174e8ae0$86b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Display tag First tracks observed in liquid hydrogen by John Wood LBNL Image Li
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:08:46 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01BECB20.C82F7D20"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"POwk33.0.666.Ng1Yt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29031
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_0025_01BECB20.C82F7D20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




http://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/PARTICLE-DETECTION/BUB
BLE-CHAMBERS/index/96602977.html

------=_NextPart_000_0025_01BECB20.C82F7D20
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Display tag First tracks observed in liquid hydrogen by John Wood LBNL Image Library.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Display tag First tracks observed in liquid hydrogen by John Wood LBNL Image Library.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/PARTICLE-=
DETECTION/BUBBLE-CHAMBERS/index/96602977.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=3Dhttp://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/PARTICLE-DETE=
CTION/BUBBLE-CHAMBERS/index/96602977.html
Modified=3DA0AD03F852CBBE0124

------=_NextPart_000_0025_01BECB20.C82F7D20--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 10 21:18:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA26275;
	Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:18:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:18:03 -0700
Message-ID: <003101becb53$526f42e0$86b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Display tag Tracks in 72-inch bubble chamber LBNL Image Library
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:10:31 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002E_01BECB21.06313500"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"csg8M3.0.PQ6.wh1Yt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29032
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_002E_01BECB21.06313500
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




http://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/PARTICLE-DETECTION/BUB
BLE-CHAMBERS/index/96703037.html

------=_NextPart_000_002E_01BECB21.06313500
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Display tag Tracks in 72-inch bubble chamber LBNL Image Library.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Display tag Tracks in 72-inch bubble chamber LBNL Image Library.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/PARTICLE-=
DETECTION/BUBBLE-CHAMBERS/index/96703037.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=3Dhttp://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/PARTICLE-DETE=
CTION/BUBBLE-CHAMBERS/index/96703037.html
Modified=3DE0DF9A4353CBBE0179

------=_NextPart_000_002E_01BECB21.06313500--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 11 03:35:17 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA03375;
	Sun, 11 Jul 1999 03:33:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 03:33:52 -0700
Message-ID: <000801becb87$d25baf00$a9b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "Phil Fish" <philthefish hotbot.com>
Subject: INDEX of BERKELEY-LAB images
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:26:17 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECB55.853D5340"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"u1ypF3.0.fq.GC7Yt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29033
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_0005_01BECB55.853D5340
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/COLINDEX.html

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECB55.853D5340
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="INDEX of BERKELEY-LAB images.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="INDEX of BERKELEY-LAB images.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/COLINDEX.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/COLINDEX.html
Modified=A09D12AB87CBBE010B

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECB55.853D5340--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 11 04:46:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA11390;
	Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:40:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:40:48 -0700
Message-ID: <002001becb91$2be9ed80$a9b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: The Order of the Tortoise
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 05:33:15 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01BECB5E.DFDE3A40"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"MFo_E.0.pn2.0B8Yt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29034
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_001D_01BECB5E.DFDE3A40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/tortoise/

------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BECB5E.DFDE3A40
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="The Order of the Tortoise.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="The Order of the Tortoise.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/tortoise/

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/tortoise/
Modified=00D9C51B91CBBE01D4

------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BECB5E.DFDE3A40--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 11 04:47:43 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA12391;
	Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:43:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:43:00 -0700
Message-ID: <002f01becb91$7a5156c0$a9b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Tortoise Members
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 05:35:27 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01BECB5F.2E68BBE0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"Nmjzk2.0.X13.4D8Yt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29035
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_002C_01BECB5F.2E68BBE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/tortoise/members.html

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BECB5F.2E68BBE0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Tortoise Members.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Tortoise Members.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/tortoise/members.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/tortoise/members.html
Modified=A07DE26991CBBE0183

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BECB5F.2E68BBE0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 11 08:06:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA03505;
	Sun, 11 Jul 1999 08:05:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 08:05:58 -0700
Message-ID: <00a201becbad$d4a1b220$f0b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Nucleate Boiling Experiments
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 08:57:19 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"rLcW31.0.hs.MBBYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29036
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

A kitchen type experiment using a 5" diameter SS saucepan, table salt,
baking soda, dish washing detergent, vinegar, and cold tap water on an the
electric range heating element:

When the pan with about 1 inch of cold water is set upon the cherry red
heating element there is an immediate noisy boiling effect which subsides in
a few seconds, and in a few minutes noisy nucleate boiling begins.

With  the pan cooled and about a teaspoon of baking soda (NaHCO3) added the
initial pulse is obtained and boiling sets sooner than with the cold tap
water when it was set on the heater.

With the pan cooled and fresh cold water added and set on the heater,
results about the same as cold water for vinegar (acetic acid CH3-COOH).

About the same effect with a small quantity of dish washing detergent added
to the cold water in the pan which was then set on the heater.

When about a teaspoon of table salt (NaCl) was added to the fresh-cold tap
water in the pan, and set on the heater, vigorous nucleate boiling started
immediately and continued.

Speculative Conclusion:   The presence and possible rapid recombination of
ions (+/-) at the liquid-solid interface promotes copious quantities of
microbubbles.

K+  and OH-  ions, in place of the K2CO3, along with the electrolysis
(conduction) ions, or what?

Regards,     Frederick





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 11 16:44:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA03422;
	Sun, 11 Jul 1999 16:42:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 16:42:14 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PLEC: Run 8
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:41:37 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37892b0a.87805202 ccasoftware.com.au>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990701202631.0092a200 mail.eden.com>		 <377CC800.47EB9940@ix.netcom.com> <v04011701b3a2cfd6b86b@[207.8.61.158]> <v04011702b3a306127b95@[207.8.67.180]> <v04011700b3a34b9055c0@[207.8.67.180]> <37810A46.A7367FB0@ix.netcom.com> <378143
5b.84872116 mail-hub> <37822597.795D469@ix.netcom.com> <3789efc3.194576140@mail-hub> <378365FE.2C9D719A@ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <378365FE.2C9D719A ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 QAA03403
Resent-Message-ID: <"UVwrX.0.Or.LlIYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29037
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:36:55 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
[snip]
>The soup idea is interesting and in line with the theory of the Chubbs, at least when
>hydrogen is involved.  Ron Brightsen (Clustron Sciences Corp.) has noticed the multiple He
>effect and has an interesting theory of the nucleus based on this idea.
[snip]
I've spent hours trying to understand his theory, and still can't find
any connection to He4 multiples, though plenty to He3, D, and T (as well
as negative mass and antigravity).


Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 11 19:26:52 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA18336;
	Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:21:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:21:00 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3aef6d86c09 [207.8.127.139]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:18:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Protoneutrons and Mizuno
Resent-Message-ID: <"R4EYu1.0.LU4.C4LYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29038
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Since yesterday, I have been thinking about the Mizuno cell in connection
with the protoneutron theory. Assuming Mizuno's excess heat is real and
that his excess heat kicks in immediately, without the time for hydrogen
loading that palladium requires, the implication would seem to be that some
cells in the tungsten lattice of the cathode are sufficiently tight so that
an H+ ion (proton) can enter, but, when it meets an electron therein, there
isn't enough room for the electron to orbit at the Bohr radius. Result: the
electron spirals in to a much tighter--and wildly unstable--orbit, because
none of the higher, stable orbits are possible. Result: a protoneutron is
produced--an unstable particle that behaves very much like a neutron and,
in the process, facilitates various nuclear reactions that are capable of
accounting for the excess heat claimed by Mizuno. Now, I don't know the
shape or the dimensions of the unit cell of tungsten, or of thorium, which
is a frequent impurity in tungsten welding rods, and I do not know what
other impurities are typically present. However, if the protoneutron theory
is to explain Mizuno's data, then some or all of the unit cells within his
working cathodes must be too small to contain full-sized H-atoms, but large
enough to permit the entry of naked protons.

Interestingly, with such thoughts in the back of my mind, I happened this
afternoon onto a book entitled *Before the Big Bang*, by Ernest Sternglass,
and, on pg. 85-87, I read of an experiment that he did in 1951, while a
graduate student, that produced "inexplicable" results. It seems that
Sternglass had filled a gas discharge tube (similar to a fluorescent tube)
with hydrogen gas, wrapped it with paraffin, then with indium and silver
foil, and passed 35,000 volts through it. After the experiment, he tested
the foils for radioactivity, and found that they were suddenly 50% above
background, a state of affairs which he falsly took as indicative of the
production of neutrons. That, however, is impossible: an electron would
need .7875 MeV in order to hit a proton hard enough to generate a neutron,
and that means it would have to be accelerated through a potential
difference of 787,500 volts, which is some 22 times greater than the 35,000
volts that were actually used. Thus, according to Sternglass, the result
remains inexplicable to this day.

The protoneutron theory, however, explains it: I'll bet that the cathode
was tungsten, like Mizuno's cathode. Result: H+ ions (protons) were
plunging into the lattice of the cathode, capturing electrons, and turning
into protoneutrons. That would account for the observed radioactivity,
without requiring the production of neutrons via the normal, higher energy
pathway. Moreover, I'll bet that if Sternglass had done calorimetry, he
would have found that his "gas discharge tube" was "over unity."

For those who consider the protoneutron theory to be nonsense, here is a
question: if a proton captures an electron inside a crystal lattice where
there isn't enough space for the electron to orbit at the Bohr radius, what
happens?

--Mitchell Jones}***



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 11 20:05:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA02078;
	Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:04:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:04:14 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b3af051ac62f [207.8.127.197]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:01:03 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Original Post on Protoneutron Theory, 11 Sep 1995
Resent-Message-ID: <"JoudL.0.OW.kiLYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29039
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{After a lot of digging, I managed to find my original post concerning
the protoneutron theory. I have included it between the lines of asterisks,
unedited, below. (Note: in the material that follows, (1) I was talking
about light water CF in palladium cathode material, and (2) I was using the
notion of "thermal neutron" to mean a neutron that possesses the average
kinetic energy of its surroundings, rather that the average kinetic energy
that it would possess under standard conditions. Since the presumed
surroundings were those present in the nodes of the lattice wave, these
"thermal" neutrons had kinetic energies that were *much lower* than they
would have at standard temperature.) --Mitchell Jones}***

*******************************************

***{At this point, I would like to toss out what I call the protoneutron
theory of "cold fusion." If this theory is correct, then "cold fusion"
ain't fusion!

Note that the drift of the H+ ions into the cathode does not require a
free path through unoccupied unit cells. In an occupied unit cell, the
occupant is a neutral H atom. Thus there is no voltage gradient barring an
H+ ion from drifting into an occupied unit cell, and there is no voltage
gradient preventing an outward drifting electron from passing into an
occupied unit cell, either. This means it is purely a matter of
statistical probability, regarding the question of whether a drifting H+
meets an electron in an occupied unit cell. If it does, it will attempt to
"pop" into a neutral hydrogen atom. Unfortunately, because the unit cell
is already occupied, when the second H atom attempts to form it will not
have sufficient room for its electron at even its innermost Bohr orbit.
Result: the electron will spiral down toward the nucleus, where it will
linger at grazing altitude in a particle form which we may term a
*protoneutron.* Why doesn't it become an actual neutron? The answer: in
the reaction p + e --> n, the mass of the proton is 1.67239E-24 grams
while that of the electron is .00091E-24 grams. Thus the sum of p + e on
the left side of the equation is 1.6733E-24 grams. On the right side of
the equation, the mass of the neutron is 1.6747E-24 grams. Since the
neutron outweighs the proton plus the electron by .0014E-24 grams, which
equates to .7875 Mev, this amount of energy must be available from
somewhere in order for the protoneutron to convert into a real neutron.
[Note: to convert .0014E-24 grams to ergs, we multiply by the square of
the velocity of light in cm per sec, giving: (.0014E-24)(9E+20) =
.0126E-4 ergs. Since 1 electron-volt equals 1.6E-12 ergs, it follows that
this reaction absorbs  .0126E-4/1.6E-12 = .7875E+6 electron-volts, which
is .7875 Mev per neutron created.] Since this amount of energy is unlikely
to be available, the bizarre and unstable protoneutron will only endure
for a tiny fraction of a second, until it bounces into an unoccupied unit
cell. At that point, it will expand its radius like an exploding piece of
popcorn, and become a hydrogen atom trapped in that unit cell.

Note, however, that such events have a cumulative effect: if electrons
tend to meet protons in a particular region of the lattice, all of the
adjacent unit cells in that region are quickly going to become occupied,
and the size of that continuously occupied region is going to grow
inexorably. Result: protoneutrons that are formed in that region will
endure for longer and longer, before finally bouncing into an unoccupied
unit cell adjacent to the region and "popping" into hydrogen atoms.
Eventually the size of the "loaded" region will become so immense,
relative to the slow moving, uncharged protoneutrons, that they will begin
to accumulate in the region. Why do they persist in this bizarre
netherworld state, as "protoneutrons?" For two reasons: (1) Enough thermal
energy is available for them to "pop" into hydrogen atoms, but that low
energy state requires a lot of space--more space than is available in the
loaded region of the lattice which they occupy. (2) Enough space is
available for them to collapse into neutrons, but that state requires more
energy than is available. Result: thermal protoneutrons inside large,
continuously loaded regions of the lattice will simply endure, desperately
hungering for the energy or the space they need to enter a more stable
state.

This means that protoneutron loading will take place in subregions of the
lattice that are fully packed with hydrogen atoms. First there will be
one, then two, then ten, then hundreds, then thousands, then millions of
protoneutrons trapped in the region, *and all will be desperately awaiting
some event capable of supplying a .7875 Mev jolt in the right place.* They
have no prospects of being transformed into hydrogen atoms, because that
is a low energy-high space transformation, and the space is not available.
Thus their only allowed transformation is the low space-high energy
transformation into neutrons. When such a transformation finally happens,
the loaded palladium electrode will "turn on," and begin to produce
"excess heat."

To understand the production of "excess heat," assume that in a subregion
of the lattice in which there are millions of trapped protoneutrons, one
of them finds the energy it needs to become a neutron. Result: a thermal
neutron will be created, and will quickly drift into a nearby nucleus. If,
for example, it drifts into an H nucleus, the result is D plus a 2.22 Mev
gamma. The gamma, however, will not exit the lattice, because it is
emitted in a region packed with protoneutrons, *and it is my conjecture
that protoneutrons are so rapacious in terms of their demand for energy of
transformation that they will absorb all of the gamma's energy before it
can exit from the lattice.* This means that the 2.22 Mev gamma will
transform 2 protoneutrons into neutrons, and, in addition, will give a
third protoneutron about .645 Mev of kinetic energy. Naturally, the
resulting fast protoneutron will fly through the lattice until it
encounters an empty unit cell, where it will virtually instantly "pop"
into a hydrogen atom. But remember: the hydrogen atom is too large to move
freely in the lattice. It will thus slam into the opposite side of the
unit cell in which it forms,  and deliver its .645 Mev to the lattice as
heat. As for the two thermal neutrons that were created, they will quickly
drift into nearby nuclei, producing isotope shifts and more
electromagnetic emissions. When those emissions are insufficient to
transform a protoneutron into a neutron, they give it kinetic energy, and
cause it to fly through the lattice until it comes to an unoccupied unit
cell, where it pops into a hydrogen atom, slams to a stop, and delivers
its energy to the lattice in the form of heat. When the emissions are
energetic enough to transform protoneutrons into neutrons, on the other
hand, they will trigger additional neutron creation, which in turn will
produce still more isotope shifts, and so on. In short, a kind of chain
reaction will begin within the subregion of the electrode that is packed
with protoneutrons. That reaction will have three odd characteristics: (1)
It will be self-controlling: if the lattice begins to overheat, it will
deload hydrogen, which will reduce the population of protoneutrons, which
in turn will slow the reaction back down. (2) The reaction will be self
sustaining: once large numbers of thermal neutrons are afoot in the
lattice, a constant sprinkling of gamma emissions will be assured, thereby
continuing the process. (3) There will be no radiation hazard: radiation,
for practical purposes, cannot escape from a lattice that contains a
substantial population of protoneutrons.

Anyway, that's enough for now. I am not going to go into the various
isotope shifts which can result from this process, nor into the energies
of the associated gammas, betas, etc., that can result. Instead, I am
going to offer a simple prediction which can be verified or falsified: in
order for the protoneutron theory to be correct, a palladium lattice
loaded with protoneutrons must have an abnormal hunger for energy, and an
abnormal ability to suppress internally emitted gammas. Otherwise, the
experimenters who have touched off "cold fusion" would all be dead. This
can be explained in only two ways: either the presence of nearby
protoneutrons absorbs the energy before the gammas can form--i.e., before
the photons can attain the speed of light--or else they absorb it after
the gammas have formed but before they exit the lattice. To test this,
here is what I propose:

(1)To determine whether the energy is absorbed *after* gammas form, load a
palladium cathode to the point where "cold fusion" begins, and then
bombard it with gamma radiation. In that case: (a) a bizarre and extreme
increase in gamma absorption will be noted, by comparison to measurements
taken with the same cathode prior to loading; (b) it will be possible to
"turn on" loaded cathodes using gammas that have enough energy to turn
protoneutrons into neutrons. (Note: lots of other predictions could be
made here--e.g., that it should be possible to turn on loaded cathodes by
supplying them with thermal neutrons--but I am deliberately trying to
restrain myself.)

(2) To determine if the energy is absorbed *before* gammas form, supply
the cathode with thermal neutrons before loading, measure the gammas
produced, and then repeat the procedure with a loaded cathode that is
producing anomalous heat. Far more gammas should be emitted from the
cathode in the first case than in the second.

Now, to a different point: earlier I said that if the protoneutron theory
is correct, then "cold fusion" isn't fusion. The reason is simple: fusion
refers to the combination of the nuclei of different atoms to form atoms
of yet another kind. Since an electron isn't the nucleus of an atom, the
combination of an electron and a proton to form a neutron isn't fusion.
And, since a neutron isn't a nucleus, when a neutron combines with a
preexisting atomic nucleus to form a different isotope, that, too, is not
fusion. Bottom line: if the protoneutron theory is correct, then "cold
fusion" ain't fusion!

I would add that I am perfectly aware of the conflict between the
protoneutron theory and "quantum mechanics." This is a classical
mechanical theory, and classical mechanics is based on the principle of
continuity--i.e., the principle that no entity may come into existence out
of nothing or vanish into nothing. The principle of continuity indicates
that an entity can arrive at, or leave, a location in one way only: by
successively occupying each position in a continuous spatial pathway to,
or away from, that location. The implication is that motion is continuous,
not a series of quantized "jumps." This means, for example, that an
electron moving from one stable orbit to another does not "jump" in the
quantum mechanical sense: it follows a continuous spatial pathway from the
former orbit to the latter, and it exists just as surely during those
instants when it is between the "preferred" orbits, as when it is in one
of them. In the case presently under discussion, the principle of
continuity means that an electron exists and follows a continuous spatial
pathway when it is transiting from the lower Bohr orbit to a position in
the nucleus. It does not merely exist "in" the nucleus and "in" the
innermost Bohr orbit, but also in between. The protoneutron, in short, is
a classical mechanical phenomenon. It violates the most fundamental
precept of "quantum mechanics" and, if it exists, it constitutes one more
piece of evidence, in a pile that is already mountainous, indicating that
motion in the microcosm is not "quantized" and, hence, that "quantum
mechanics" is wrong.

Needless to say, I present the protoneutron theory as a hypothesis subject
to verification or falsification. If it proves to be indefensible, then I
will abandon it. On that, you have my absolute guarantee. --Mitchell
Jones}***
*******************************************

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 11 21:12:08 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA30439;
	Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:11:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:11:03 -0700
Message-ID: <19990712041053.11701.rocketmail web114.yahoomail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Away
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"4s1E43.0.XR7.NhMYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29040
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I will be absent for > 2 weeks. 

I might check e-mail from vortex
occasionally. Then again, I might not.

===
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 09:13:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA00180;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:12:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:12:23 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:12:14 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Tortoise Members
In-Reply-To: <002f01becb91$7a5156c0$a9b4bfa8 default>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990712170611.4819B-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"pPm-g3.0.k2.dFXYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29041
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vo, Freenrg,

The only plodding tortoises are (and I'll get personal) people like
'professor' Barry Merriman who for spite or lack of imagination or over
training (or some kind of non-linear superposition of these basis
functions :) who won't look and remove the scales from their eyes.

They have the power, the funding to do a lot of good. Here is complicity,
duplicity.

Today I saw a real professor (Mike Laughton) and a genius (Tony Cuthbert)
who showed me a few tricks with Newtonian mechanics. I'm not allowed to
tell you until he files but watch this space. We will link his website
into more accessed sites. Just wait a mo, a few days.  

Remi. 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 09:29:52 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA08768;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:28:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:28:49 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990712123131.00bcab80 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:31:31 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <199907100802.DAA25145 mirage.skypoint.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990709222621.02e16eb0 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"bcUMr3.0.l82.0VXYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29042
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:02 AM 7/10/1999 -0500, John Logajan wrote:

>>     And as for the math, are you familiar with Godel's proof?  There are
>> theorems that are undecidable in any system of mathematics.

>Are they decidable on some days and not others?

    1) Technically, that translates to, are these questions decidable in
some circumstances and not others, and the answer is yes.  It is relatively
trivial to write a theorem that is true on Tuesdays, false on Thursdays and
undecidable the rest of the week, except holidays that occur on odd days of
the month.

>                                              ...Or is that property
>consistent and predictable, including membership in the domain.

    2) There are some pretty important theorems where, if they are
undecidable, that fact is undecidable.  For example, if P=NP is shown to be
decidable, it is true.

    3) The situation is even worse than that.  All systems of mathematics
at least as powerful as Peano arithmetic are either inconsistant or
incomplete.
This includes all forms of logic.  (Inconsistant means some theorems can be
proved to be both true and false.  Incomplete means that some theorems in
the language cannot be decided.)  Again an example involving P=NP. 3SAT is
the question of whether a Boolean expression of the form "(a + ^b + c) *
(^a + ^d + ^e)...", can be satisfied.  Since all problems in Boolean logic
can be converted to this form, and for that matter all problems in NP can
be converted to this form in polynomial time, if 3SAT is in P, P=NP.  This
is a very fundamental question about Boolean logic that may be undecidable,
and we may never know whether or not it is.

>If you are looking for limits to knowledge, there are plenty, starting
>with the general uncertainty principle (which is nicely described
>by a mathematical equation which doesn't have to be changed on
>odd numbered Tuesdays.)

     Sorry, read up on "squeezed states."  These are states that can be
created in the laboratory, where the uncertainty principle depends on
orientation.  In other words, the measurable value of Panck's constant
depends on laboratory conditions, and can be either larger or smaller than
the "standard" value.  However for any particular particle, the integral
over all directions cannot be decreased.

     And finally there is a book by Heisenberg, I forget the title but it
is autobiographical in nature.  In it he explains his understanding of the
uncertainty principle.  Basically, he felt that the uncertainty principle
was a "one way barrier,"  that there was a domain in which there was no
uncertainty principle, where everything was deterministic.  In other words,
he thought that there were hidden variables, but they were only hidden to
macroscopic observers.  However, we may be able to use seeing without
looking and squeezed states to determine the value of those varibles
without disturbing them...



                                        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 Jul 12 09:40:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA13210;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:39:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:39:01 -0700
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199907121638.LAA27307 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: Tortoise Members
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990712170611.4819B-100000 exeter> from Cornwall RO at "Jul 12, 99 05:12:14 pm"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:38:56 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"vmSoF3.0.KE3.beXYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29043
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Remi wrote:
> 
> The only plodding tortoises are (and I'll get personal) people like
> 'professor' Barry Merriman who for spite or lack of imagination or over
> training (or some kind of non-linear superposition of these basis
> functions :) who won't look and remove the scales from their eyes.
> 
> They have the power, the funding to do a lot of good. Here is complicity,
> duplicity.

Normally I don't get involved in the usual character assassination
that goes on here, but since I'm not sure Barry is reading this,
I have to say that Barry is a good guy -- he just happens to
not be able to duplicate CF "positives", though he certainly
went the extra mile trying.

Scott Little is in the same boat -- trying to duplicate the claims
of others, and when finding nothing, being trashed and bashed.


-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com  --  651-633-8928 -
 - 4234 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 10:02:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA20505;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:52:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:52:52 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990712125533.00d2e3b0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:55:33 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990710143332.23752B-100000 exeter>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990709222621.02e16eb0 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"QzGUI1.0.705.ZrXYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29044
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:40 PM 7/10/1999 +0100, Cornwall RO wrote:
>This is a huge problem. At the macroscopic level, everything seems causal
>but then there's the Cat problem.

    Don't call it the Cat PROBLEM.  Do you understand the concept of
quantum mechanical computers?  These are devices that have a number of
"qbits."  The machine operates in a probability space where all possible
states of the qbits are exist simultaneously.  A QM computer with 30 qbits
is in over a billion different states simultaneously.  When the states
collapse, the actual state is more likely to be one which is a solution to
the original problem.

    Seems pretty amazing, but there is more.  The interesting form of QM
computer right now consists of a volume of liquid containing about the same
amount as a coffee cup is in a strong magnetic field.  This is a
macroscopic volume where the wave function has not collapsed.  (It
collapses at the end of the computation, when it is observed.)

>Please tell more, I'd like to know of this '3rd way' in physics...

    It is not really a "third way," it is just those who are willing to
accept some pretty convincing experiments.  Carl Sagan was on the other
side, which is where his "Extraordinary results demand extraordinary
proof,"  came in.

>                                                                  There
>also was an article in Scientific Am. about measurement with perturbing
>the state of a system. It went something like this: start with the two
>slit experiment, 50:50 outcome right. if you measure a photon on one leg,
>you *know* it didn't go down the other. Then they some how 'nested' this
>arrangement, between mirrors, got the path to bounce back and forth
>several times so with vanishing probability the photn didn't go down the
>path to your sample. I forgotten the jist of it.

    Yep, in fact I think it was titled "Seeing Without Looking."  Very
bizzare experiment, with astounding implications.

>Penrose's work on the Brain seems to point to qm processes that are
>fundamentally non computable. We all know how we 'see' a solution before
>we can prove it.

     I think Penrose goes too far.  It may be that the brain does contain a
QM computer, and thus can solve very complex problems by guessing all
possible solutions.  It is also the known case that the human brain well
exceeds the Peano arithmetic cutoff--at least for some people. ;-)  So the
fact that the human brain is apparently inconsistant instead of incomplete
means that the human brain can and does compute with conflicting data.
See, no mysticism required.


                                        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 Jul 12 10:21:33 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA01645;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:18:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:18:51 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990712132139.00d2e290 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:21:39 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at NiagaraFalls?
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <199907101913.PAA25669 fh105.infi.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"mFpxT3.0.UP.xDYYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29045
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:09 PM 7/10/1999 -0500, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
>> At 11:02 PM 7/9/1999 -0500, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
>
>>     Well your statement about neatly covers the first sentence--at a
>> minimum, phyicists believe that one of the three is wrong, and very few
>are
>> betting against QM.  The second statement is somewhat more controversial,
>> but it is the camp that I am in.  There is no way to reconcile causality
>> with some recent experiments, independent of relativity.
>
>You can have causality with anything, provided you allow a background rest
>frame to exist through which 'true' rest and time exist. This was the
>theory of Lorentz and Fitzgerald. Think of it as a one way door to the
>future...you can go from past to future, but not the other way around.
>
>>     I'll see if I can find a good write up on the recent experiments, but
>> you do not seem to be aware of them.  It turns out to be possible to
>"see"
>> something without actually causing the probability function to collapse.
>
>Very interesting. Please do send information on this. Call me old
>fashioned, but I don't believe a cat can be both alive or dead at the same
>time. If I am proven wrong _experimentally_, I'm moving to a cave in Alaska
>:)
>
>>     Please understand, those phyicists unwilling to admit the result
>> understand all to well what admitting that Nimtz's experiment not only
>> requires them to discard causality, but to allow time travel as a
>> consequence.  
>
>Not if you do what Bell suggested. See above: absolute rest frame. Time
>travel does not occur with superluminal processes if you have that. If
>there is an experiment demonstrating time travel, tell us about it. I would
>be interested in it.
>
>> In that situation Nimtz's music goes backwards in time
>> from the laboratory frame of reference.  
>
>Huh? All Nimtz saw was FTL...not time travel IIRC.

    Correct, but if you believe Nimtz (experiment) and relativity, this is
the only conclusion you can reach.  I'm waiting for the other
(experimental) shoe to drop.   It doesn't take much to answer the question:

    Make a Nimtz style environment where the length of the forbidden region
can be rapidly changed in length on the exit side.  For example use
high-temperature superconductors for the constriction  Insert a beam in the
forbidden reqion, then change the length.  Now what happens?

    1) The reflected beam on the input side could depend on the length
actually tunneled by the particles.  You just demonstrated time-travel of
information.

    2) The beam is partially reflected when the chnaged length hits the
event horizon of the change.  Seems consistant with relativity, but what
happens when you lengthen both sides?

    3) The (extra) energy is dissapated as heat.  Now what happens if you
shorten the length instead of lengthening it?  Sounds like extracting
energy from the vaccuum

                                        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 Jul 12 10:33:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA20077;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:19:43 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dieter Britz <db kemi.aau.dk>
CC: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>, vortex-l@eskimo.com,
        BriggsRO aol.com, Horace Heffner <hheffner@mtaonline.net>,
        Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>,
        Michael T Huffman <knuke LCIA.COM>, Mitchell Jones <mjones@jump.net>,
        "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>,
        little mail.eden.com, "E.F. Mallove" <editor@infinite-energy.com>,
        Ed Wall <ewall infinite-energy.com>,
        Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>, Tstolper@aol.com,
        ATP <ATP worldnet.att.net>, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net,
        "George H. Miley" <g-miley uiuc.edu>,
        "Frank, Alex MD" <FrankAl uhpcc.medserv.net>,
        edward lewis <elewis ariel.parkland.cc.il.us>,
        el <melmiles ridgecrest.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Yucb42.0.dv4.KLYYt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29046
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dieter Britz wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>
> [...]
> > At 09:15 AM 7/9/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> [...]
> > >The issue is not whether my data "fit" the paper. The issue is whether the
> > >consequence of plotting applied power vs excess power provides any more
> > >insight compared to current vs excess.  The answer to this question is NO.
>
> I don't often agree with Mitch (the Swartz) these days but here I find
> myself agreeing with him for once. I have not read the paper in
> question here (having been on holidays and being now very busy with a
> stack of work) and so I can't comment on the results but it seems to
> me that plotting power vs power makes eminent sense. The paper of
> Huggins (i.e. Belzner et al) doing just that, is one of the quality
> plus'es, although it suffers from old age by now. What this field
> needs - besides convincing results {:] - is a handle on what, if
> anything, makes CNF go. One way to throw light on it is to find a
> variable that correlates with excess power, i.e. that can be used,
> hopefully, to make the excess heat collapse to a normalised
> quantity. I don't see why current, or cell voltage alone should be any
> better candidates for this than input power; quite the reverse. And if
> the results were to fit, so much the better. Noone has any good ideas
> at present what variables are important here. So it makes sense to try
> them all.
>
> Dear Dieter,

Let me make my point a bit clearer. I have no objection to how the excess energy
data are plotted. The issue is whether such a plot will give new insights and
whether the proposed insight is current. It is already known that a maximum in
excess power (EP) occurs at a critical current density.  This maximum occurs at
a low current in the H2O system and at a much higher current in the D2O system.
If the data are plotted using applied power (AP), a maximum is also observed.
In this case, the location  of the maximum depends on two variables, current and
voltage.  Unfortunately, under constant current conditions, voltage is not an
independent variable. The voltage depends on many variables including
temperature, electrode spacing, electrolyte concentration as well as on applied
current in a nonlinear way. Therefore, the maximum does not have a unique value
representing a basic behavior.  Adding to the problem, Mitchell plotted my data
as energy production efficiency vs AP.  This is an engineering approach which is
only appropriate when applied to a potentially commercial device.  The value is
not useful when applied to an experimental cell which has not been optimized for
energy production.  Once the phenomenon is understood and a commercial cell is
being designed, this type of plot would naturally be done. His approach would
indicate that I should run my cell at 15 W to achieve maximum efficiency while I
obtain a much higher excess power at 35W.  This conclusion makes no sense when I
am trying to demonstrate the existence of EP. In brief, Mitchell has not added
anything new to our understanding and his  conclusions are not useful.  Most
people plot their data in similar ways and say, well that's interesting, and
then go on with their business. Instead Mitchell writes a paper.  I think this
is a waste of time.  Obviously Mitchell and other people do not agree and they
are welcome to the effort.

Your suggestion of finding variables which are fundamental and common to all
experiments is good.  I do not see how this can be done by plotting the data in
different ways.  I suggest the nature of the material needs to be examined
because this nature contains the variables which causes each experiment to
behave differently.  Until the material is uniform, no plot will not show a
universal behavior no matter which electrical variable is used.. To make matters
worse, the nuclear-active regions seem to be located in isolated spots on the
surface of the cathode and each cathode has a different concentration of these
spots.  Therefore, the real EP density can not be determined and the physical
size of the cathode has no meaning in this respect.  Consequently, the habit of
Pons and Fleischmann in plotting excess power/cm3 has no meaning and severely
underestimates the true power density. You can see the difficulty of trying to
obtain insights from gross behavior

The questions I want answered are:
How can the Pd or Ni be manufactured in such a way to be nuclear-active every
time?
What conditions should be applied to a cell to make less perfect material become
nuclear-active?
What mechanism allows the nuclear reactions to take place?

Answer these questions and you have actually helped the work.

Sincerely,
Ed Storms


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 11:23:53 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA23112;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:19:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:19:50 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b3afdc46a668 [207.8.127.30]>
In-Reply-To: <199907121638.LAA27307 mirage.skypoint.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990712170611.4819B-100000 exeter> from
 Cornwall RO at "Jul 12, 99 05:12:14 pm"
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:02:21 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Tortoise Members
Resent-Message-ID: <"xrsJE1.0.1f5.57ZYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29047
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Remi wrote:
>>
>> The only plodding tortoises are (and I'll get personal) people like
>> 'professor' Barry Merriman who for spite or lack of imagination or over
>> training (or some kind of non-linear superposition of these basis
>> functions :) who won't look and remove the scales from their eyes.
>>
>> They have the power, the funding to do a lot of good. Here is complicity,
>> duplicity.
>
>Normally I don't get involved in the usual character assassination
>that goes on here, but since I'm not sure Barry is reading this,
>I have to say that Barry is a good guy -- he just happens to
>not be able to duplicate CF "positives", though he certainly
>went the extra mile trying.
>
>Scott Little is in the same boat -- trying to duplicate the claims
>of others, and when finding nothing, being trashed and bashed.

***{Agreed. You are absolutely correct on both counts. Reasonable people
are willing to adjust their positions to bring them into accordance with
the facts, but they are not gullible, either. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com  --  651-633-8928 -
> - 4234 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
> -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 11:59:58 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA03096;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:56:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:56:10 -0700
Message-ID: <19990712185537.4682.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [207.56.129.203]
From: "e lewis" <elewis1 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: could someone publish the radioactivity article?
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:55:37 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"GY1uR2.0.Bm.AfZYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29048
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones,

This is interesting.  Another person who developed ideas about using 
radioactivity is Conte.  I had ideas about the effect of radioactivity too.

I think your ideas are interesting, especially focusing on the change of 
protons to neutrons.  Matsumoto wrote about this in his early articles.  I 
don't think there are really such things as nuclei.  To me there are simply 
a variety of sizes and kinds of plasmoids, but what people have thought of 
as fundamental particles and fundamental nuclear parts that are stable in 
this Universe, really are not stable.  This is probably the key to 
understanding the new phenomena associated with cf.

Over the years people are beginning to accept the concept of ball lightning 
associated with cf and accept ideas about transmutation and instability of 
nuclear atoms, and of novel atomic combinations.  But there is yet 
acceptance of the idea of atoms possibly converting entirely to electricity.

Ed

>From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: could someone publish the radioactivity article?
>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:02:30 -0500
>
> >There are some newsletter and periodical publishers who read this
> >list.
> >
> >I did experiments back in 1997 showing that radioactivity has the effect 
>of
> >promoting radioactivity from a cold fusion type electrolysis microsphere
> >cell in G. Miley's lab.
>
>***{This is very interesting. Back in 1995 I presented a theoretical
>explanation for what might be happening in "cold fusion" electrolysis
>cells, given the assumption that the excess heat phenomenon was real. I
>called my theory the "protoneutron" theory, and one of the explicit
>predictions of that theory was that the reaction ought to be facilitated by
>nearby radiative sources, if it was real. While the protoneutron theory is
>not the only explanation of CF that I consider to be plausible, it is the
>only one I know of which specifically predicts that radiation will have a
>stimulative effect on the process. If you are interested in reading the
>lengthy debate that surrounded my presentation of the protoneutron theory
>on usenet, check the sci.physics.fusion archives beginning in September,
>1995. (They used to be at www.sunsite.edu, if memory serves.) Another
>related point of interest: I heard an interview with Col. Philip Corso on
>the Art Bell show the other night, in which Corso described one of the
>artifacts allegedly recovered from the UFO crash at Roswell--a hand-held
>laser core auger, I believe--which the government kicked around in a
>storeroom for several years without knowing what it was, until one day
>Corso walked into a lab that had a high radioactivity level with the thing
>in his hand, and it suddenly turned on! Apparently, once it began working,
>they were able to figure out what it was for. And, based on what you say,
>the damn thing must have been powered by cold fusion!  :-) --Mitchell
>Jones}***
>
> >
> >I couldn't get this published back in 1997, so I wrote a new one after
> >hearing of Conte's use of a little radioactivity earlier in the year
> >published in Infinite Energy.
> >
> >You can see the new article online at 
>http://207.225.33.111/radiation.html
> >No one has published this as far as I know.
> >
> >This effect would be important since it seemed that it might have 
>powerful
> >results, as in Conte's experiment, and it might be quite reproducible.  
>Just
> >put some radioactive object next to an operating cell and check the 
>results.
> >
> >Evidence that a Radioactive Object Promoted Radioactivity in an 
>Electrolysis
> >Cell, dated March 1999.
>
>***{The post in which my original prediction was made, with some computer
>generated typographical errors corrected, is presented below. The
>protoneutron theory itself, in brief, holds that there is enough room in a
>palladium unit cell to permit entry by an H+ ion, but there is not enough
>room, after it picks up an electron, for that electron to orbit at the Bohr
>radius. Result: it spirals down to what I termed "grazing altitude" above
>the nucleus, producing an electrically neutral particle which I dubbed a
>"protoneutron." The protoneutron, of course, is very unstable, and will
>quickly transform itself into either a neutron (if it acquires the
>necessary energy of .78 MeV), or into a neutral H atom (if it acquires the
>necessary space). Thus it requires virtually zero kinetic energy and the
>non-availability of radioacivity that  can supply the .78 MeV, in order to
>exist. (The reason it needs near zero kinetic energy is that if it
>possesses even the average energy that is thermally available, it will
>quickly fly out of the confined spaces in the Pd lattice into regions where
>its electron will have room to orbit at the Bohr radius, and will "pop"
>into  a neutral H atom.) Thus it is a central postulate of the protoneutron
>theory that there exists nodes in the lattice wave of palladium (and of
>some other metals), where particles having virtually zero kinetic energy
>can exist for long periods without being thermally disturbed. And, of
>course, this is hardly a surprising idea. If you put sand on a drumhead,
>and give it a thump, you will observe that the sand particles will jump
>around until they find their way into regions of the drumhead--the
>nodes--where the vibrations cancel, and will stop jumping. Thus it is not
>surprising that similar regions might exist within a crystal lattice, and
>it is not surprising that protoneutrons might accumulate within such
>regions, just as sand accumulates on the nodes of a vibrating drumhead. As
>for the relevance of radiation, well, when a radiant emission containing
>.78 MeV or less passes through a node where lots of protoneutrons have
>accumulated, it will either produce a cold neutron with a very high capture
>cross section,or it will dislodge protoneutrons into the lattice. In either
>case, the result will be transmutations, and the production of radiation in
>the lattice. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________________________
> >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
>
>***{One of the 1995 posts to sci.physics.fusion in which I predicted that
>radiation would speed up the cold fusion reaction is presented below,
>between the lines of asterisks. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>****************************************************
>I have received a couple of e-mail requests to explain the observed
>transmutation of elements by "cold fusion" cells, in terms of the
>protoneutron theory. My answer is that such events arise as a direct
>consequence of the protoneutron chain reaction. As I have noted repeatedly,
>the protoneutron (pn) is characterized by *energy rapacity.* To reestablish
>the context, let me review the main points:
>
>(a) The protoneutron is wildly unstable, and is desperately hungry for the
>energy of transformation into a more stable state. If radiant energy of
>more than .78 Mev passes in its vicinity, it subtracts .78 Mev and
>transforms into a neutron. The neutron in question is a cold neutron: it
>remains in the node of the lattice wave, with virtually zero kinetic
>energy, like the protoneutron that produced it.
>
>(b) If radiant energy of less than .78 Mev is available, that energy is
>taken in the form of kinetic energy. The result is a protoneutron shooting
>through the lattice with that amount of kinetic energy and, in the normal
>case, it delivers its energy to the lattice in a series of collisions. In
>most cases, such a speeding protoneutron quickly passes into an unocupied
>unit cell and "pops" into a neutral hydrogen atom, which then becomes
>lodged in whatever empty unit cell it finds itself in when its kinetic
>energy has been transformed into heat. Other, less probable, scenarios
>involve the separation of the proton from the electron in grazing
>collisions with nuclei, and result in high speed protons and beta particles
>bouncing around in the lattice until they, too, have given up their kinetic
>energy as heat. Another scenario, enormously important for present
>purposes, is the following: *sometimes the speeding protoneutrons make
>centered hits on target nuclei, resulting in transmutations of elements.*
>
>In the transmutation reactions, what happens is that the target nucleus
>absorbs the proton, while the loosely bound electron is shaken free by the
>collision and continues on its way as a beta particle. These reactions
>occur with a vastly elevated proton capture cross section because the
>proton comes into the nucleus as a component of a neutral protoneutron,
>rather than as a naked proton. Result: it is not diverted away from the
>nucleus by coulomb repulsion, and the capture cross section is enormously
>increased. To understand the process of protoneutron transmutation of
>elements, the best starting point is to open your Handbook of Chemistry and
>Physics to the early section entitled "Table of the Isotopes." [In my 63rd
>edition, this begins on pg. B-255.]
>
>Looking at the section that describes the isotopes of palladium, you will
>note that the following stable isotopes are present in concentrations of 1%
>or more here on Earth:
>
>46Pd106, 27.3%
>46Pd108, 26.7%
>46Pd105, 22.2%
>46Pd110, 11.8%
>46Pd104, 11.0%
>46Pd102, 1.0%
>
>These isotopes, mixed in the indicated proportions, comprise the palladium
>that is mined on Earth and used in "cold fusion" electrodes. With addition
>of a protoneutron, the following transmutation reactions are supported.
>Halflives indicated are for the isotopes on the right side of the 
>equations:
>
>46Pd106 + pn --> 47Ag106 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 8.4 d)
>46Pd108 + pn --> 47Ag108 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 2.42 min)
>46Pd105 + pn --> 47Ag105 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 40 d)
>46Pd110 + pn --> 47Ag110 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 253 d)
>46Pd104 + pn --> 47Ag104 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 48 min)
>46Pd102 + pn --> 47Ag102 + beta- + n  (Halflife:15 min)
>
>Information about the halflives of the transmuted nuclei were taken from
>the silver decay reactions listed under silver isotopes. Needless to say,
>the likelihood of one of these transmuted isotopes being found depends upon
>the percentage of the parent nucleus in the original palladium
>electrode,the halflife of the transmuted nucleus, the duration of the
>experimental run, and the time lag between completion of the experimental
>run and testing of the cathode for transmuted nuclei. Best conditions for
>detection involve long experimental runs followed by immediate testing of
>the cathode. Even then, however, the likelihood of finding detectible
>amounts of transmuted nuclei such as 47Ag108, 47Ag104, or 47Ag102 are very
>slim, due to the short halflives. Nevertheless, the occurrence of these
>transmutation events in detectible numbers is virtual proof of the validity
>of the protoneutron theory, for the simple reason that no other theory
>explains how the proton capture cross sections get high enough to support
>these reactions at all. Since a protoneutron is a neutral particle, the
>occurence of transmutation reactions in detectible amounts is a virtual
>"smoking gun" signature of protoneutron transmutation.
>
>Various other transmutation events arise due to contamination. For example,
>an occasional contaminant of palladium is ruthenium. This occurs because
>ruthenium co-ocurs with platinum and palladium in many ore bodies, and,
>because of its closeness to palladium in atomic weight, it is sometimes not
>separated out. Also, it is deliberately added to palladium as an electrode
>hardener in many industrial applications and is thus frequently present in
>recycled palladium from industrial sources. In nature, its isotopes are
>present in the following proportions:
>
>44Ru102, 31.6%
>44Ru104, 18.6%
>44Ru101, 17.1%
>44Ru99, 12.7%
>44Ru100, 12.6%
>44Ru96, 5.5%
>44Ru98, 1.9%
>
>When ruthenium is present in a cathode, the following protoneutron
>transmutation reactions, in addition to the palladium reactions given
>above, are supported:
>
>44Ru102 + pn --> 45Rh102 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 2.9 y)
>44Ru104 + pn --> 45Rh104 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 5 min)
>44Ru101 + pn --> 45Rh101 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 3.1 y)
>44Ru99   + pn --> 45Rh99   + beta-  + n (Halflife: 16 d)
>44Ru100 + pn --> 45Rh100 + beta-  + n (Halflife:20 h)
>44Ru96   + pn --> 45Rh96   + beta-  + n (Halflife: 0 s) [Note: 45Rh96 has
>never been detected.]
>44Ru98   + pn --> 45Rh98   + beta-  + n (Halflife: 8.7 min)
>
>Once again, the halflives given are taken the rhodium decay reactions given
>in the rhodium section of the isotope table. The likelihood of detection of
>particular transmutation daughter nuclei of ruthenium is determined by the
>same considerations as described above, for palladium transmutations.
>
>I would note, in passing, that the preceding considerations explain very
>nicely the results of the experiment conducted by Dr. Kevin Wolf at Texas A
>& M, as reported in Infinite Energy #2, pg. 30-32.
>
>As noted above, platinum, palladium, and ruthenium are found together in
>many orebodies. Thus platinum is an occasional contaminant of palladium,
>and the same basic analysis given above applies again. The natiurally
>occuring isotopes of platinum are:
>
>78Pt195, 33.8%
>78Pt194, 32.9%
>78Pt196, 25.3%
>78Pt198, 7.2%
>
>When platinum is present as a contaminant in a palladium cathode,
>therefore, the following protoneutron transmutation reactions are to be
>expected:
>
>78Pt195 + pn --> 79Au195 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 183 d)
>78Pt194 + pn --> 79Au194 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 39.5 h)
>78Pt196 + pn --> 79Au196 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 6.18 d)
>78Pt198 + pn --> 79Au198 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 2.7 d)
>
>The above considerations explain the detection of gold in some experiments.
>
>Another contaminant sometimes found with palladium is silver. When silver
>is present, the same sort of analysis predicts the production of cadmium by
>protoneutron transmutation. I'll skip the details, since the analysis
>should be clear enough based on the above examples. Here are the steps:
>look up the contaminant isotopes in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
>and list the isotopes that occur in nature in amounts in excess of 1%. Then
>match up against the element of the next higher number (cadmium, in the
>present case), and select out the isotopes with the matching atomic
>weights. Then write down the reactions and record the halflives listed for
>the transmutation daughter nuclei. It's simple!
>
>When other cathode materials (e.g., titanium, nickel, etc.) are used, the
>same approach applies: determine the transmutation byproducts of the
>material used, and the transmutation byproducts of its various
>contaminants. In a few cases, contamination of the electrode occurs via the
>plating out of metals present in the electrolyte. Often the source of such
>metals lies in the use of hard water rather than distilled water.
>Potassium, for example, may plate out on the cathode and be transmuted into
>calcium. An analysis conducted along these lines will explain virtually all
>the observed results.
>
>Conclusion: the observed transmutation events are a byproduct of the
>protoneutron chain reaction. They occur in measurable quantities for one
>reason only: because a protoneutron, in effect, is a neutral proton, and as
>a result it isn't deflected by coulomb forces as it approaches a nucleus.
>Result: the capture cross section of a proton, when embedded in a
>protoneutron, is enormously enhanced. Since no other theory of "cold
>fusion" explains this massive enhancement of the proton capture cross
>section, I consider the transmutation reactions to be virtual proof of the
>validity of the protoneutron theory.
>
>--Mitchell Jones
>****************************************************
>
>***{Two final points. First, it goes without saying that lots of nuclear
>reactions other than those discussed above are capable of resulting from
>interactions between nuclei and either neutrons or protoneutrons. Second,
>for the record,when I wrote the above I was thoroughly convinced that the
>transmutations were, in fact, taking place. With the passage of time and
>the continued absence of evidence of enhancement of the reaction by means
>of radiation--until your post--my enthusiasm for the protoneutron theory
>waned. Now, however, I find myself excited by it again, as I was shortly
>after Pon's and Fleischmann's original announcement, when the germ of the
>idea first appeared in my mind. Maybe this stuff is true after all!
>--Mitchell Jones}***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 12:25:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA21395;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:23:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:23:51 -0700
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0215B25D XCH-CPC-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:11:42 -0700
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Resent-Message-ID: <"sRFYx.0.AE5.53aYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29049
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert
	Is there any chance you can post copies of these papers, either by
e-mail or by putting them on your home page.

Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Robert I. Eachus[SMTP:eachus mitre.org]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Friday, July 09, 1999 9:49 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara
> Falls?
> 
> At 11:02 PM 7/9/1999 -0500, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> >
> >>     Are you sure?  Most physicists currently believe that you can have
> two
> >> of (special) relativity, causality, and quantum mechanics.  There are
> >> others that believe that causality is inconsistant with quantum
> mechanics
> >> absent relativity.
> >
> >Really? I am not aware of any process that violates causality...if there
> is
> >such, please, let us know...
> >
> >Which experiments? If you are referring to EPR-Bell, it is not
> inconsistent
> >with causality...you simply must do what Bell suggested: mothball
> >relativity and reinstate a preferred frame of reference.
> 
>     Well your statement about neatly covers the first sentence--at a
> minimum, phyicists believe that one of the three is wrong, and very few
> are
> betting against QM.  The second statement is somewhat more controversial,
> but it is the camp that I am in.  There is no way to reconcile causality
> with some recent experiments, independent of relativity.
> 
> >>I don't know if you noticed but they are killing Schrodinger's cat in
> the
> lab >>now.  The results seem to indicate that the collapse of an
> indeterminate quantum >>state is a exponential decay where the more
> particles involved, the faster the >>decay.  The experiment is very
> clever,
> and it involves determining the state of >>a particle without observing it
> in the QM sense.
> >
> >Schrodinger's cat was killed long ago..or at least it should have been.
> The
> >idea that a cat can be both dead and alive, in a state of 'limbo' is
> >nonsense, a pipe dream if you will...
> 
>     I'll see if I can find a good write up on the recent experiments, but
> you do not seem to be aware of them.  It turns out to be possible to "see"
> something without actually causing the probability function to collapse.
> It is a complicated version of the two slit experiment, but the
> probability
> that any photons go through the second slit is small.  You still get a
> diffraction pattern only if the second slit is not blocked.  So you see
> things without any photons actually interacting with the object.
> 
>     All that is detail, the reality is that physicists have used this
> trick
> to peek inside the box, and actually seen the half-alive cat.  Of course a
> cat is too big, and dies too slowly to make any observations, what is
> acutally used is a small number of particles.  But in any case, you can
> observe the probability function directly.  As I said you get to peek in
> the box, and acually see a superposition of states. 
> 
> >What I am saying is, physicists nowadays are spending far too much time
> >playing with totally useless mind games and mathematical conjectures. We
> >are not making the progress we used to because many fields are considered
> >unphysical. If something unusual happens, we just come up with some
> >metaphysical garbage (which is conveniently impossible to prove) and
> >explain it away within the bounds of the standard model.
> 
>     See above.  At one time Shrodinger's Cat and the Copenhagen model were
> thought experiments only.  But now they are testable as is...
> 
> >                                                       Take for instance
> >Gunter Nimtz's experiment: he sends music through a barrier at FTL. What
> >does the scientific community have to say? One scientist (pseudo?)
> remarked
> >that it was like claiming Australia no longer existed...totally
> >preposterous. The scientists decided to keep theory over experiment, a
> >remarkably stupid and arrogant thing to do. A metaphysical, unprovable
> >hypothesis was conjectured to explain Nimtz's findings: no true signal
> was
> >sent, since the barrier was very small, and the signal was predetermined,
> >so it wasn't TRUE information transfer...
> 
>     Please understand, those phyicists unwilling to admit the result
> understand all to well what admitting that Nimtz's experiment not only
> requires them to discard causality, but to allow time travel as a
> consequence.  (The experiment may be physical, but the actual interaction
> is between a field and photons.  It is (relatively ;-) easy to create such
> a field moving at a significant speed relative to the earth--synchrotrons
> do it all the time.  In that situation Nimtz's music goes backwards in
> time
> from the laboratory frame of reference.  You have to do an awful lot of
> surgery on relativity to try and get "cosmic censorship."  (The concept
> that yes, in theory you time travel is possible, but the universe as a
> whole will prevent you from succeeding.)
> 
>     Most young physicists (I am not a physicist, and certainly not young)
> know understand that relativity is on very shaky legs, and super-luminal
> and even time-travel will happen. (QM provides a way of determining your
> velocity with respect to space, even in a closed box.  The APS actually
> announced at a recent convention that the overwhelming majority believed
> that super-luminal travel was not only possible, but feasible.)
> 
>     Phyisics has gone through more revolution in the last few years than
> in
> any previous period.  QM now has a way to "peek inside the box", it is
> possible to measure velocity with respect to empty space, and in fact
> space
> locally is not isotropic--there is a preferred direction, the cosmological
> constant is back with a vengence, and papers on anti-gravity are showing
> up
> in respected journals.
> 
>                                         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 Jul 12 13:37:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA17012;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:31:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:31:42 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:31:34 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Tortoise Members
In-Reply-To: <199907121638.LAA27307 mirage.skypoint.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990712212511.11955A-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"A-wAE3.0.k94.k2bYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29050
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, John Logajan wrote:
> Normally I don't get involved in the usual character assassination
> that goes on here, but since I'm not sure Barry is reading this,
> I have to say that Barry is a good guy -- he just happens to
> not be able to duplicate CF "positives", though he certainly
> went the extra mile trying.
> 
> Scott Little is in the same boat -- trying to duplicate the claims
> of others, and when finding nothing, being trashed and bashed.
> 

I found the webpage offensive, non serious, bullying. Just like a bully
bullies a person to bolster self-image, academics like shooting down
'cranks' - it gives them a sort of kudos. It's a bit like being in with
the school football scene, or the 'in crowd'; in my time I've been on both
sides of the fence and I know the mentality.

I have no doubt that certain people are spoilers. It's an attitude, body
language type thing to be non scientific.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 14:06:35 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA28686;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:59:04 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:59:04 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:58:55 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
Reply-To: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990712125533.00d2e3b0 spectre.mitre.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990712215355.11955C-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"FLGep2.0.507.NSbYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29051
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert,
You know a lot about this. I need to get the definitions precisely
soerted. Please references. You use things like 'incompklete'
'inconsistent' with subtle changes of meaning. NP means non-polynominal. I
need more on Peano arithmetic. Would you recommend Encyclopedia brit?
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 14:51:26 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA14795;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:47:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:47:05 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990712174121.00dbc030 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:41:21 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Dieter Britz <db@kemi.aau.dk>
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Storms comments on Optimal Operating Points
In-Reply-To: <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"TVw9D2.0.0d3.P9cYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29052
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 





At 11:19 AM 7/12/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:


>Dieter Britz wrote:
>> > >The issue is not whether my data "fit" the paper. The issue is
whether the
>> > >consequence of plotting applied power vs excess power provides any more
>> > >insight compared to current vs excess.  The answer to this question
is NO.
>>
>> I don't often agree with Mitch (the Swartz) these days but here I find
>> myself agreeing with him for once. I have not read the paper in
>> question here (having been on holidays and being now very busy with a
>> stack of work) and so I can't comment on the results but it seems to
>> me that plotting power vs power makes eminent sense. The paper of
>> Huggins (i.e. Belzner et al) doing just that, is one of the quality
>> plus'es, although it suffers from old age by now. What this field
>> needs - besides convincing results {:] - is a handle on what, if
>> anything, makes CNF go. One way to throw light on it is to find a
>> variable that correlates with excess power, i.e. that can be used,
>> hopefully, to make the excess heat collapse to a normalised
>> quantity. I don't see why current, or cell voltage alone should be any
>> better candidates for this than input power; quite the reverse. And if
>> the results were to fit, so much the better. Noone has any good ideas
>> at present what variables are important here. So it makes sense to try
>> them all.
>>

At 11:19 AM 7/12/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>> Dear Dieter,
>Let me make my point a bit clearer. I have no objection to how the excess
energy
>data are plotted. The issue is whether such a plot will give new insights and
>whether the proposed insight is current. It is already known that a
maximum in
>excess power (EP) occurs at a critical current density.  This maximum
occurs at
>a low current in the H2O system and at a much higher current in the D2O
system.
>If the data are plotted using applied power (AP), a maximum is also observed.
>In this case, the location  of the maximum depends on two variables,
current and
>voltage.  Unfortunately, under constant current conditions, voltage is not an
>independent variable. The voltage depends on many variables including
>temperature, electrode spacing, electrolyte concentration as well as on
applied
>current in a nonlinear way. Therefore, the maximum does not have a unique
value
>representing a basic behavior.  Adding to the problem, Mitchell plotted my
data
>as energy production efficiency vs AP.  This is an engineering approach
which is
>only appropriate when applied to a potentially commercial device. 


  Ed:

  Thank you very much for your considered comments.

  First, Dieter Britz is correct, as both electrochemistry and 
many fields of engineering attest.


  Second, your claims above are stated, but some are unproven. 

  Third, given the catastrophic decomposition of the
materials which we have taught since ICCF4, also ignored by 
you, Ed, your assumptions may be wrong about this as well.


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


  Zipping through Ed's attacks:

>Your suggestion of finding variables which are fundamental and common to all
>experiments is good.  I do not see how this can be done by plotting the
data in
>different ways.  I suggest the nature of the material needs to be examined
>because this nature contains the variables which causes each experiment to
>behave differently.  Until the material is uniform, no plot will not show a
>universal behavior no matter which electrical variable is used.. To make
matters
>worse, the nuclear-active regions seem to be located in isolated spots on the
>surface of the cathode and each cathode has a different concentration of
these
>spots.  Therefore, the real EP density can not be determined and the physical
>size of the cathode has no meaning in this respect.  Consequently, the
habit of
>Pons and Fleischmann in plotting excess power/cm3 has no meaning and severely
>underestimates the true power density."


  Stated but again unproven.  

 The products of cold fusion differ within the bulk 
(helium; and there probably by depth) and on the surface 
(e.g. tritium upon site associated with asperities).
It would be wrong, and unscientific, to model these 
systems as a "single site".

 It is ironic that you, Ed, enamored with some of claims
(eg. the obvious and well-known method of measuring open-circuit 
potential) wrongly demeans the calculation of power density 
claiming IT "has no meaning". 
 It may underestimate the local power density at a hot spot, 
but it has serious scientific and engineering meaning.


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


>The questions I want answered are:
>How can the Pd or Ni be manufactured in such a way to be nuclear-active every
>time?
>What conditions should be applied to a cell to make less perfect material
become
>nuclear-active?
>What mechanism allows the nuclear reactions to take place?
>Answer these questions and you have actually helped the work.
>Sincerely,
>Ed Storms

   If Ed would READ the paper and then thought more to understand the
nature of optimal operating points, he would comprehend
that activity is just ONE improvement that can be made. And it
cannot be assessed without understand that there exist
optimal operating points. In the wilderness of the operating landscape,
without knowledge of the optimal operating points, it is hard
to compare different materials, configurations, and systems.

  If Ed would understand the hard fact of the optimal operating
points then he would be better able to obtain information from his
vast diverse collage of data, which would then be 
correctly sorted by input electrical power.
THEN he would be better able to evaluate whatever he thinks
makes a more, or less, perfect material.

  It is simple science and engineering.  I hope we are
all on the same side, because the physics and material
science and engineering -- even with optimal operating
points -- is formidible.

  
   Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 14:54:01 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA16662;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:51:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:51:06 -0700
Message-ID: <006a01beccb0$7e4f7700$c8b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrated Ion Microclusters?
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:48:41 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"SkTmh3.0.G44.ADcYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29053
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Here's a puzzler, Robin.

When I was doing the nucleate boiling experiments yesterday, I took some
salt brine from my water softener and placed it in the 5 inch diameter
saucepan, set it on the cherry red heating element.

There were "millions" of barely visible "bubbles" that formed on the bottom
of the pan and then many came to the top without expansion.

It seems like the ions (+/-) are forming clusters with the highly polar
water molecules and the is even hydrogen bonding that makes them act as if
they are "frozen" into solid clusters?

Could this be so, and if so, what would the  effect be with the K+ ions at
the Pd interface in the electrolysis cells?

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 15:32:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA27101;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:31:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:31:36 -0700
Message-ID: <002801beccb6$32c15dc0$438f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re:   Hydrated Ions in Water 
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:30:44 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01BECC83.E3B318E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"0Va123.0.Id6.7pcYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29054
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_0025_01BECC83.E3B318E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Back to the basics, Robin?    :-)

 http://citt.marin.cc.ca.us/oceans/109three.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0025_01BECC83.E3B318E0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Molecules and Chemical Bonding..url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Molecules and Chemical Bonding..url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://citt.marin.cc.ca.us/oceans/109three.htm

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://citt.marin.cc.ca.us/oceans/109three.htm
Modified=20EF73C1B5CCBE0183

------=_NextPart_000_0025_01BECC83.E3B318E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 15:39:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA29056;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:36:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:36:35 -0700
Message-ID: <003101beccb6$e7edfb40$438f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrated Ions in Water.
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:35:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002E_01BECC84.9A2F67E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"wjFI93.0.v57.ptcYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29055
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_002E_01BECC84.9A2F67E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Even more Basic?    :-)

 http://www.gaussian.com/bib_scrf.htm

------=_NextPart_000_002E_01BECC84.9A2F67E0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="CHOTMETALgifsbib_solv.htm.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="CHOTMETALgifsbib_solv.htm.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.gaussian.com/bib_scrf.htm

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.gaussian.com/bib_scrf.htm
Modified=40BD669EB6CCBE0142

------=_NextPart_000_002E_01BECC84.9A2F67E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 12 17:23:08 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA31274;
	Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:21:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:21:54 -0700
Message-ID: <19990713002115.15419.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [198.88.183.84]
From: "e lewis" <elewis1 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: could someone publish the radioactivity article?
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:21:14 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"rP5FY3.0.Ze7.YQeYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29056
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Hi.

This is weird.  I sent a vortex-l email which didn't appear on the list!
So here it goes again.

Mitchell,

I think your idea is interesting since you seem to focus on the change on 
protons to neutrons, right?  Matsumoto did also in his early articles.  
Conte also has an idea about the effect of radioactivity, as did I before I 
tried that experiment.

I don't accept the idea of nuclei.  To me everything, even atoms are what I 
call plasmoids that may convert entirely to electricity. This is the key to 
understanding cold fusion, I think.

I don't think that atoms have stable components that remain stable in this 
Universe.

People are more and more accepting ideas about the association and role of 
ball lightning in cold fusion, about transmutation, and are now coming up 
with novel ways of trying to explain atomic phenomena, but I think the key 
is to accept the hypothesis that atoms are plasmoids and behave in the 
anomalous ways other plasmoids do.

Ed



>From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: could someone publish the radioactivity article?
>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:02:30 -0500
>
> >There are some newsletter and periodical publishers who read this
> >list.
> >
> >I did experiments back in 1997 showing that radioactivity has the effect 
>of
> >promoting radioactivity from a cold fusion type electrolysis microsphere
> >cell in G. Miley's lab.
>
>***{This is very interesting. Back in 1995 I presented a theoretical
>explanation for what might be happening in "cold fusion" electrolysis
>cells, given the assumption that the excess heat phenomenon was real. I
>called my theory the "protoneutron" theory, and one of the explicit
>predictions of that theory was that the reaction ought to be facilitated by
>nearby radiative sources, if it was real. While the protoneutron theory is
>not the only explanation of CF that I consider to be plausible, it is the
>only one I know of which specifically predicts that radiation will have a
>stimulative effect on the process. If you are interested in reading the
>lengthy debate that surrounded my presentation of the protoneutron theory
>on usenet, check the sci.physics.fusion archives beginning in September,
>1995. (They used to be at www.sunsite.edu, if memory serves.) Another
>related point of interest: I heard an interview with Col. Philip Corso on
>the Art Bell show the other night, in which Corso described one of the
>artifacts allegedly recovered from the UFO crash at Roswell--a hand-held
>laser core auger, I believe--which the government kicked around in a
>storeroom for several years without knowing what it was, until one day
>Corso walked into a lab that had a high radioactivity level with the thing
>in his hand, and it suddenly turned on! Apparently, once it began working,
>they were able to figure out what it was for. And, based on what you say,
>the damn thing must have been powered by cold fusion!  :-) --Mitchell
>Jones}***
>
> >
> >I couldn't get this published back in 1997, so I wrote a new one after
> >hearing of Conte's use of a little radioactivity earlier in the year
> >published in Infinite Energy.
> >
> >You can see the new article online at 
>http://207.225.33.111/radiation.html
> >No one has published this as far as I know.
> >
> >This effect would be important since it seemed that it might have 
>powerful
> >results, as in Conte's experiment, and it might be quite reproducible.  
>Just
> >put some radioactive object next to an operating cell and check the 
>results.
> >
> >Evidence that a Radioactive Object Promoted Radioactivity in an 
>Electrolysis
> >Cell, dated March 1999.
>
>***{The post in which my original prediction was made, with some computer
>generated typographical errors corrected, is presented below. The
>protoneutron theory itself, in brief, holds that there is enough room in a
>palladium unit cell to permit entry by an H+ ion, but there is not enough
>room, after it picks up an electron, for that electron to orbit at the Bohr
>radius. Result: it spirals down to what I termed "grazing altitude" above
>the nucleus, producing an electrically neutral particle which I dubbed a
>"protoneutron." The protoneutron, of course, is very unstable, and will
>quickly transform itself into either a neutron (if it acquires the
>necessary energy of .78 MeV), or into a neutral H atom (if it acquires the
>necessary space). Thus it requires virtually zero kinetic energy and the
>non-availability of radioacivity that  can supply the .78 MeV, in order to
>exist. (The reason it needs near zero kinetic energy is that if it
>possesses even the average energy that is thermally available, it will
>quickly fly out of the confined spaces in the Pd lattice into regions where
>its electron will have room to orbit at the Bohr radius, and will "pop"
>into  a neutral H atom.) Thus it is a central postulate of the protoneutron
>theory that there exists nodes in the lattice wave of palladium (and of
>some other metals), where particles having virtually zero kinetic energy
>can exist for long periods without being thermally disturbed. And, of
>course, this is hardly a surprising idea. If you put sand on a drumhead,
>and give it a thump, you will observe that the sand particles will jump
>around until they find their way into regions of the drumhead--the
>nodes--where the vibrations cancel, and will stop jumping. Thus it is not
>surprising that similar regions might exist within a crystal lattice, and
>it is not surprising that protoneutrons might accumulate within such
>regions, just as sand accumulates on the nodes of a vibrating drumhead. As
>for the relevance of radiation, well, when a radiant emission containing
>.78 MeV or less passes through a node where lots of protoneutrons have
>accumulated, it will either produce a cold neutron with a very high capture
>cross section,or it will dislodge protoneutrons into the lattice. In either
>case, the result will be transmutations, and the production of radiation in
>the lattice. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________________________
> >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
>
>***{One of the 1995 posts to sci.physics.fusion in which I predicted that
>radiation would speed up the cold fusion reaction is presented below,
>between the lines of asterisks. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>****************************************************
>I have received a couple of e-mail requests to explain the observed
>transmutation of elements by "cold fusion" cells, in terms of the
>protoneutron theory. My answer is that such events arise as a direct
>consequence of the protoneutron chain reaction. As I have noted repeatedly,
>the protoneutron (pn) is characterized by *energy rapacity.* To reestablish
>the context, let me review the main points:
>
>(a) The protoneutron is wildly unstable, and is desperately hungry for the
>energy of transformation into a more stable state. If radiant energy of
>more than .78 Mev passes in its vicinity, it subtracts .78 Mev and
>transforms into a neutron. The neutron in question is a cold neutron: it
>remains in the node of the lattice wave, with virtually zero kinetic
>energy, like the protoneutron that produced it.
>
>(b) If radiant energy of less than .78 Mev is available, that energy is
>taken in the form of kinetic energy. The result is a protoneutron shooting
>through the lattice with that amount of kinetic energy and, in the normal
>case, it delivers its energy to the lattice in a series of collisions. In
>most cases, such a speeding protoneutron quickly passes into an unocupied
>unit cell and "pops" into a neutral hydrogen atom, which then becomes
>lodged in whatever empty unit cell it finds itself in when its kinetic
>energy has been transformed into heat. Other, less probable, scenarios
>involve the separation of the proton from the electron in grazing
>collisions with nuclei, and result in high speed protons and beta particles
>bouncing around in the lattice until they, too, have given up their kinetic
>energy as heat. Another scenario, enormously important for present
>purposes, is the following: *sometimes the speeding protoneutrons make
>centered hits on target nuclei, resulting in transmutations of elements.*
>
>In the transmutation reactions, what happens is that the target nucleus
>absorbs the proton, while the loosely bound electron is shaken free by the
>collision and continues on its way as a beta particle. These reactions
>occur with a vastly elevated proton capture cross section because the
>proton comes into the nucleus as a component of a neutral protoneutron,
>rather than as a naked proton. Result: it is not diverted away from the
>nucleus by coulomb repulsion, and the capture cross section is enormously
>increased. To understand the process of protoneutron transmutation of
>elements, the best starting point is to open your Handbook of Chemistry and
>Physics to the early section entitled "Table of the Isotopes." [In my 63rd
>edition, this begins on pg. B-255.]
>
>Looking at the section that describes the isotopes of palladium, you will
>note that the following stable isotopes are present in concentrations of 1%
>or more here on Earth:
>
>46Pd106, 27.3%
>46Pd108, 26.7%
>46Pd105, 22.2%
>46Pd110, 11.8%
>46Pd104, 11.0%
>46Pd102, 1.0%
>
>These isotopes, mixed in the indicated proportions, comprise the palladium
>that is mined on Earth and used in "cold fusion" electrodes. With addition
>of a protoneutron, the following transmutation reactions are supported.
>Halflives indicated are for the isotopes on the right side of the 
>equations:
>
>46Pd106 + pn --> 47Ag106 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 8.4 d)
>46Pd108 + pn --> 47Ag108 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 2.42 min)
>46Pd105 + pn --> 47Ag105 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 40 d)
>46Pd110 + pn --> 47Ag110 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 253 d)
>46Pd104 + pn --> 47Ag104 + beta- + n  (Halflife: 48 min)
>46Pd102 + pn --> 47Ag102 + beta- + n  (Halflife:15 min)
>
>Information about the halflives of the transmuted nuclei were taken from
>the silver decay reactions listed under silver isotopes. Needless to say,
>the likelihood of one of these transmuted isotopes being found depends upon
>the percentage of the parent nucleus in the original palladium
>electrode,the halflife of the transmuted nucleus, the duration of the
>experimental run, and the time lag between completion of the experimental
>run and testing of the cathode for transmuted nuclei. Best conditions for
>detection involve long experimental runs followed by immediate testing of
>the cathode. Even then, however, the likelihood of finding detectible
>amounts of transmuted nuclei such as 47Ag108, 47Ag104, or 47Ag102 are very
>slim, due to the short halflives. Nevertheless, the occurrence of these
>transmutation events in detectible numbers is virtual proof of the validity
>of the protoneutron theory, for the simple reason that no other theory
>explains how the proton capture cross sections get high enough to support
>these reactions at all. Since a protoneutron is a neutral particle, the
>occurence of transmutation reactions in detectible amounts is a virtual
>"smoking gun" signature of protoneutron transmutation.
>
>Various other transmutation events arise due to contamination. For example,
>an occasional contaminant of palladium is ruthenium. This occurs because
>ruthenium co-ocurs with platinum and palladium in many ore bodies, and,
>because of its closeness to palladium in atomic weight, it is sometimes not
>separated out. Also, it is deliberately added to palladium as an electrode
>hardener in many industrial applications and is thus frequently present in
>recycled palladium from industrial sources. In nature, its isotopes are
>present in the following proportions:
>
>44Ru102, 31.6%
>44Ru104, 18.6%
>44Ru101, 17.1%
>44Ru99, 12.7%
>44Ru100, 12.6%
>44Ru96, 5.5%
>44Ru98, 1.9%
>
>When ruthenium is present in a cathode, the following protoneutron
>transmutation reactions, in addition to the palladium reactions given
>above, are supported:
>
>44Ru102 + pn --> 45Rh102 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 2.9 y)
>44Ru104 + pn --> 45Rh104 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 5 min)
>44Ru101 + pn --> 45Rh101 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 3.1 y)
>44Ru99   + pn --> 45Rh99   + beta-  + n (Halflife: 16 d)
>44Ru100 + pn --> 45Rh100 + beta-  + n (Halflife:20 h)
>44Ru96   + pn --> 45Rh96   + beta-  + n (Halflife: 0 s) [Note: 45Rh96 has
>never been detected.]
>44Ru98   + pn --> 45Rh98   + beta-  + n (Halflife: 8.7 min)
>
>Once again, the halflives given are taken the rhodium decay reactions given
>in the rhodium section of the isotope table. The likelihood of detection of
>particular transmutation daughter nuclei of ruthenium is determined by the
>same considerations as described above, for palladium transmutations.
>
>I would note, in passing, that the preceding considerations explain very
>nicely the results of the experiment conducted by Dr. Kevin Wolf at Texas A
>& M, as reported in Infinite Energy #2, pg. 30-32.
>
>As noted above, platinum, palladium, and ruthenium are found together in
>many orebodies. Thus platinum is an occasional contaminant of palladium,
>and the same basic analysis given above applies again. The natiurally
>occuring isotopes of platinum are:
>
>78Pt195, 33.8%
>78Pt194, 32.9%
>78Pt196, 25.3%
>78Pt198, 7.2%
>
>When platinum is present as a contaminant in a palladium cathode,
>therefore, the following protoneutron transmutation reactions are to be
>expected:
>
>78Pt195 + pn --> 79Au195 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 183 d)
>78Pt194 + pn --> 79Au194 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 39.5 h)
>78Pt196 + pn --> 79Au196 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 6.18 d)
>78Pt198 + pn --> 79Au198 + beta-  + n (Halflife: 2.7 d)
>
>The above considerations explain the detection of gold in some experiments.
>
>Another contaminant sometimes found with palladium is silver. When silver
>is present, the same sort of analysis predicts the production of cadmium by
>protoneutron transmutation. I'll skip the details, since the analysis
>should be clear enough based on the above examples. Here are the steps:
>look up the contaminant isotopes in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
>and list the isotopes that occur in nature in amounts in excess of 1%. Then
>match up against the element of the next higher number (cadmium, in the
>present case), and select out the isotopes with the matching atomic
>weights. Then write down the reactions and record the halflives listed for
>the transmutation daughter nuclei. It's simple!
>
>When other cathode materials (e.g., titanium, nickel, etc.) are used, the
>same approach applies: determine the transmutation byproducts of the
>material used, and the transmutation byproducts of its various
>contaminants. In a few cases, contamination of the electrode occurs via the
>plating out of metals present in the electrolyte. Often the source of such
>metals lies in the use of hard water rather than distilled water.
>Potassium, for example, may plate out on the cathode and be transmuted into
>calcium. An analysis conducted along these lines will explain virtually all
>the observed results.
>
>Conclusion: the observed transmutation events are a byproduct of the
>protoneutron chain reaction. They occur in measurable quantities for one
>reason only: because a protoneutron, in effect, is a neutral proton, and as
>a result it isn't deflected by coulomb forces as it approaches a nucleus.
>Result: the capture cross section of a proton, when embedded in a
>protoneutron, is enormously enhanced. Since no other theory of "cold
>fusion" explains this massive enhancement of the proton capture cross
>section, I consider the transmutation reactions to be virtual proof of the
>validity of the protoneutron theory.
>
>--Mitchell Jones
>****************************************************
>
>***{Two final points. First, it goes without saying that lots of nuclear
>reactions other than those discussed above are capable of resulting from
>interactions between nuclei and either neutrons or protoneutrons. Second,
>for the record,when I wrote the above I was thoroughly convinced that the
>transmutations were, in fact, taking place. With the passage of time and
>the continued absence of evidence of enhancement of the reaction by means
>of radiation--until your post--my enthusiasm for the protoneutron theory
>waned. Now, however, I find myself excited by it again, as I was shortly
>after Pon's and Fleischmann's original announcement, when the germ of the
>idea first appeared in my mind. Maybe this stuff is true after all!
>--Mitchell Jones}***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 13 04:58:19 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA30019;
	Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:55:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:55:00 -0700
Message-ID: <00af01becd26$6fd16dc0$c8b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Electoless Plating of Potassium on Palladium, OU?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 05:52:57 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"trHEu3.0.zK7.JaoYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29057
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The ELECTROLESS PLATING technology implies that you don't need to use V*I
power to plate on the cathode. So since the K+ ions (about 25% KOH in
electrolytic production of H2) want to attach to the cathode anyhow, an
ANODIZED ALUMINUM ANODE with a  positive potential
wrt the  Pd cathode should "bias" the cell so that virtually no input power
is required, thus the cell should go OU like gangbusters.   :-)

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 13 08:55:06 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA29752;
	Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:51:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:51:42 -0700
MR-Received: by mta EUROPA; Relayed; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:42:36 -0400 (EDT)
MR-Received: by mta GOSIP; Relayed; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:50:40 -0400 (EDT)
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:56:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 <MH2_BRIGGS ODNVMS.A1.Ohio.Gov>
Subject: Re: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Fal
In-reply-to: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0215B25D XCH-CPC-02>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-id: <E2138ZXZXGQ5KP*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Posting-date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:42:00 -0400 (EDT)
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
UA-content-id: E2138ZXZXGQ5KP
X400-MTS-identifier: [;63241131709991/3858926 ODNVMS]
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
Resent-Message-ID: <"3-MqE1.0.gG7.E2sYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29058
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Official Notice,

Schrodinger's cat HerrBall, has retained legal representation through the 
auspices of the ACLU & PETA.  All researchers are hereby refrained from any
and all research involving the placing of the plaintiff in any and all airtight 
containers in accordance with a restraining order issued by the Honorable Judge 
Gotta B. Kitting of the 9th District Court of the Catskills Region.

PETA suggests using lawyers in any such experimentation, however the ACLU is 
against even this measure.  The EPA also declines to recommend the use of 
lawyers as a sustitute, as they have not yet determined a safe way of disposing 
of the extreme hazardous waste generated in this manner.

Bill
webriggs concentric.net
briggs XLNsystems.com

> >>I don't know if you noticed but they are killing Schrodinger's cat in
> the
> lab >>now.  The results seem to indicate that the collapse of an
> indeterminate quantum >>state is a exponential decay where the more
> particles involved, the faster the >>decay.  The experiment is very
> clever,
> and it involves determining the state of >>a particle without observing it
> in the QM sense.
> >
> >Schrodinger's cat was killed long ago..or at least it should have been.
> The
> >idea that a cat can be both dead and alive, in a state of 'limbo' is
> >nonsense, a pipe dream if you will...

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 13 10:58:07 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA12802;
	Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:50:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:50:44 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3b128cb91b1 [207.8.127.30]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:38:15 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Latest on Russ George Cell from spf
Resent-Message-ID: <"9yZhf2.0.x73.pntYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29059
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <378B44CD.6B251DF5 eskimo.com>, Steve La Joie
<lajoie eskimo.com> wrote:

> Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > ***{The pilot of the airliner that crashed several weeks ago was assuming
> > that the air brakes would deploy when he touched the runway; but they
> > didn't. Result: the plane skidded off the runway in the rain, killing the
> > pilot and several passengers. The point: mistakes happen. I find it
> > eminently plausible that a grain of vermiculite could find its way into
> > the experimental cell but not into the control cell. If it did, and if the
> > vermiculite entrains helium at anywhere near the capability of carbon,
> > then the result is explained without resort to CF. That's why I say that
> > George needs to test his vermiculite, and his catalyst material, very
> > thoroughly, to discount such a scenario. Then, if such tests are passed,
> > he needs to run a second experiment in which he loads a cell with H2,
> > cooks it at 200 C and 3.4 atm for several days and gets no He production,
> > then vacuum flushes, cooks out the entrained H2, then infuses with D2, and
> > cooks again at 200 C and 3.4 atm, and *gets* He production. By the latter
> > experiment, he would confirm your hypothesis that differences in treatment
> > caused the control to not fire up, and he would then have a very strong
> > argument for the CF effect. Right now, however, there are simply too many
> > loose ends for me, or anyone, put put a lot of credence in this result.
> > --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> You've completely ignored my argument about how such a contamination
> would manifest itself as helium concentration versus time in the
> cell. That pretty much ruled out the very unlikely effect of any
> diffusion out of carbon or vermiculite.

***{I didn't ignore it: you snipped it out. Here, between the lines of
asterisks, are your comments and my response:

***********************************
>
> In this case we have just the opposite. A low initial rate
> with it approaching a constant slope. That's inconsistent
> with any diffusive contamination and consistent with the
> deuterium density increasing in the Pd until fusion started
> to occur at a near constant rate.

***{It is also consistent with the slow cooking off of entrained helium
from contaminants within the cell, provided only that those contaminants
contain *much more* helium that that which had been released in the first
28 days. In that case, the curve would not yet have begun to level off,
which is exactly what was observed. --Mitchell Jones}***
***********************************

The point of the above statement is that the curve resulting from the
cooking off of entrained He will not begin to level off until the
contaminants approach depletion. Thus if 28 days is insufficient time to
deplete them, the curve will look pretty much as, in fact, it did look. For
example, suppose that, after 28 days, only 10% of the entrained He has been
cooked off. In that case, with 90% of the entrained He left in the
contaminant material, the curve will not yet have begun to level off.

As to whether it is plausible to suppose that a contaminant could contain
that much He, let's run some numbers. Consider, therefore, the carbon
catalyst, which according to George occupies 20 ml within the flask and has
a density of .5 gm/ml. Since density times volume equals mass (DV = M), we
obtain a total mass of (.5)(20) = 10 gms of carbon. We know that if we
compress carbon sufficiently, we produce diamond, which has a density of
3.51 gm/ml. This means 10 gms of diamond will occupy V = M/D = 10/(3.51) =
2.85 ml. Treating diamond as carbon which has had the empty space squeezed
out of it, we would then conclude that the carbon catalyst contains 20 -
2.85 = 17.15 ml of free space and 2.85 ml of occupied space. (In other
words, the catalyst is (17.15/20)(100) = 86% free space.)

The volume of the free space in the flask at STP is therefore 50 - 2.85 =
47.15 ml, and so the volume of gases in the flask at STP is
(47.15)(3.4)(273/473) = 92.5 ml.

Thus the flask contains 92.5/22400 = .00413 moles of D2.

Thus the flask contains (6.02x10^23)(.00413) = 2.48x10^21 molecules of D2.

Since on the 28th day the measured fraction of He in the flask was 11 ppm,
and since the fraction due to diffusion was 5.22 ppm, it follows that we
had (2.48x10^21)[(11 - 5.22)x10^-6] = 1.43x10^16 atoms of excess He in the
flask.

Since the catalyst is about 86% empty space, if it contains a piece of
grease or coal that originated in a helium rich deposit, that lump of
contaminant would likely contain a proportion of empty space similar to the
carbon catalyst. Thus if V represents the volume of the lump, then .8575V
represents the empty space, and if that space contains gases that are 50%
helium, then the volume of contained He is .5(.8575)V, or .429V. Thus
(.429)V = [1.43x10^16/(6.02x10^23)](22400), and when we solve for V we
discover that the required volume of the contaminant is .00124 ml, which is
a cube slightly more than 1 mm on a side. Such a particle would be little
more than a speck of dust, and yet it is all that would be required to
explain away Russ George's excess helium.

Now, granted, it seems unlikely that a contaminant particle contains 50% He
by volume. The best *producing* gas wells yield about 8% He, though I have
read comments from field geologists who reported occasional pockets of 50%
or more, and I recall reading about a mine somewhere in Europe--Austria, I
think--where seepage gases were 10% He. But the point here is that there is
a *lot* more He, percentagewise, in gases that are entrained in subsurface
materials than there is in the atmosphere, and given the tiny amounts of
contaminant material that would suffice to explain Russ George's
excess--just a few grains of sand--I am not prepared to simply *assume*
that no such thing happened.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
> I'm not sure why an effect that doesn't manifest itself calls for
> the experiment to be re-run.

***{How can you know whether it manifested itself or not? Suppose that 50
sand sized grains of vermiculite, each entraining .000248 ml of He, were
present in the experimental cell. That is 10 times as much as the excess He
which Russ George measured. Thus 90% of the entrained He remained when he
ended his run, and hence the curve would *not* have begun to level off.
And, since the catalyst material that he had tested for He was not the used
material that remained after his run, there is really no way to be sure
that the contamination hypothesis is invalid.

Think of it this way: either Russ George has discovered "cold fusion" or he
has discovered a geological material (probably vermiculite) that entrains
significant amounts of helium. Either result would be a scientific
surprise, but the former would be much more surprising than the latter. Why
should we simply *assume* that the more unlikely of the two explanations is
the correct one?

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
> > > > Once two reasonable interpretations are possible, one of which does not
> > > > involve a CF reaction, the evidentiary value of the experiment is
> > > > destroyed. While this is an unfortunate state of affairs, it is
>also one
> > > > that can be corrected. Russ George needs to thoroughly test the
> > > > vermiculite and the catalyst material for entrained helium.
> > >
> > > The catalyst was checked by Arata in Japan, and no helium was found.
> > > I don't think the vermiculite would be a problem since it is an
> > > insulator
> > > outside the vessel. Besides, the odds of getting on container filled
> > > with
> > > He free vermiculite and the other filled with highly contaminated
> > > vermiculite
> > > are not that great.
> >
> > ***{The vermiculite is, of course, intended to be *outside* the cell, not
> > in it. The experimental vessel is a stainless steel cylinder of 50 ml
> > capacity.
>
> You are working from the assumptions that:
>
> 1) The vermiculite can absorb a lot of Helium.
> 2) The vermiculite was exposed to a lot of Helium.
> 3) The vermiculite got into the vessel.
> 4) The vermiculite emitted helium over time in a way that is
> not characteristic of diffusion.

***{No. I am open to the possibility that Russ George has obtained bona
fide excess helium, just as I am open to the (more likely) possibility of
contamination. It is you, by tossing out the latter possibility, who is
making assumptions. The truth is that neither of us knows whether, in your
words:

1) The vermiculite can absorb a lot of Helium.
2) The vermiculite was exposed to a lot of Helium.
3) The vermiculite got into the vessel.

I am suggesting further testing, to discount the above possibilities. You
are suggesting that we merely assume that they didn't happen.

As for your fourth point--to wit: that he vermiculite emitted helium over
time in a way that is not characteristic of diffusion--I disagree that the
observed curve could not be due to the gradual cooking out of entrained He,
for the reasons given above.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
> > It is placed inside a 2 liter stainless steel dewar, and the
> > space between the cell and the walls of the dewar is filled with
> > vermiculite. If all goes as intended, there should be no vermiculite in
> > either the experimental cell or the control cell. However, mistakes are a
> > fact of human existence, and it is easy to imagine
>
> ...
>
> Imagine what you want. This isn't science.

***{I don't see it as "scientific" to simply assume that a less
scientifically plausible interpretation is correct, when a more
scientifically plausible hypothesis remains unexamined.

Anyway, before closing this post, I would like to briefly discuss another
point about the Russ George paper that I found to be disturbing: the fact
that he said nothing about the amount of He-3 that he measured. This
disturbs me because the SRI mass spec undoubtedly showed a peak for He-3,
and, since He-3 exists in a known percentage abundance vis-a-vis He-4, it
would have been a simple matter to *calculate* the amount of He-4 that was
due to contamination, thereby laying that possibility to rest. Yet he
didn't do it, and that leaves me scratching my head, wondering why not.

Let me explain.

Consider the standard decontamination calculations that are employed for
the potassium-argon dating of geological strata. The problem is that when a
piece of volcanic ejecta is to be vaporized prior to sampling by the mass
spec, there is always a thin, invisible skim of atmospheric constituents,
including atmospheric argon-40, that adheres to the surface of the material
prior to heating. Since the amount of argon-40 that will be present inside
the sample due to the decay of K-40 is the quantity of interest, and since
the number of atoms involved is likely to be tiny and subject to large
perturbation by the atoms from atmospheric sources that cling to the
outside, it is necessary to calculate the number of Ar-40 atoms that are
due to atmospheric contamination, and subtract them from the total number
of Ar-40 atoms measured, in order for the dating technique to work. Such a
calculation is possible because the decay of K-40 produces only Ar-40, and
does not produce Ar-36. Since there are 295.5 atoms of Ar-40 for every atom
of Ar-36 in the atmosphere, one simply takes the measured number of Ar-36
atoms, multiplies it by 295.5, and subtracts the result from the total
number of Ar-40 atoms detected, to determine the number of Ar-40 atoms that
resulted from the decay of K-40.

Exactly the same procedure can be applied to the Russ George experiment
because it is extremely likely that any nuclear reaction which may be
taking place in the George cell produces only He-4, not He-3. With He-3
having a percentage abundance of .00013, and He-4 coming in at 99.99987, we
can conclude that there should be *at least* 99.99987/.00013 = 769,230
atoms of He-4 for every atom of He-3. (I say "at least" because the
proportion of He-3 should be lower beneath the surface.) Thus we should be
able to multiply the number of atoms of He-3 detected by 769,230 to
determine the number of contaminant atoms of He-4 present, and subtract
those from the total number of He-4 atoms detected, to determine the total
number of He-4 atoms due to nuclear reactions in the cell. Unfortunately,
the number of He-3 atoms detected was not given in the Russ George paper.
All we have is the tantalizing hint, in the lower left portion of Fig. 1,
of a substantial He-3 peak on the mass spectroscope--a peak which has
already risen to about 2000 parts per 10 billion before being cut off, and,
thus, has a relative abundance of *at least* .2/(1.7 + .2) = 10.51%. (This
assumes, perhaps incorrectly, that the vertical axis of Fig. 1 gives
proportionate amounts. The chart is very unclear.)

Bottom line: I find it disturbing that I am having to wrestle with the
contamination possibility at all, given that it is a simple and very
standard procedure to simply calculate the number of contaminant atoms and
eliminate them from consideration. I wonder why Russ George didn't do that.


--Mitchell Jones}***

>
> [snip]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 13 11:48:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA30721;
	Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:46:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:46:29 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: swindon.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:46:23 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi swindon
To: vortex-l <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Fal
In-Reply-To: <E2138ZXZXGQ5KP*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990713193333.27333B-100000 swindon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"6NJwg3.0.xV7.4cuYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29060
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vo,
In reply to Bill Briggs. We get your point but lassiez-faire is fine for
responsible citizens but there really is some awful crud on the planet.
Just remember, both left and right are playing mindgames with your
integrity when you pin your colours to the mask.

There is a lot right in Objectivism but Ayn Rand is dead and the movement
has been taken over by a clique that insult your integrity if you *dare*
to have other thoughts - 'how can you be rational? End of argument, you
can't be taken seriously'.

For any group to carry on like the oil industry's pollution is not a
problem and that anybody who reacts against that is a lefty misfit smacks
of unobjectivism. Fact, ic engines stink, smog stings and suffocates, oil
slicks destroy. Human happiness doesn't equate to senseless resource
consumation in a finite environment.

No doubt about it, they have a trench warfare mentality, reactionary. All
the zeal and indignation of masturbatory adolecents. Let them grow up a
bit. Contrary to O. principles, compromise and non black and white
(or two state) arguments are part of the adult world.

I still agree with many of their principles where Rational.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 13 12:42:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA15608;
	Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:40:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:40:45 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3b13e49a199 [207.8.127.115]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990713193333.27333B-100000 swindon>
References: <E2138ZXZXGQ5KP*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:37:45 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Fal
Resent-Message-ID: <"lzwfz.0.op3.yOvYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29061
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Vo,
>In reply to Bill Briggs. We get your point but lassiez-faire is fine for
>responsible citizens but there really is some awful crud on the planet.
>Just remember, both left and right are playing mindgames with your
>integrity when you pin your colours to the mask.

***{I received nothing via the vortex server in which Bill Briggs talked
about laissez faire, which appears to be yet another tantalizing hint that
the server is infested with gremlins again, as it was a year or so ago.
Where is Bill Beaty when we need him? :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>There is a lot right in Objectivism but Ayn Rand is dead and the movement
>has been taken over by a clique that insult your integrity if you *dare*
>to have other thoughts

***{Remi, the "movement" was taken over by a clique long before she died.
Ayn Rand was a genius, but she was also a fallible human being who, despite
her recognition of the importance of objectivity, failed to solve the
problem of how to *be* consistently objective. To be specific: she
succumbed to the excessive praises of syncophants among her claque of
followers, began to think of herself as infallible, and became intolerant
of dissent. Result: "Objectivism" (note the capital "O") became little more
than an atheistic cult. There are, however, objectivists (note the lower
case "o") who are *not* intolerant of dissent, and who will argue with you
until the cows come home. For the most part, they are people who think like
Rand, but do not agree with her on every narrow point, and, most
especially, they make no attempt to join the crowd of her "official"
followers. Groupthink rots the brain, whether the group is a church, a
garden club, an old-style communist cell, a gaggle of drooling
"environmentalists," or an inbred cult of self-styled "atheists." The
specifics of the group do not matter; what does matter is that when a
person joins a group, he immediately, in virtually all cases, begins to
place "fitting in" with the other group members above knowing, and
speaking, the truth. Result: men tend to be rational as individuals, and
imbeciles as soon as they become part of a group. --Mitchell Jones}***

- 'how can you be rational? End of argument, you
>can't be taken seriously'.
>
>For any group to carry on like the oil industry's pollution is not a
>problem and that anybody who reacts against that is a lefty misfit smacks
>of unobjectivism. Fact, ic engines stink, smog stings and suffocates, oil
>slicks destroy. Human happiness doesn't equate to senseless resource
>consumation in a finite environment.

***{Dumping waste on another person's property without his permission is a
violation of his rights, and has been illegal under English common law
since the time of Henry II. As such, the solution to pollution is to
protect the property rights of individuals, not sweep them aside and create
despotic agencies such as the American EPA. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>No doubt about it, they have a trench warfare mentality, reactionary. All
>the zeal and indignation of masturbatory adolecents. Let them grow up a
>bit. Contrary to O. principles, compromise and non black and white
>(or two state) arguments are part of the adult world.

***{It is simply a fact that the practice of "solving" social problems by
stripping peoples' rights away leads to slavery. Only the legion of the
brainless cannot see that. Of those who can see it, those who refuse to do
so are simply *evil*, and the rest, appropriately, have "a trench warfare
mentality." Enough said. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>I still agree with many of their principles where Rational.
>Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 13 13:05:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA21982;
	Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:00:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:00:43 -0700
Message-ID: <378B9A3A.6B1BE685 harborside.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:57:46 -0700
From: Steven Myers <stevenm harborside.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Great Pyramid was a huge Water Pump!
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990713193333.27333B-100000 swindon>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2bY5H3.0.JN5.ghvYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29062
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I maintain a site that showcases the discoveries and ideas in the book
called Pharaoh's Pump.  This site talks about how the Great Pyramid was
built.

This is the book that is so highly regarded in the recent best selling
book, 5/5/2000 : Ice, the Ultimate Disaster by Richard W. Noone, and other
books.

Please check out the site at:
http://www.thepump.org

**The Great Pyramid is a huge water pump**
This pump uses vortex properties of water to make it operate!!!
The purpose and shape of the Subterranean chamber causes water to form a
vortex!
I have written an article about this that is suitable for a magazine.
If you know of a publication interested in this information let me know.



Thank you for your time and consideration.
If you have any questions or comments let me know.

Warm regards,

Steven Myers

Pharaoh's Pump Foundation
http://www.thepump.org

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 13 16:50:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA30321;
	Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:48:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:48:44 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:48:10 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk> <378A23A7.24D2FECF@ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 QAA30298
Resent-Message-ID: <"OO3Xw.0.hP7.S1zYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29063
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:19:43 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
[snip]
>The questions I want answered are:
>How can the Pd or Ni be manufactured in such a way to be nuclear-active every
>time?
>What conditions should be applied to a cell to make less perfect material become
>nuclear-active?
>What mechanism allows the nuclear reactions to take place?
>
>Answer these questions and you have actually helped the work.
>
>Sincerely,
>Ed Storms
>
It would seem that the ability to identify specific nuclear active sites
before they self destruct would be useful in narrowing down the
conditions that make them nuclear active.
A possible method of doing this might be to view a flat plate cathode in
the infra-red in real time. Then as soon as a "hot spot" began to form,
the experiment could be terminated, and the spot examined.


Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 13 17:51:09 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA05033;
	Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:46:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:46:52 -0700
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:50:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Source for cables 68 pin External SCSI Ultra Wide
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990713204910.23149B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"6rXcG2.0.UE1.xtzYt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29064
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Dear Folks,

	I am in search mode for a supplier for a certain type of SCSI
exernal connection cables.

	I have Adaptec AHA-2940 Ultra-Wide SCSI adapters... these are SCSI
controller cards for an IBM clone.

	I am looking for a supplier for the External connection type
cables with  68-pins.

	Any leads on where to buy such cables?

		Thanks,

				John Schnurer

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 13 18:23:55 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA17894;
	Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:23:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:23:12 -0700
Message-ID: <378BE690.3A8D7EF5 keelynet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:23:28 -0500
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
Reply-To: jdecker keelynet.com
Organization: KeelyNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Source for cables 68 pin External SCSI Ultra Wide
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990713204910.23149B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2olKe1.0.WN4.0Q-Yt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29065
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi John!

Just so happens.....you can get a 50 pin to 68 pin adapter from Adaptec
at;

http://www.adaptec.com/

Cable adapters for 50 to 68 pin;

http://www.adaptec.com/tools/selectors/cables.html

I think this is what you want for $57.00;

http://www.adaptecstore.com/dr/v2/ec_MAIN.Entry17?SP=10007&PN=5&PID=146810&sid=14948

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 13 18:30:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA22593;
	Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:29:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:29:58 -0700
Message-ID: <378BE832.E73338E2 keelynet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:30:26 -0500
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
Reply-To: jdecker keelynet.com
Organization: KeelyNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Source for cables 68 pin External SCSI Ultra Wide
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990713204910.23149B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"OcXgf2.0.xW5.MW-Yt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29066
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi John!

These might be even more appropriate unless you can get the pinouts and
make your own;

http://www.adaptec.com/products/overview/aha2940u2w.html

http://www.adaptec.com/products/datasheets/u2cables.html

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 13 20:47:32 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA09779;
	Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:45:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:45:00 -0700
Message-ID: <19990714034456.99817.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [130.126.15.5]
From: "e lewis" <elewis1 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: more information about the book
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:44:56 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"bl9Th2.0.iO2.yU0Zt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29067
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Read on-line the book
The Periodic Production of Rationalized Phenomena and the Past Periodic
Depressions
Copyright 1991-1999

by Edward Lewis


Copyright (c) 1991-1999

My book can be read on-line in html format and downloaded for your personal 
use for 10 dollars. See details on submitting
your credit card number or sending in ten dollars below.

You may call or fax in your credit card number long distance to Australia 
(probably a 2 minute phone call) and read the text
copy of the book online in html format. The book is called THE PERIODIC 
PRODUCTION OF RATIONALIZED
PHENOMENA AND THE PAST PERIODIC DEPRESSIONS (c) 1990-1999. It is based on a 
theory developed 10 years ago
that has proven correct in the basic predictions possible based on the 
theory. The book focuses on presenting historical
evidence for and the logical reasons for 80 year periodicities in scientific 
and technological development, and about 40 year
periodicities of economic depressions.

You can read the manuscript text online for 10 dollars by calling the credit 
card payments line in Australia: 61-395-455-755.
Or send your credit card number by fax: 61-395-488-707.

Make sure you mention that the money is for Edward Lewis and that you give 
your email address clearly. Within a few days at
most, I should receive notification of your payment and then I'll send you 
the information to your email address for accessing
the book. You'll be able to read the book on-line in html format and 
download it for personal use as often as you wish, until
the procedure for how this is done is changed which probably won't be for 
two more weeks at least. It is now July 9, 1999.

Or if you can send in a check or money order payment of 10 dollars along 
with your email address, I'll send you the
information for reading the site on-line. My address is Box 2013, Champaign, 
IL 61825.

People interested in the cold fusion phenomena and ball lightning and how to 
understand this all would be interested in my
book. I've developed a theory that cold fusion and a bunch of other 
anomalies such as ball lightning and anomalous
atmospheric and geological phenomena can be understood as what I call 
plasmoid phenomena, using a term used by an
important experimental physicist named W. Bostick and already widely used.

You can check on the major predictions that were made ten years ago about 
scientific, technological and economic
development in an on-line article.

Research in Physics

I'm a cold fusion and new science researcher and have published articles in 
several periodicals including Cold Fusion Times,
Infinite Energy, Frontier Perspectives, and Extraordinary Science, and 
several others. I worked with G. Miley a little and
while working in that lab discovered an effect of radioactivity inducing 
radioactivity in a microsphere-type electrolysis cell.
This is a little similar to an effect reported by Conte and Pieralice in 
1999.

My main work as you can see from reading my articles on my web site is to 
develop a theory of plasmoids which I think is
also a theory of cold fusion. Both Shoulders and H. Fox used to call these 
objects EVs.

In the early 1990s, based on Matsumoto's early CF work and prior research on 
ball lightning, I understood the role of the
microscopic ball lightning in various transmutation and new energy devices. 
I then developed a theory that even atoms may act
like ball lightning, and a general theory of the structures that I call 
plasmoids which includes both galaxies and particles. This
required a new theory of physical organization.

I enjoyed researching accounts of tornadoes and explaining tornadoes as a 
plasmoid phenomena, and relating the microscopic,
micrometer size objects emitted during cold fusion to ball lightning and the 
host of other plasmoid sizes. In particular, an
understanding of cold fusion depends on an understanding of ball lightning, 
and especially of atoms as a type of plasmoid
which may convert to electricity and light directly and entirely as does 
ball lightning. There are much experimental evidence
for this: Matsumoto's research showing ball lightning emission, K. Shoulders 
reports, and the reports of Claytor and others of
microscopic voids and lights.
"Tornadoes and Ball Lightning"

Research in Economics and History and Philosophy of Science

In the late 1980s, I developed a philosophy of science based partly on 
Thomas Kuhn's ideas. It emphasizes that new paradigm
development happens when prior fundamental hypotheses are contradicted so 
that novel fundamental phenomena are
produced. You can read about this at http://207.225.33.111/booktext.html

I show that the development of science has been highly periodic with 
scientific revolutions in physics on the scale of Einstein,
Faraday, and Franklin happening every 80 years almost to the year, and try 
to explain why this is so. This periodicity has
continued unabated since Copernicus, at least. See Chart

In fact, it was while developing this theory of scientific and econonomic 
periodicity in the Spring of 1989 that I realized that if
the 80 year timing was continuing, there must be a scientific revolution on 
the scale of the one with Einstein happening in the
mid 1980s. I realized this even before I heard of news of the cold fusion 
announcements. So I started collecting information on
what I thought were serious anomalies of the prior theories such as 
superconductivity. When I heard about cold fusion, I
started researching this topic, and then started to research ball lightning. 
I think there had been a scientific revolution type
crisis period during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s but I think that since I've 
formulated plasmoid theory, the crisis period as
Thomas Kuhn defined it is over.

Scientific development seems to keep this 80 year timing through wars, 
revolutions, great cultural changes... It seems to be
endogenous relative to the rest of society and not tied to changes in 
economics. From the time that Copernicus first formulated
his theory about 1506 to the time that Einstein first formulated his theory 
about 1905 is 5 periods of 80 years.

On my web site: http://207.225.33.111 you can read more information about 
both the science theory and the physics theories.

Confirmations of Theories and Predictions

There have been a number of confirmations of the theories described in the 
book.

First of all, based on the ideas I was formulating in the spring of 1989, I 
predicted that not only was a scientific revolution
occurring in the 1980s, but that someone may have already formulated a new 
physics premise to replace QM. This was before
news of CF came out. I was thinking that superconductivity was one of the 
anomalies that would enable new theory
formulation.

The idea of identifying all phenomena as the same general type, but varying 
sizes of this same type, and that that all
phenomena might exhibit the anomalies of ball lightning is a fundamental 
idea that gets confirmed more and more.

Some predictions that have been confirmed are:

1) There are microscopic ball lightning. The microscopic objects emitted 
during various kinds of stress behave like ball
lightning in a number of ways. I predicted that people would find grooves 
and ditches and trails on surfaces in and around
their apparatus due to the motion of tiny plasmoids because ball lightning 
leaves markings like this. Ball lightning also leaves
pits and tunnels where they contact materials or leave materials sometimes 
associated with elemental and isotopic residues.
Claytor and others have found micrometer size pits. I may have also found 
groove and pit markings in the CETI type
electrolysis cells. Click to see Photographs of Some Components of an 
Electrolysis Cell You can see pictures of them on my
site.

2) That people would find more instances of the plasmoid wave phenomena 
associated with cold fusion that Matsumoto first
found on plastic sheets. I think the broken windows in Nassisi's experiments 
are due to this effect.

3) That people would find anomalous surges of electricity due to the 
conversion of material to electricity. Matsumoto reported
finding anomalous surges, but his report wasn't published.

4) The microscopic plasmoids might hop and show effects like tornadoes. 
Matsumoto found markings of them hopping like
tornadoes.

5) People would find features like geological features in electrodes and 
other stressed materials. Ohmori found volcano-like
features.

6) Microscopic plasmoids that behave like ball lightning are common. 
Matsumoto reported finding microscopic markings on
plastic sheets after an earthquake that look like ball lightning markings.

There were a number of other early predictions.

7) It has become evident that transmutation is associated with plasmoid 
formation or travel.

8) That material is transported as moving plasmoids and may be converted 
inside them.

9) That the superconductivity phenomena and the plasmoid phenomena are 
related in that superconductivity is a feature of
plasmoids.

10) What we call gravity, substance cohesion and situation, and the rate of 
change of phenomena (time) can be explained as
plasmoid phenomena. There are many anomalies to QM and Relativity theory 
concerning time. I'm predicting people might
find that cold fusion cells, volcanic activity, ball lightning and storms 
affect the rate of change of an accurate atomic clock or
of other plasmoid processes.

I don't accept the idea of nuclei. To me everything, even atoms are what I 
call plasmoids that may convert entirely to
electricity. This is the key to understanding cold fusion, I think.

I don't think that atoms have components that remain stable in this 
Universe.

People are more and more accepting ideas about the association and role of 
ball lightning in cold fusion, about transmutation,
and are now coming up with novel ways of trying to explain atomic phenomena, 
but I think the key is to accept the hypothesis
that atoms are plasmoids and behave in the anomalous ways other plasmoids 
such as ball lightning do.

Confirmation of History of Science and Economics Predictions

You can read about the history of science and economics theories and the 
confirmations of these theories at my site. I
formulated the economics and history of science theories 10 years ago. The 
major economic predictions were that there would
be an industrial revolution based on QM theory and that there would be rapid 
economic development and an economic boom
in the economies that gained leadership in the new industries. Rising 
productivity growth rates in the most advanced economy
was also predicted 10 years ago and this is happening now.

If the past timing of depressionary periods at about 40 year intervals hold, 
then there may be a major depressionary period
again about 2010.

On my website
you can read more information about both the science theory and the physics 
theories.

Introductory Essay: Is It Possible to Predict Scientific and Economic 
Development?

Copyright (c) 1999 by Edward Lewis


For more information, please contact me.
elewis1 hotmail.com
P.O Box 2013, Champaign, Illinois 61820

(This page first put up on the web on 7/12/99. )


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 01:19:08 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA07132;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:16:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:16:49 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3b1cc527fc3 [207.8.127.115]>
In-Reply-To: <19990713002115.15419.qmail hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:15:02 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Using Radioactivity to Stimulate CF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id BAA07111
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y2y_12.0.Hl1.nT4Zt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29068
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Hi.
>
>This is weird.  I sent a vortex-l email which didn't appear on the list!

***{The server appears to be inhabited by gremlins. Mostly it works, but
sometimes it doesn't. I have no idea what causes it. --MJ}***

>So here it goes again.
>
>Mitchell,
>
>I think your idea is interesting since you seem to focus on the change of
>protons to neutrons, right?

***{Sort of. The central idea that leads to the protoneutron concept is
based on a question--to wit: if a proton is attracted into the lattice
structure of a cathode and meets an electron, and if there isn't enough
room for the electron to orbit at the Bohr radius (about 53Å), what
happens? Logically, if there isn't room for the electron to orbit at the
Bohr radius, it will still be attracted to the proton. (Coulomb's law
presumably still applies.) Therefore, logic would seem to indicate that the
electron will spiral down *below* the Bohr radius, to just above the
"surface" of the proton, and begin to orbit there. (What *else* could it
do?) If that happens, then the result is going to be a very unstable
neutral particle that I have dubbed a "protoneutron." It is not a neutron
because it has not picked up the .7875 MeV that would be required to
transform it into a neutron. Likewise, it is not a hydrogen atom, either,
because its electron lacks the space that it would need to orbit at the
Bohr radius. On the other hand, the object is not a "hydrino," because I do
not claim that it is a stable particle, or that there are fractional orbits
below the Bohr radius. Instead, I view the protoneutron as a *wildly
unstable* particle that exists only within confined spaces that do not
permit it to expand into a hydrogen atom, or to pick up the energy it needs
to become a neutron. So long as it does exist, however, I would expect it
hunger for the energy of transformation--the .7875 MeV that is needed to
turn it into a neutron--and I would expect a cathode with a large
population of protoneutrons to respond to incident radiation by producing
neutrons, which would then precipitate nuclear reactions, which would then
produce radioactivity. Most of that radioactivity, of course, would be
absorbed by the lattice or by other protoneutrons, but under the right
circumstances enough of it might escape to explain the results of the
experiment that you conducted. (The cobalt-60 that was probably in your
radioactive source decays with the emission of a 1.33 MeV gamma, which
would supply the .7875 MeV needed to transform a protoneutron into a
neutron, with energy to spare.)

Letting pn symbolize a protoneutron, I would sum up as follows:

(1) p + e + space --> H

(2) p + e + no space --> pn

(3) pn + .7875 MeV --> n

(4) And, of course, a neutron can facilitate lots of reactions that produce
radiation--e.g.: n + H --> D + 2.22 MeV, etc.

Bottom line: when you moved the radioactive source near the cathode in your
experiment, you may have been supplying the .7875 MeV required in step (3).
(Assuming that CF is real and that the protoneutron theory is the correct
explanation for how it occurs.)

An alternative to the Pons-Fleischmann type of electrolysis experiments
would be to expose an appropriately sized lattice structure to a gas such
as D2, at temperatures and pressures that would force some molecules into
spaces where the electrons of the constituent atoms would not be able to
maintain the Bohr radius. Examples are the experiments of Les Case and Russ
George. If a deuterium atom were forced into an appropriately confining
space, the result might be the generation of a deuteroneutron--i.e., an
electron skimming the surface of a deuterium nucleus. If we symbolize a
deuteroneutron by dn, we have:

(1) D2 + no space --> 2dn

(2) 2dn --> He-4 + 23.8 MeV

The reason (2) might work is that the two deuteroneutrons, being
electrically neutral, would be able to approach without experiencing
significant Coulomb repulsion. As for why the 23.8 MeV does not manifest as
a gamma, perhaps the cramped spaces somehow couple the energy to the
lattice, yielding up phonons--lattice vibrations--rather than gammas. Maybe
there is a space requirement for the generation of gammas, just as their is
a space requirement for the production of an H atom.

While the observed levels of He-4 in the Case experiment may be due to
contamination, I must admit that applying the protoneutron type of analysis
to the Case design makes it more plausible to me. The reason is that if the
protoneutron theory is valid, then an underlying commonality can be seen to
link the Case protocol with that of Pons & Fleischmann--and to that of
James Patterson as well, come to think of it. Without such a commonality, I
see the Case experiment as a blind stab in the dark, and, while such stabs
may be acceptable to Ed Storms, they are most assuredly not acceptable to
me. (Sorry for the dig, Ed. I don't know what  came over me! :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

[snip}

>
>Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 05:56:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA11508;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 05:55:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 05:55:50 -0700
Message-ID: <378C8928.986F7C0 bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:57:12 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Source for cables 68 pin External SCSI Ultra Wide
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990713204910.23149B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_KT6I.0.kp2.LZ8Zt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29069
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Schnurer wrote:
> 
>         Dear Folks,
> 
>         I am in search mode for a supplier for a certain type of SCSI
> exernal connection cables.
> 
>         I have Adaptec AHA-2940 Ultra-Wide SCSI adapters... these are SCSI
> controller cards for an IBM clone.
> 
>         I am looking for a supplier for the External connection type
> cables with  68-pins.
> 
>         Any leads on where to buy such cables?
> 
>                 Thanks,
> 
>                                 John Schnurer


John,

I'm sure that CTG (Cables To Go) has what you need.  You can call
them at 1-800-506-9607 or go to their web site at:

http://www.cablestogo.com/

They probably have a local distributor in Ohio.

Regards,
Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 06:01:22 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA13307;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:00:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:00:19 -0700
Message-ID: <378C8A30.6E8C6DB1 bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:01:36 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Source for cables 68 pin External SCSI Ultra Wide
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990713204910.23149B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu> <378C8928.986F7C0@bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6VYvO3.0.iF3.Yd8Zt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29070
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hey, they're in Dayton.  What do ya know!

CTG - Cables To Go
1501 Webster Street
Dayton, OH 45404

Terry

Terry Blanton wrote:
> 
> John Schnurer wrote:
> >
> >         Dear Folks,
> >
> >         I am in search mode for a supplier for a certain type of SCSI
> > exernal connection cables.
> >
> >         I have Adaptec AHA-2940 Ultra-Wide SCSI adapters... these are SCSI
> > controller cards for an IBM clone.
> >
> >         I am looking for a supplier for the External connection type
> > cables with  68-pins.
> >
> >         Any leads on where to buy such cables?
> >
> >                 Thanks,
> >
> >                                 John Schnurer
> 
> John,
> 
> I'm sure that CTG (Cables To Go) has what you need.  You can call
> them at 1-800-506-9607 or go to their web site at:
> 
> http://www.cablestogo.com/
> 
> They probably have a local distributor in Ohio.
> 
> Regards,
> Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 06:45:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA22329;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:44:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:44:59 -0700
Message-ID: <000801becdfe$f4e6b460$adb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: InterCorr - Materials Resistance Tables
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:44:04 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECDCC.A60ACA20"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"SVZ082.0.pS5.QH9Zt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29071
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_0005_01BECDCC.A60ACA20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://www.intercorr.com/crc.html

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECDCC.A60ACA20
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="InterCorr - Materials Resistance Tables.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="InterCorr - Materials Resistance Tables.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.intercorr.com/crc.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.intercorr.com/crc.html
Modified=60FEF3D4FECDBE01AF

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BECDCC.A60ACA20--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 06:49:17 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA24309;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:48:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:48:36 -0700
Message-ID: <001101becdff$766a8700$adb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: CETI Cold Fusion Experiment
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:47:46 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01BECDCD.2A24D800"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"mBQIl3.0.gx5.qK9Zt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29072
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_000E_01BECDCD.2A24D800
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/CF/CETIX.html

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BECDCD.2A24D800
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="CETI Cold Fusion Experiment.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="CETI Cold Fusion Experiment.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/CF/CETIX.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/CF/CETIX.html
Modified=00920161FFCDBE017F

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BECDCD.2A24D800--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 07:42:39 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA07941;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:41:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:41:06 -0700
Message-ID: <19990714144052.3744.rocketmail web601.yahoomail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerry Wayne Decker <jwdatwork yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Source for cables 68 pin External SCSI Ultra Wide
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"4d3yF.0._x1.26AZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29073
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi John, Terry, et al!

Thanks for the cablestogo.com URL Terry, added that to
my files as their prices and options are far better;

http://www.cablestogo.com/asp/search_display.asp?action=search&user_id=CTG_Online_UserID_0.857601314-7

--- Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net> wrote:
> John Schnurer wrote:
> > I am in search mode for a supplier for a
> > certain type of SCSI exernal connection cables.
> > I have Adaptec AHA-2940 Ultra-Wide SCSI adapters..
> > these are SCSI controller cards for an IBM clone.
> > I am looking for a supplier for the External 
> > connection type cables with  68-pins.

Terry wrote;
> I'm sure that CTG (Cables To Go) has what you need. 
> You can call them at 1-800-506-9607 or go to their 
> web site at: http://www.cablestogo.com/

===


=================================
Please respond to jdecker keelynet.com
as I am writing from my work email of
jwdatwork yahoo.com.........thanks!
=================================
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 11:25:19 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA21122;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:20:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:20:59 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3b2840b429a [207.8.127.245]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:18:54 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Russ George Debate on sci.physics.fusion
Resent-Message-ID: <"Mqox11.0.s95.BKDZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29074
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <378C89DD.12B6D59A eskimo.com>, Steve La Joie
<lajoie eskimo.com> wrote:

[snip]

>
> Science, on the other hand, requires unbaised observers to
> propose reasonable explainations for experimental observations.
> One explaination is that there's fusion going on in that
> vessel that produces Helium. I don't see where this violates
> any physical law or principle now known.

***{The principle that it *seemingly* violates is the notion that nuclei
can fuse without obtaining the kinetic energy which they need to overcome
the Coulomb barrier. The entire failed enterprise of hot fusion is devoted
to the task of giving them that energy by various methods--which generally
involve temperatures of millions of degrees and pressures of thousands of
atmospheres. In the present case, the temperatures are a few hundred
degrees, and the pressures are a finger-countable number of atmospheres.
Result: there are those who regard deuterium fusion as implausible under
the circumstances.

If, however, we ask ourselves a simple question--to wit: what happens when
a deuterium molecule is shot into a lattice structure, and become wedged in
a location where there is insufficient room for its electrons to orbit at
the Bohr radius?--then the possibility of deuterium fusion in a lattice
under the Case scenario suddenly becomes more plausible. The reason: if a
D2 molecule is confined under conditions that do not permit its electrons
to orbit at the Bohr radius, then it is plausible to expect those electrons
to spiral down to altitudes where they are virtually grazing the surface of
their associated nuclei. (The energy which they possessed at the Bohr
radius would be given up in collisions with the lattice as they spiraled
down.) The effect of an electron virtually grazing the surface of a
deuterium nucleus would be to render the resulting object very nearly
electrically neutral. If we symbolize that object by means of dn, then we
have the following:

(1) D2 + insufficient space --> 2dn + X MeV

(2) 2dn --> He-4 + [23.8 MeV - X MeV]

The fusion of the dn's would occur without requiring the huge kinetic
energies and pressures envisioned by hot fusion advocates, because the
Coulomb barrier which the hot fusioneers are trying to overcome would no
longer exist once the dn particles were formed: an electron virtually
grazing the surface of the nucleus would produce a particle that was very
nearly electrically neutral, and two such particles could approach one
another with little or no mutual repulsion.

The above reasoning is central to the "protoneutron" theory, which I
presented in this group way back in 1995, and it was extensively debated at
that time. When the dust settled, the only real objection to it turned out
to be quantum mechanical--to wit: proponents of "quantum mechanics" claim
that electrons only exist in preferred states, and do not exist during
times of transition between preferred states. For example, by this
(ludicrous) notion, when an electron "jumps" from a higher stable orbit to
a lower stable orbit, it simply vanishes from the former location and
reappears at the latter. In other words, it does *not* pass through the
intervening space. By such a notion--which lies at the core of the concept
of the quantization of electron orbits--the electron is either in a
preferred orbit, or in the nucleus, or flying through free space--period.
Thus to a person who operates with these sorts of blinders on, the
possibility that an electron might be squeezed down into a non-preferred
(classical) orbit due to the confining conditions that exist within certain
lattice structures simply does not exist. To him, "cold fusion" is simply,
utterly, and finally impossible.

The danger which such people see is the collapse of quantum mechanics
itself. If we merely treat the preferred orbits as stable orbits, and treat
the intervening orbits as unstable, then "quantum mechanics" collapses, and
only classical mechanics remains. Worse, none of this affects the
mathematics at all: the stable orbits would still be calculated by the very
same formulae as before, and those formulae would continue to be justified
by the same experimental evidence as before. "Quantum mechanics," you see,
is totally bound up in the way the mathematics is interpreted. Simply put:
the Copenhagen interpretation *is* quantum mechanics. Once you introduce
the notion that the preferred states are merely stable states, and that the
non-preferred states occur, but are unstable, transient, and virtually
impossible to observe, "quantum mechanics" disappears like the Cheshire
cat, leaving nothing but the grin.

Bottom line: there are *huge* intellectual issues riding on the outcome of
"cold fusion," and no one should be surprised that the battle lines are as
firmly drawn up as, in fact, they are.

--Mitchell Jones}***

The other explaination
> is that a contaminant with some yet undiscovered property of He
> absorbtion got in the control cells of both experimental
> cells of Case and George, but not the controls or the sample
> evaluated by Arata, and it emits Helium on at an ever increasing
> rate, but apparently only in the vessels and not in the container
> that it was shipped in.

***{This would be good logic if the inconsistencies could be eliminated
from the various results. Unfortunately, Case ran lots of experiments, and
they frequently did not work; and the George experiment failed to produce
He-4 after the control cell was purged and reinfused with D2. The
experimenters--and you, presumably--explain this away as being due to
hypothesized differences in the materials or in the treatment of the
materials, without being able to put forth any sort of consistent,
predictive rationale. Thus the explanations given for the failures are ad
hoc, and leave the suspicion that what is happening is a selecting out of
errors and the touting of those errors as proof of "cold fusion." In other
words, how do you know that the error free experiments in this collection
are not the ones which failed to produce excess heat or excess helium,
rather than the converse?

As for why I am willing to argue against you, when it should be obvious to
everyone that I hope you are right, the reason is simple: I am an unabashed
proponent of classical mechanics who despises quantum mechanics and the
anti-rational philosophy which underlies it, and that position does not in
any way rest upon or require the validity of "cold fusion." If CF proves to
be real, quantum mechanics will collapse; and if CF is not real, quantum
mechanics will remain precisely as preposterous as it has always been, no
more and no less.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
> The first explaination works on the logic like this:
> No helium was in the catalyst, no helium was in the container
> for the first few days as the catalyst was being charged, then
> Helium started to appear at increasing rates to quantities that
> cannot be attributed to diffusion from the outside air. The only
> way to create helium is transmution of elements, and the most
> likely result would be D + D because the control vessel shows
> no helium.
>
> The second explaination starts from the premise that there has
> to be some sort of contamination, and then backtracks and assigns
> properties, even yet unknown properties, that the contamination
> has to have. This is faulty because the initial assumption is the
> conclusion.

***{Not so. You spin your position well, but when all is said and done, you
are assuming facts not in evidence. While I hope with all my being that
your assumptions turn out to be correct, reality is demonstrably
indifferent to our hopes, and, as such, will stubbornly continue to be
whatever it is, whether we like it or not. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
> > Let us hope that George now goes back, cleans up his act
>
> I don't see that much that needs to be cleaned up.
>
> > and publishes.
>
> Doesn't really matter.
>
> > He should be able to get the purported effect again - if
> > not - if this was a one-off -, the case is even weaker.
> >
> > -- Dieter Britz alias db kemi.aau.dk;  http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db
> > *** Echelon, bomb, sneakers, GRU: swamp the snoops with trivia! ***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 13:36:57 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA31371;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:32:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:32:55 -0700
Message-ID: <008501bece37$eca1c360$aeb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: CF/OU or Heat of Absorption?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:30:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"wLfcq3.0.4g7.sFFZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29075
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The strong interaction between atoms in molecules (Lennard-Jones Potential,
van der Waals/London Forces) are in the range of 40 kJ/mole. The
Adsorption/Absorption of H2 or D2 on/in Pd can get as high as 800 kJ/mole or
more.

Which is it?

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 16:05:32 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA19543;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:01:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:01:52 -0700
Message-ID: <378D1736.B6AD963 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:04:13 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CF/OU or Heat of Absorption?
References: <008501bece37$eca1c360$aeb4bfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"syjZg2.0.Hn4.WRHZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29076
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> To: Vortex
>
> The strong interaction between atoms in molecules (Lennard-Jones Potential,
> van der Waals/London Forces) are in the range of 40 kJ/mole. The
> Adsorption/Absorption of H2 or D2 on/in Pd can get as high as 800 kJ/mole or
> more.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Regards,     Frederick

Palladium forms a chemical compound with hydrogen which in the process release
the energy of formation.  This process is no different from Na reacting with Cl
to produce salt.

In the case of beta-PdH, a variable number of lattice sites (fcc type) are
occupied by H which is partially ionized.  As more of the sites are occupied,
the lattice expands to accommodate the additional electrons and atoms.  At no
time are the atoms squeezed as Jones proposes.

When sufficient H is added to fill all or most of the fcc sites, the structure
will change so as to allow more H to be accumulated.  The nature of the new
structure is not known but is existence is certain.  I propose this new
structure is the location of the nuclear activity.

Regards,

Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 17:11:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08902;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:09:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:09:56 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011703b3b2c9dfb3ad [207.8.127.204]>
In-Reply-To: <378D1736.B6AD963 ix.netcom.com>
References: <008501bece37$eca1c360$aeb4bfa8 default>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:08:27 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: When the Squeeze Begins
Resent-Message-ID: <"jkz_R2.0.zA2.JRIZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29077
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

[snip]

>
>Palladium forms a chemical compound with hydrogen which in the process release
>the energy of formation.  This process is no different from Na reacting
>with Cl
>to produce salt.
>
>In the case of beta-PdH, a variable number of lattice sites (fcc type) are
>occupied by H which is partially ionized.  As more of the sites are occupied,
>the lattice expands to accommodate the additional electrons and atoms.  At no
>time are the atoms squeezed as Jones proposes.

***{By my calculation, there is enough room within each lattice cell of
body centered cubic palladium to hold a single H atom, including the
orbital electron, but the openings are not large enough to permit a neutral
H atom to enter. Thus, in the electrolytic cells, the loading proceeds by
the drift of H+ ions (or D+) into unoccupied cells, where they acquire
electrons supplied by the electrolysis current, and expand to the full size
needed so that the electron can orbit at the Bohr radius. As more and more
cells acquire wedged-in H atoms in this way, the lattice naturally expands
a bit, due to the mutual coulomb repulsion between the outer shells of the
palladium atoms in the lattice, and those of the newly acquired H atoms
nestled within them. However, it is not at this point in the process that
the squeeze takes place, but a bit later, after a substantial region of the
lattice has been loaded. The squeeze begins within such a loaded region,
when an H+ ion meets an electron within a lattice cell that is *already*
occupied by an H atom. At that point, there is nothing for the electron to
do but spiral down to an unstable, classical orbit just above the surface
of the nucleus, because there is simply *no room* for it to do anything
else. If you propose that it settles in at the Bohr radius despite the
lattice disruption which that will require, then my question to you is
straightforward: where will it obtain the necessary energy? In the absence
of a suitable answer to that question, I will conclude that a protoneutron
is going to be formed. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>When sufficient H is added to fill all or most of the fcc sites, the structure
>will change so as to allow more H to be accumulated.  The nature of the new
>structure is not known but its existence is certain.  I propose this new
>structure is the location of the nuclear activity.

***{My hypothesis, on the other hand, is that a buildup of protoneutrons
within the loaded regions of the lattice is the basis of the nuclear
activity--assuming, of course, that CF is real. Each such protoneutron
needs .7875 MeV to become a neutron, or enough room for its electron to
orbit at the Bohr radius in order to become a hydrogen atom. So long as it
remains in loaded regions of the lattice, the latter condition will not be
met, but, if a cosmic ray or some other errant radiation supplies the
needed .7875 MeV, the protoneutron becomes a neutron, and, shortly
thereafter, that neutron will trigger a nuclear reaction somewhere in the
lattice. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 19:25:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA22946;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:18:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:18:21 -0700
Message-ID: <002901bece68$317c4160$748f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <008501bece37$eca1c360$aeb4bfa8 default> <378D1736.B6AD963@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: CF/OU or Heat of Absorption?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:16:18 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"POTQI1.0.Nc5.jJKZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29078
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: CF/OU or Heat of Absorption?

Ed Storms wrote:


> Frederick Sparber wrote:
>
> > To: Vortex
> >
> > The strong interaction between atoms in molecules (Lennard-Jones
Potential,
> > van der Waals/London Forces) are in the range of 40 kJ/mole. The
> > Adsorption/Absorption of H2 or D2 on/in Pd can get as high as 800
kJ/mole or
> > more.
> >
> > Which is it?
> >
> > Regards,     Frederick
>
> Palladium forms a chemical compound with hydrogen which in the process
release
> the energy of formation.  This process is no different from Na reacting
with Cl
> to produce salt.
>
> In the case of beta-PdH, a variable number of lattice sites (fcc type) are
> occupied by H which is partially ionized.  As more of the sites are
occupied,
> the lattice expands to accommodate the additional electrons and atoms.  At
no
> time are the atoms squeezed as Jones proposes.

Agreed. Now you have a "Plasma" with some 5.5E22 Protons or Deuterons/cm^3
(about 2,000 atm) as opposed to Tokamaks with about 1.0E15 Deuterons/cm^3.

With Deuteron "Stripping" by some unexplained mechanism even in plasmas as
cold as 1/2 ev, it is small wonder that CF/OU occurs under these conditions.
>
> When sufficient H is added to fill all or most of the fcc sites, the
structure
> will change so as to allow more H to be accumulated.  The nature of the
new
> structure is not known but is existence is certain.  I propose this new
> structure is the location of the nuclear activity.

I would think, based on early work that found that electrons in the higher Z
materials are moving at very high velocities, and possibly likewise with QM
Tunneling, fusion should occur in this "condensed plasma".

Regards,  Frederick
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 19:45:30 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA30082;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:42:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:42:11 -0700
X-Sender: josephnewman mail.earthlink.net
Message-Id: <v02130508b3b30b69a071 [208.250.15.131]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:54:40 -0600
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
Resent-Message-ID: <"kTppk2.0.wL7.2gKZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29079
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

            THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN
             11445 East Via Linda, Suite 2416
                 Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
                      (480) 657-3722
                 josephnewman earthlink.net
                   www.josephnewman.com


           FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (July 14, 1999)

           NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
           NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
           NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!

                   Date: July 25, 1999
                   Time: 11:00am
                  Place: SUMNER SUITES

          1413 W. Rio Salado Pkwy. Tempe AZ 85281

           For reservations call: (800) 74-SUITE
        www.summersuites.com - near Phoenix Airport
               FREE 24 HOUR AIRPORT SHUTTLE
           $59 p/night for Suites - summer rates
         (indicate for Newman Energy demonstration)

                        DIRECTIONS:
>From airport, East on Route 202, Exit Priest Drive, 1/2 mi.
South across  Sali River  to  Rio Salado  Pkwy.,  From I-10
Westbound, Exit 52nd St. N. to Rio Salado.

 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The demonstration  that will be  presented on July 25, 1999
is SO simple and  straight-forward  that it is analogous to
"having a five-pound  weight placed  in your right hand and
a 50-pound weight  placed in your left hand and then asking
you which weight is heaviest!"

The performance of my Newman Motor will be compared to that
of a conventional motor. BOTH motors will be connected ONLY
to SOLAR PANELS! There will be NO batteries used!

This demonstration employing solar panels will conclusively
prove that the conventional  electric  motors which operate
your washers, dryers, water pumps, freezers, refrigerators,
air  conditioners,  heat  pumps,  vehicles,  homes,  farms,
factories,  and  businesses  are  ALL  robbing you and your
loved ones!

A  sincere  and  thoughtful  physicist  recently  tested my
technology  and  found  that  it  works as stated.  When he
realized that people  were not supporting my  revolutionary
technology  he  specifically  stated  that  "it was a crime
against  humanity."      [This  physicist  works  with  the
Department of Energy of a major foreign country.]

The solar panel  demonstration conclusively proves that the
Newman  Energy  Machine  works  and that "THE FUTURE OF THE
HUMAN RACE MAY BE DRAMATICALLY UPLIFTED BY THE  LARGE-SCALE
COMMERCIAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THIS  INVENTION.  IT IS INDEED
PAINFUL TO SEE IT LYING DORMANT." [Quotation from Dr. Roger
Hastings, Senior Physicist with Unisys]

To  those  truly  curious  and sincere individuals - I look
forward to seeing you in Phoenix.  Together, the Human Race
WINS!

Joseph Westley Newman


                 www.josephnewman.com

       For more information, call (480) 657-3722

 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

   "In speaking of the Energy of the field, I wish to
    be understood LITERALLY.   All energy is the same
    as _mechanical energy_,  whether it exists in the
    form of motion  or in that  of elasticity,  or in
    any other form.   The  energy in  electromagnetic
    phenomena is _mechanical_ energy."
                              --- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 22:29:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA15309;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:27:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:27:42 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CF/OU or Heat of Absorption?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 05:27:07 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <379370c0.367875732 mail-hub>
References: <008501bece37$eca1c360$aeb4bfa8 default> <378D1736.B6AD963@ix.netcom.com> <002901bece68$317c4160$748f85ce@default>
In-Reply-To: <002901bece68$317c4160$748f85ce default>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 WAA15279
Resent-Message-ID: <"EqzNe3.0.7l3.D5NZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29080
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:16:18 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>With Deuteron "Stripping" by some unexplained mechanism even in plasmas as
>cold as 1/2 ev, it is small wonder that CF/OU occurs under these conditions.
[snip]
Which is why I still think that some stripping reactions are in fact
evidence of CF, which has gone unacknowledged.


Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 14 22:39:52 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA17329;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:34:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:34:20 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Hydrated Ion Microclusters?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 05:33:46 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37947159.368028841 mail-hub>
References: <006a01beccb0$7e4f7700$c8b4bfa8 default>
In-Reply-To: <006a01beccb0$7e4f7700$c8b4bfa8 default>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 WAA17313
Resent-Message-ID: <"AuccK3.0.hE4.RBNZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29081
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:48:41 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>It seems like the ions (+/-) are forming clusters with the highly polar
>water molecules and the is even hydrogen bonding that makes them act as if
>they are "frozen" into solid clusters?

I think it has long been recognised that it is precisely the energy of
these bonds that is responsible for salts dissolving in water.
Though I suspect that there is a continual exchange of water molecules
into and out of individual clusters.

>
>Could this be so, and if so, what would the  effect be with the K+ ions at
>the Pd interface in the electrolysis cells?

Sorry, my mind reading abilities haven't grown to that extent yet.
You'll have to state explicitly what you want to say, rather than asking
me to guess ;).

Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 01:20:08 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA06883;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:15:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:15:41 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: swindon.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:15:37 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi swindon
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Tony Cuthbert
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990715091451.2530B-100000 swindon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"uB1I2.0.Oh1.iYPZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29082
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vo,
Still waiting for Tony to put his filing in. Can't disclose, sorry.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 02:16:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA15972;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:12:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:12:46 -0700
Message-ID: <007c01becea2$15b72320$748f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: CF/OU or Heat of Absorption?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 03:10:30 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"5L1xn2.0.Uv3.DOQZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29083
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

FWIW:

If the 5.5E22 Deuterons/cm^3 absorbed in the Pd lattice are each accompanied
by 47 electrons
comprising a "Dirac Sea", with each vibrating Deuteron having 2 tons of mass
wrt the one pound mass of each electron, it is small wonder that  "neutron
stripping" and CF/OU reactions can occur, if the deuterons are stripped or
become neutral and penetrate the Pd coulomb barrier.

This becomes a problem of modeling a very complex dynamic-electrostatic
"billiard ball" collision and charge distribution mechanism that can spall
off He4 and other isotopes from the Pd transmutation, without any need for
many, if any, of  the "conventional" D-D Fusion reactions.

This Cold Plasma weighing in at about 12 grams/cm^3 is a pretty good
fraction of the estimated 90 grams/cm^3 for the core of the Sun.

A. Sommerfeld touched on the phenomenon of  high velocity electrons/electron
clouds in cold-condensed matter decades ago. Very Complicated Stuff. :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 07:55:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA12995;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:51:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:51:34 -0700
Message-ID: <009401beced1$68cb6740$748f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re:  Pd vs Hg
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:49:35 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"0BYUA3.0.uA3.sLVZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29084
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

In spite of it's hazards if mishandled, Mercury offers many advantages over
Palladium for "wet" CF/OU experiments:

Property               Pd             Hg

Density                12.0           13.53

Atoms/cm^3       6.8E22        4.0E22

Spacing              2.5E-8         3.0E-8

electron/deut       47:1             81:1

electroneg           2.20             2.00

1st ion ev           8.34             10.43

2nd ion ev          19.43           18.76

3rd ion ev           32.93           34.20

Besides cost and other factors, there has to be a reason that Hg is liquid
at room temperature, and yet has an enormous surface tension.  Kind of like
a cat in a bag.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 08:24:58 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA24490;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:23:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:23:21 -0700
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0215B265 XCH-CPC-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:23:07 -0700
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"lxkoF3.0.a-5.epVZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29085
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!

> ----------
> From: 	josephnewman earthlink.net[SMTP:josephnewman@earthlink.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Wednesday, July 14, 1999 8:54 PM
> To: 	vortex-L eskimo.com
> Subject: 	NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
> 
> 
>  *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
> 
>             THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN
>              11445 East Via Linda, Suite 2416
>                  Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
>                       (480) 657-3722
>                  josephnewman earthlink.net
>                    www.josephnewman.com
> 
> 
>            FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (July 14, 1999)
> 
>            NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
>            NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
>            NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
> 
>                    Date: July 25, 1999
>                    Time: 11:00am
>                   Place: SUMNER SUITES
> 
>           1413 W. Rio Salado Pkwy. Tempe AZ 85281
> 
>            For reservations call: (800) 74-SUITE
>         www.summersuites.com - near Phoenix Airport
>                FREE 24 HOUR AIRPORT SHUTTLE
>            $59 p/night for Suites - summer rates
>          (indicate for Newman Energy demonstration)
> 
>                         DIRECTIONS:
> >From airport, East on Route 202, Exit Priest Drive, 1/2 mi.
> South across  Sali River  to  Rio Salado  Pkwy.,  From I-10
> Westbound, Exit 52nd St. N. to Rio Salado.
> 
>  *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
> 
> The demonstration  that will be  presented on July 25, 1999
> is SO simple and  straight-forward  that it is analogous to
> "having a five-pound  weight placed  in your right hand and
> a 50-pound weight  placed in your left hand and then asking
> you which weight is heaviest!"
> 
> The performance of my Newman Motor will be compared to that
> of a conventional motor. BOTH motors will be connected ONLY
> to SOLAR PANELS! There will be NO batteries used!
> 
> This demonstration employing solar panels will conclusively
> prove that the conventional  electric  motors which operate
> your washers, dryers, water pumps, freezers, refrigerators,
> air  conditioners,  heat  pumps,  vehicles,  homes,  farms,
> factories,  and  businesses  are  ALL  robbing you and your
> loved ones!
> 
> A  sincere  and  thoughtful  physicist  recently  tested my
> technology  and  found  that  it  works as stated.  When he
> realized that people  were not supporting my  revolutionary
> technology  he  specifically  stated  that  "it was a crime
> against  humanity."      [This  physicist  works  with  the
> Department of Energy of a major foreign country.]
> 
> The solar panel  demonstration conclusively proves that the
> Newman  Energy  Machine  works  and that "THE FUTURE OF THE
> HUMAN RACE MAY BE DRAMATICALLY UPLIFTED BY THE  LARGE-SCALE
> COMMERCIAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THIS  INVENTION.  IT IS INDEED
> PAINFUL TO SEE IT LYING DORMANT." [Quotation from Dr. Roger
> Hastings, Senior Physicist with Unisys]
> 
> To  those  truly  curious  and sincere individuals - I look
> forward to seeing you in Phoenix.  Together, the Human Race
> WINS!
> 
> Joseph Westley Newman
> 
> 
>                  www.josephnewman.com
> 
>        For more information, call (480) 657-3722
> 
>  *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
> 
>    "In speaking of the Energy of the field, I wish to
>     be understood LITERALLY.   All energy is the same
>     as _mechanical energy_,  whether it exists in the
>     form of motion  or in that  of elasticity,  or in
>     any other form.   The  energy in  electromagnetic
>     phenomena is _mechanical_ energy."
>                               --- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 10:43:28 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA08927;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:37:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:37:58 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990715124011.00af3ebc mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:40:11 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
In-Reply-To: <v02130508b3b30b69a071 [208.250.15.131]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"jKOMd1.0.JB2.snXZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29086
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 21:54 7/14/99 -0600, Evan Soule wrote:

>           NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!

>The performance of my Newman Motor will be compared to that
>of a conventional motor. BOTH motors will be connected ONLY
>to SOLAR PANELS! There will be NO batteries used!

Evan, because of the relatively high impedance of solar panels, a motor
that is closely matched to the panel will run significantly better than a
poorly  matched motor, even if there is NO difference in the actual
efficiency of the two motors.

If Joe Newman really wants to convince engineers/scientists of the validity
of his motor technology, the demonstration must involve an efficiency
measurement in which both the input electrical power and the output
mechanical power are simultaneously measured under steady-state conditions.
 Such tests are routine in the electric motor industry.  If his motor were
ever to start down the road to commercialization, it would be subjected to
such a test very early in the process.  Why not now?



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 Jul 15 11:32:35 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA32168;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:29:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:29:01 -0700
Message-ID: <378E2856.82A7AC28 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:29:10 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: [Fwd: Latest on Russ George Cell from spf]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------2D74AD08DCA842D45B925602"
Resent-Message-ID: <"QctJC2.0.Ys7.jXYZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29087
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.
--------------2D74AD08DCA842D45B925602
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Edmund Storms wrote:

> Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> > In article <378B44CD.6B251DF5 eskimo.com>, Steve La Joie
> > <lajoie eskimo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since on the 28th day the measured fraction of He in the flask was 11 ppm,
> > and since the fraction due to diffusion was 5.22 ppm, it follows that we
> > had (2.48x10^21)[(11 - 5.22)x10^-6] = 1.43x10^16 atoms of excess He in the
> > flask.
>
> This is not a correct calculation.  You are assuming 5.22 ppm of He was in the
> flask already or diffused in during the run.  This is not true.  The flask was
> evacuated initially and any diffusion would not have resulted in 5.22 ppm as a
> simple calculated would show.
>
> >
> > Since the catalyst is about 86% empty space, if it contains a piece of
> > grease or coal that originated in a helium rich deposit, that lump of
> > contaminant would likely contain a proportion of empty space similar to the
> > carbon catalyst. Thus if V represents the volume of the lump, then .8575V
> > represents the empty space, and if that space contains gases that are 50%
> > helium, then the volume of contained He is .5(.8575)V, or .429V. Thus
> > (.429)V = [1.43x10^16/(6.02x10^23)](22400), and when we solve for V we
> > discover that the required volume of the contaminant is .00124 ml, which is
> > a cube slightly more than 1 mm on a side. Such a particle would be little
> > more than a speck of dust, and yet it is all that would be required to
> > explain away Russ George's excess helium.
>
> Why assume a piece of material would contain 50% He?.  No material on earth has
> ever been found to retain He at that level. The fact that gas from wells may,
> under rare conditions, contain 50% He does not mean that the He concentration in
> the solid material is also 50% .  If you are going to make an objective argument
> at least use rational values.
>
> >Think of it this way: either Russ George has discovered "cold fusion" or he
>
> > has discovered a geological material (probably vermiculite) that entrains
> > significant amounts of helium. Either result would be a scientific
> > surprise, but the former would be much more surprising than the latter. Why
> > should we simply *assume* that the more unlikely of the two explanations is
> > the correct one?
> >
> > --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> Why assume the He containing material is vermiculite?  Helium being an inert gas
> means it does not react with or absorb on materials.  It is retained by metals only
> after it has been placed within the structure by ion bombardment or by tritium
> decay. It does not get there just by being in helium. Why make an assumption that
> all experience says is false?

> For your argument to be
> logically consistent, you must assume that some foreign substance entered the
> catalyst after it was made, that this substance containes He which can be evolved
> only very slowly at 200°, and this material happened to fall into the few samples
> which showed excess He and not into the blank cells.  In addition, the sample of
> catalyst used by George happened to contain the same impurity as did the one used
> by Case and now the sample used by McKubre.  At some point, the low probability of
> all this happening makes the suggestion look ridicules.
>
> >
> > > > > > Once two reasonable interpretations are possible, one of which does not
> > > > > > involve a CF reaction, the evidentiary value of the experiment is
> > > > > > destroyed. While this is an unfortunate state of affairs, it is
> > >also one
> > > > > > that can be corrected. Russ George needs to thoroughly test the
> > > > > > vermiculite and the catalyst material for entrained helium.
>
> But having gone to the trouble of testing the vermiculite and finding nothing, you
> would surely suggest that star-dust or some other imaginative impurity is the
> actual explanation needing testing, would you not?  Maybe dandruff contains
> helium.
>
> >
> > As for your fourth point--to wit: that he vermiculite emitted helium over
> > time in a way that is not characteristic of diffusion--I disagree that the
> > observed curve could not be due to the gradual cooking out of entrained He,
> > for the reasons given above.
>
> Have you ever studied the release of He from materials or even looked up the
> literature?
>
> > --Mitchell Jones}***
> > ***{I don't see it as "scientific" to simply assume that a less
> > scientifically plausible interpretation is correct, when a more
> > scientifically plausible hypothesis remains unexamined.
>
> To you, any imagined possibility is considered plausible.  If a scientist took
> the trouble to test every imaginable possibility, they would never reach the end
> of an experiment.  Science works by evaluating the probability and choosing to
> investigate the most likely.  The choice of which is the most likely is based on
> experience and a background in the field of study, not on a rich imagination.
>
> >
> > Anyway, before closing this post, I would like to briefly discuss another
> > point about the Russ George paper that I found to be disturbing: the fact
> > that he said nothing about the amount of He-3 that he measured. This
> > disturbs me because the SRI mass spec undoubtedly showed a peak for He-3,
> > and, since He-3 exists in a known percentage abundance vis-a-vis He-4, it
> > would have been a simple matter to *calculate* the amount of He-4 that was
> > due to contamination, thereby laying that possibility to rest. Yet he
> > didn't do it, and that leaves me scratching my head, wondering why not.
>
> Why not ask Russ rather than speculate?
>
> On another subject
>
> >Since yesterday, I have been thinking about the Mizuno cell in connection
> >with the protoneutron theory. Assuming Mizuno's excess heat is real and
> >that his excess heat kicks in immediately, without the time for hydrogen
> >loading that palladium requires, the implication would seem to be that some
> >cells in the tungsten lattice of the cathode are sufficiently tight so that
> >an H+ ion (proton) can enter, but, when it meets an electron therein, there
> >isn't enough room for the electron to orbit at the Bohr radius. Result: the
> >electron spirals in to a much tighter--and wildly unstable--orbit, because
> >none of the higher, stable orbits are possible. Result: a protoneutron is
> >produced--an unstable particle that behaves very much like a neutron and,
> >in the process, facilitates various nuclear reactions that are capable of
> >accounting for the excess heat claimed by Mizuno. Now, I don't know the
> >shape or the dimensions of the unit cell of tungsten, or of thorium, which
> >is a frequent impurity in tungsten welding rods, and I do not know what
> >other impurities are typically present. However, if the protoneutron theory
> >is to explain Mizuno's data, then some or all of the unit cells within his
> >working cathodes must be too small to contain full-sized H-atoms, but large
> >enough to permit the entry of naked protons.
>
> Mitchell, I find your approach to the CANR problem rather amazing.  You apply all
> kinds of imaginative explanations as to why the experimental observations may be
> wrong.  Then you propose a theory which gives you confidence that the effect
> may be real.  Yet, you base this theory on assumptions which you treat in a
> very uncritical manner.  In addition, the assumptions are at odds with all that is
> known about the behavior of materials outside of the CANR field.  For example, you
> make the assumption  that a H atom with its electron  can be placed in a site
> where there is not enough room, thereby forcing the electron into orbits closer to
> the nucleus. Actually, when a hydrogen enters a lattice, two things happen.  The
> electron is partially transferred into energy states associated with the metal
> atom and the distance between metal atoms increases.  In other words, room is made
> for the nucleus while the electron location is spread out and not isolated at the
> proton.  In all studies of hydride behavior, no evidence for orbital collapse has
> ever been seen.  If this phenomenon were overlooked, why does it only
> happen rarely in PdD and a few other hydrides?  Where are the sites which are too
> small to hold a H atom?  Why should the electron not move into the metal lattice as
>
> has been seen under every other condition explored in such materials?  Why and how
> does the lattice exert energy to move the electron to a lower, higher energy orbit
> when it can move into the conduction band without expending energy? (At least the
> Mills theory of this process involves a catalyst to allow energy transfer.)  You
> should apply the same critical approach to your theory as you apply to the
> experimental work.  I suggest
> you do some reading about solid-state theory and hydride chemistry.
>
> By the way, this idea of electron collapse has been explored by at least a half
> dozen other workers in the field.  However, no one is silly enough to propose that
> electron collapse is caused by too small a site.  I suggest this an example of an
> amateur at work.  I professional would know better.  Sorry, Mitchell, I just could
> not help myself.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Storms




--------------2D74AD08DCA842D45B925602
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <378E225D.C6CB2A6E ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:03:37 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mozilla-Draft-Info: internal/draft; vcard=0; receipt=0; uuencode=0; html=0; linewidth=82
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Latest on Russ George Cell from spf
References: <v04011700b3b128cb91b1 [207.8.127.30]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Mitchell Jones wrote:

> In article <378B44CD.6B251DF5 eskimo.com>, Steve La Joie
> <lajoie eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>
> Since on the 28th day the measured fraction of He in the flask was 11 ppm,
> and since the fraction due to diffusion was 5.22 ppm, it follows that we
> had (2.48x10^21)[(11 - 5.22)x10^-6] = 1.43x10^16 atoms of excess He in the
> flask.

This is not a correct calculation.  You are assuming 5.22 ppm of He was in the
flask already or diffused in during the run.  This is not true.  The flask was
evacuated initially and any diffusion would not have resulted in 5.22 ppm as a
simple calculated would show.

>
> Since the catalyst is about 86% empty space, if it contains a piece of
> grease or coal that originated in a helium rich deposit, that lump of
> contaminant would likely contain a proportion of empty space similar to the
> carbon catalyst. Thus if V represents the volume of the lump, then .8575V
> represents the empty space, and if that space contains gases that are 50%
> helium, then the volume of contained He is .5(.8575)V, or .429V. Thus
> (.429)V = [1.43x10^16/(6.02x10^23)](22400), and when we solve for V we
> discover that the required volume of the contaminant is .00124 ml, which is
> a cube slightly more than 1 mm on a side. Such a particle would be little
> more than a speck of dust, and yet it is all that would be required to
> explain away Russ George's excess helium.

Why assume a piece of material would contain 50% He?.  No material on earth has
ever been found to retain He at that level. The fact that gas from wells may,
under rare conditions, contain 50% He does not mean that the He concentration in
the solid material is also 50% .  If you are going to make an objective argument
at least use rational values.

>Think of it this way: either Russ George has discovered "cold fusion" or he

> has discovered a geological material (probably vermiculite) that entrains
> significant amounts of helium. Either result would be a scientific
> surprise, but the former would be much more surprising than the latter. Why
> should we simply *assume* that the more unlikely of the two explanations is
> the correct one?
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***

Why assume the He containing material is vermiculite?  For your argument to be
logically consistent, you must assume that some foreign substance entered the
catalyst after it was made, that this substance contained He which was evolved at
only very slowly 200°, and this material happened to fall into the few samples
which showed excess He and not into the blank cells.  In addition, the sample of
catalyst used by George happened to contain the same impurity as did the one used
by Case and now the sample used by McKubre.  At some point, the low probability of
all this happening makes the suggestion look ridicules.

>
> > > > > Once two reasonable interpretations are possible, one of which does not
> > > > > involve a CF reaction, the evidentiary value of the experiment is
> > > > > destroyed. While this is an unfortunate state of affairs, it is
> >also one
> > > > > that can be corrected. Russ George needs to thoroughly test the
> > > > > vermiculite and the catalyst material for entrained helium.

But having gone to the trouble of testing the vermiculite and finding nothing, you
would surely suggest that star dust or some other imaginative impurity is the
actual explanation needing testing, would you not?  Maybe dandruff contains
helium.

>
> As for your fourth point--to wit: that he vermiculite emitted helium over
> time in a way that is not characteristic of diffusion--I disagree that the
> observed curve could not be due to the gradual cooking out of entrained He,
> for the reasons given above.

Have you ever studied the release of He from materials or even looked up the
literature?

> --Mitchell Jones}***
> ***{I don't see it as "scientific" to simply assume that a less
> scientifically plausible interpretation is correct, when a more
> scientifically plausible hypothesis remains unexamined.

To you, any imagined possibility is considered plausible.  If any scientist took
the trouble to test every imaginable possibility, they would never reach the end
of the experiment.  Science works by evaluating the probability and choosing to
investigate the most likely.  The choice of which is the most likely is based on
experience and a background in the field of study, not on a rich imagination.

>
> Anyway, before closing this post, I would like to briefly discuss another
> point about the Russ George paper that I found to be disturbing: the fact
> that he said nothing about the amount of He-3 that he measured. This
> disturbs me because the SRI mass spec undoubtedly showed a peak for He-3,
> and, since He-3 exists in a known percentage abundance vis-a-vis He-4, it
> would have been a simple matter to *calculate* the amount of He-4 that was
> due to contamination, thereby laying that possibility to rest. Yet he
> didn't do it, and that leaves me scratching my head, wondering why not.

Why not ask Russ rather than speculate?

On another subject

>Since yesterday, I have been thinking about the Mizuno cell in connection
>with the protoneutron theory. Assuming Mizuno's excess heat is real and
>that his excess heat kicks in immediately, without the time for hydrogen
>loading that palladium requires, the implication would seem to be that some
>cells in the tungsten lattice of the cathode are sufficiently tight so that
>an H+ ion (proton) can enter, but, when it meets an electron therein, there
>isn't enough room for the electron to orbit at the Bohr radius. Result: the
>electron spirals in to a much tighter--and wildly unstable--orbit, because
>none of the higher, stable orbits are possible. Result: a protoneutron is
>produced--an unstable particle that behaves very much like a neutron and,
>in the process, facilitates various nuclear reactions that are capable of
>accounting for the excess heat claimed by Mizuno. Now, I don't know the
>shape or the dimensions of the unit cell of tungsten, or of thorium, which
>is a frequent impurity in tungsten welding rods, and I do not know what
>other impurities are typically present. However, if the protoneutron theory
>is to explain Mizuno's data, then some or all of the unit cells within his
>working cathodes must be too small to contain full-sized H-atoms, but large
>enough to permit the entry of naked protons.

Mitchell, I find your approach to the CANR problem rather amazing.  You apply all
kinds of imaginative explanations as to why the experimental observations may be
wrong.  Then you propose an explanation which gives you confidence that the effect
may be real.  Yet, you base this explanation on assumptions which you treat in a
very uncritical manner.  In addition, the assumptions are at odds with all that is
known about the behavior of materials outside of the CANR field.  For example, you
make the assumption  that a H atom with its electron  can be placed in a site
where there is not enough room, thereby forcing the electron into orbits closer to
the nucleus. Actually, when a hydrogen enters a lattice, two things happen.  The
electron is partially transferred into energy states associated with the metal
atom and the distance between metal atoms increases.  In other words, room is made
for the nucleus while the electron location is spreadout and not isolated at the
proton.  In all studies of hydride behavior, no evidence for orbital collapse has
ever been seen.  If this phenomenon were overlooked, why does it only appear to
happen rarely in PdD and a few other hydrides?  Where are the sites which are too
small to hold a H atom?  Why does the electron not move into the metal lattice as
has been seen under every other condition explored in such materials?  Why and how
does the lattice exert energy to move the electron to a lower, high-energy orbit
when it can move into the conduction band without expending energy? (At least the
Mills theory of this process involves a catalyst.)  You should apply the same
critical approach to your theory as you apply to the experimental work.  I suggest
you do some reading about solid-state theory and hydride chemistry.

By the way, this idea of electron collapse has been explored by at least a half
dozen other workers in the field.  However, no one is silly enough to propose that
electron collapse is caused by too small a site.

Regards,

Ed Storms




--------------2D74AD08DCA842D45B925602--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 12:12:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA13884;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:09:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:09:32 -0700
From: "R. Wormus" <rwormus lock-load.com>
Reply-To: "R. Wormus" <rwormus lock-load.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:03:44 -0600
Message-ID: <yam7865.2210.139320680 mail.frii.com>
X-Mailer: YAM 2.0Preview7 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck - http://www.yam.ch
Organization: LOCK+LOAD <R. Wormus>
Subject: Update from BLP Website
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 MAA13855
Resent-Message-ID: <"CoPUL.0.oO3.h7ZZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29088
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

        "BlackLight Power, Inc. believes it has developed a new method (the BlackLight Process) for generating thermal energy for heating and electrical power generation, and a vast class of new compositions of matter.

                                                 *Energy*

BLP's electrolytic cells have produced 30-1000% excess power or greater for extended periods of time; some have been in operation for more than 1 year. The prototype cells created by BLP produce thermal energy immediately, continuously and consistently.

Hydrogen atoms react with a catalyst to release significant amounts of energy (between chemical and nuclear), to form a lower-energy hydrogen product that is very valuable and non-polluting.

High-power-density, high-temperature, hydrogen gas cells produce heat of orders of magnitude greater than that of the combustion of hydrogen and at temperatures (1200 °F to 2200 °F) and power densities equal to those of many electric power plants (approxi
mately ).


                                                *Chemicals*

The lower-energy atomic hydrogen product of the BlackLight Process reacts with an electron to form a hydride ion which further reacts with elements other than hydrogen to form novel compounds which are proprietary to BlackLight Power. We are developing a 
vast class of proprietary chemical compounds via the BlackLight Process.

BlackLight's technology, with patents pending world-wide, has far-reaching applications in many industries including the chemical, computer, defense, energy, battery, propellant, surface coatings, electronics, telecommunications, aerospace, and automotive
 industries.

In addition to in-house analysis, the Company's proprietary compounds have been analyzed at independent laboratories (over 20) world-wide.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 16:39:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA04481;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:35:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:35:05 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:34:30 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37906f7a.433103801 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990715124011.00af3ebc mail.eden.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990715124011.00af3ebc mail.eden.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 QAA04363
Resent-Message-ID: <"iLbKO1.0.r51.f0dZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29089
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:40:11 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
[snip]
>If Joe Newman really wants to convince engineers/scientists of the validity
>of his motor technology, the demonstration must involve an efficiency
>measurement in which both the input electrical power and the output
>mechanical power are simultaneously measured under steady-state conditions.
> Such tests are routine in the electric motor industry.  If his motor were
>ever to start down the road to commercialization, it would be subjected to
>such a test very early in the process.  Why not now?
[snip]
If you take a look at the web site, you will see that he has done this,
albeit with a couple of small errors IMO.


Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 17:07:27 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA13000;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:02:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:02:28 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Definition please
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:01:53 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <379175e8.434750426 mail-hub>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 RAA12973
Resent-Message-ID: <"_xXAx1.0.2B3.KQdZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29090
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi,

Can someone provide me with the precise definition of the term: "fission
spectrum average", as used in the table of the nuclides at bnl?

TIA,


Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 17:13:28 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA15241;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:09:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:09:31 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990715200417.00db2690 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:04:17 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Definition please
In-Reply-To: <379175e8.434750426 mail-hub>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"9-I9R2.0.2k3.wWdZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29091
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 12:01 AM 7/16/99 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>Hi,
>Can someone provide me with the precise definition of the term: "fission
>spectrum average", as used in the table of the nuclides at bnl?
>
>TIA,
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>


  Any definition you use twice will have precision, even if
wrong.

  An accurate definition is the average of the fission neutron
emission spectrum (which is the distribution of energy in
the neutron emissions arising from fission; 
also called the Watt spectrum, which - last I looked -
had a maximum nuetron energy of about ~10MeV).

   Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 17:20:10 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA17536;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:15:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:15:39 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CF/OU or Heat of Absorption?
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:15:04 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37927814.435306224 mail-hub>
References: <007c01becea2$15b72320$748f85ce default>
In-Reply-To: <007c01becea2$15b72320$748f85ce default>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 RAA17510
Resent-Message-ID: <"t3T01.0.rH4.hcdZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29092
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 03:10:30 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>This becomes a problem of modeling a very complex dynamic-electrostatic
>"billiard ball" collision and charge distribution mechanism that can spall
>off He4 and other isotopes from the Pd transmutation, without any need for
>many, if any, of  the "conventional" D-D Fusion reactions.
[snip]
Take a look at
http://hpngp01.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/w3graf?n=Pd105&l=n&m=102 . 

If I read this correctly, then a low energy neutron (slightly > 10 eV)
has a good chance of fissioning Pd105. So a proton shielded in some way
by one or more electrons may also have a good chance.


Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 18:14:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA02634;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:11:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:11:32 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Definition please
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 01:10:58 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37978658.438959225 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990715200417.00db2690 world.std.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990715200417.00db2690 world.std.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 SAA02611
Resent-Message-ID: <"Yy4Ff2.0.4f.4ReZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29093
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:04:17 -0400, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>
>
>At 12:01 AM 7/16/99 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>>Hi,
>>Can someone provide me with the precise definition of the term: "fission
>>spectrum average", as used in the table of the nuclides at bnl?
>>
>>TIA,
>>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
>
>
>  Any definition you use twice will have precision, even if
>wrong.

Thanks.
>
>  An accurate definition is the average of the fission neutron
>emission spectrum (which is the distribution of energy in
>the neutron emissions arising from fission; 
>also called the Watt spectrum, which - last I looked -
>had a maximum nuetron energy of about ~10MeV).

Then perhaps you would also be so kind as to explain why it is specified
in barns.

>
>   Mitchell Swartz
>
>

Regards,

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 18:36:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA08368;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:33:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:33:52 -0700
Message-ID: <00f601becf2b$21ad4720$748f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <007c01becea2$15b72320$748f85ce default> <37927814.435306224@mail-hub>
Subject: Re: CF/OU or Heat of Absorption?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:31:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"jfOZ01.0.b22._leZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29094
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 bigpond.net.au>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: CF/OU or Heat of Absorption?

Robin wrote:


> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 03:10:30 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
> [snip]
> >This becomes a problem of modeling a very complex dynamic-electrostatic
> >"billiard ball" collision and charge distribution mechanism that can
spall
> >off He4 and other isotopes from the Pd transmutation, without any need
for
> >many, if any, of  the "conventional" D-D Fusion reactions.
> [snip]
> Take a look at
> http://hpngp01.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/w3graf?n=Pd105&l=n&m=102 .
>
> If I read this correctly, then a low energy neutron (slightly > 10 eV)
> has a good chance of fissioning Pd105. So a proton shielded in some way
> by one or more electrons may also have a good chance.

If I was to try something easy to do, it would be electron bombardment of a
"deuterated" Pd foil, over a range of electron energies. Or, electron
bombard a Lithium Deuteride target, on the oft chance that it would promote
low energy "neutron stripping" of  Deuterons in a lattice.

Regards,    Frederick
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 18:51:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA11546;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:45:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:45:08 -0700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:44:24 -1000
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
From: "Rick Monteverde" <rick highsurf.com>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <199907152144.SM00219 [192.168.0.2]>
Resent-Message-ID: <"TCoWS2.0.Kq2.YweZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29095
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gnorts -

> BlackLight's technology, with patents pending world-wide, has far-reaching
> applications in many industries including the chemical, computer, defense,
> energy, battery, propellant, surface coatings, electronics,
> telecommunications, aerospace, and automotive industries.


This could be the biggest pile of crap there ever was, but tell me I'm not
alone in wanting, for amusement and I-told-you-so purposes only, to put a
few hundred fully riskable bucks on these guys if they go public someday.

"AOL? AOL??!! Hah! I bought BLP at $.02 back in '00! That's why all *you've*
got is that cute little 110' yacht, and you're using it to vist *my* private
island!"

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 20:12:55 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA13112;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:05:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:05:45 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011703b3b40407cf7a [207.8.127.67]>
In-Reply-To: <378E2856.82A7AC28 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:01:54 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Latest on Russ George Cell from spf]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id UAA13040
Resent-Message-ID: <"bOFPr.0.iC3.86gZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29096
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>
>> > In article <378B44CD.6B251DF5 eskimo.com>, Steve La Joie
>> > <lajoie eskimo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Since on the 28th day the measured fraction of He in the flask was 11 ppm,
>> > and since the fraction due to diffusion was 5.22 ppm, it follows that we
>> > had (2.48x10^21)[(11 - 5.22)x10^-6] = 1.43x10^16 atoms of excess He in the
>> > flask.
>>
>> This is not a correct calculation.  You are assuming 5.22 ppm of He was
>>in the
>> flask already or diffused in during the run.  This is not true.  The
>>flask was
>> evacuated initially and any diffusion would not have resulted in 5.22
>>ppm as a
>> simple calculated would show.

***{Yes, of course. Several days ago I calculated that the equilibrium
concentration inside the cell would be 1.53 ppm, and that is the value I
should have used, not 5.22 ppm (which is the concentration *outside* of the
cell). I just momentarily got my wires crossed, that's all. --MJ}***

>>
>> >
>> > Since the catalyst is about 86% empty space, if it contains a piece of
>> > grease or coal that originated in a helium rich deposit, that lump of
>> > contaminant would likely contain a proportion of empty space similar
>>to the
>> > carbon catalyst. Thus if V represents the volume of the lump, then .8575V
>> > represents the empty space, and if that space contains gases that are 50%
>> > helium, then the volume of contained He is .5(.8575)V, or .429V. Thus
>> > (.429)V = [1.43x10^16/(6.02x10^23)](22400), and when we solve for V we
>> > discover that the required volume of the contaminant is .00124 ml,
>>which is
>> > a cube slightly more than 1 mm on a side. Such a particle would be little
>> > more than a speck of dust, and yet it is all that would be required to
>> > explain away Russ George's excess helium.
>>
>> Why assume a piece of material would contain 50% He?.  No material on
>>earth has
>> ever been found to retain He at that level. The fact that gas from wells
>>may,
>> under rare conditions, contain 50% He does not mean that the He
>>concentration in
>> the solid material is also 50% .  If you are going to make an objective
>>argument
>> at least use rational values.

***{I did. You snipped it out. Here, between the lines of asterisks, is
what I said:

*******************************************
Since the catalyst is about 86% empty space, if it contains a piece of
grease or coal that originated in a helium rich deposit, that lump of
contaminant would likely contain a proportion of empty space similar to the
carbon catalyst. Thus if V represents the volume of the lump, then .8575V
represents the empty space, and if that space contains gases that are 50%
helium, then the volume of contained He is .5(.8575)V, or .429V. Thus
(.429)V = [1.43x10^16/(6.02x10^23)](22400), and when we solve for V we
discover that the required volume of the contaminant is .00124 ml, which is
a cube slightly more than 1 mm on a side. Such a particle would be little
more than a speck of dust, and yet it is all that would be required to
explain away Russ George's excess helium.

Now, granted, it seems unlikely that a contaminant particle contains 50% He
by volume. The best *producing* gas wells yield about 8% He, though I have
read comments from field geologists who reported occasional pockets of 50%
or more, and I recall reading about a mine somewhere in Europe--Austria, I
think--where seepage gases were 10% He. But the point here is that there is
a *lot* more He, percentagewise, in gases that are entrained in subsurface
materials than there is in the atmosphere, and given the tiny amounts of
contaminant material that would suffice to explain Russ George's
excess--just a few grains of sand--I am not prepared to simply *assume*
that no such thing happened.
*******************************************

Bottom line: if you want to engage in reasoned discourse, you need to pay
closer attention to what you are criticising. :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

>>
>> >Think of it this way: either Russ George has discovered "cold fusion" or he
>>
>> > has discovered a geological material (probably vermiculite) that entrains
>> > significant amounts of helium. Either result would be a scientific
>> > surprise, but the former would be much more surprising than the
>>latter. Why
>> > should we simply *assume* that the more unlikely of the two
>>explanations is
>> > the correct one?
>> >
>> > --Mitchell Jones}***
>>
>> Why assume the He containing material is vermiculite?

***{I don't. If you have been following my speculations on that point, you
should have noticed that I mentioned a number of possibilities, including a
drop of oil, a granule of coal, a chunk of grease, a piece of rust, and on
and on. --MJ}***

 Helium being an inert gas
>> means it does not react with or absorb on materials.  It is retained by
>>metals only
>> after it has been placed within the structure by ion bombardment or by
>>tritium
>> decay. It does not get there just by being in helium.

***{Of course it does: helium diffuses through Pyrex glass, which is a
silicaceous compound, like vermiculite. The implication is that helium will
diffuse into just about anything, and, potentially, is retained by just
about any mineral or petroleum product that is extracted from the vicinity
of a helium reservoir such as those in North Texas, until such time as it
has had time to diffuse out again. --Mitchell Jones}***

Why make an assumption that
>> all experience says is false?

***{Does this mean you deny that helium diffuses into Pyrex, stainless
steel, and most ordinary materials? If not, then the equilibrium
concentration within those materials is going to match that on the outside,
given equal pressures, and that means materials in the vicinity of an
underground helium reservoir are going to contain a *lot* of helium at the
moment of extraction. How long they will retain it thereafter, of course,
depends on the permeability of the materials involved. Thus it may be that
any helium content of contaminants in the Russ George cell diffused out
before the contaminants made their way into the cell. However, it also may
*not* be so, and that is the possibility with which I am concerned.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>> For your argument to be
>> logically consistent, you must assume that some foreign substance
>>entered the
>> catalyst after it was made, that this substance containes He which can
>>be evolved
>> only very slowly at 200°, and this material happened to fall into the
>>few samples
>> which showed excess He and not into the blank cells.  In addition, the
>>sample of
>> catalyst used by George happened to contain the same impurity as did the
>>one used
>> by Case and now the sample used by McKubre.  At some point, the low
>>probability of
>> all this happening makes the suggestion look ridicules.

***{At some point, if the situation were as described by you, above, then
that would surely be the case. However, it is my understanding that McKubre
worked *with* George, and hence that we are talking about one experiment
there, not two. Second, it is my understanding that Case's cells frequently
did not work. Hence we are only talking about the ones that did, not the
others. Third, even one of Russ George's two cells did not work: when he
vacuum flushed the "control" cell and reinfused it with D2, heated it up to
200 deg C, and raised the pressure to 3.4 atm, it did *not* begin to
produce He-4. That outcome supports the contaminant hypothesis, not the CF
hypothesis. All in all, there appears to be more than enough ambiguity to
support doubt here, despite what you say. --Mitchell Jones}***

>>
>> >
>> > > > > > Once two reasonable interpretations are possible, one of which
>>does not
>> > > > > > involve a CF reaction, the evidentiary value of the experiment is
>> > > > > > destroyed. While this is an unfortunate state of affairs, it is
>> > >also one
>> > > > > > that can be corrected. Russ George needs to thoroughly test the
>> > > > > > vermiculite and the catalyst material for entrained helium.
>>
>> But having gone to the trouble of testing the vermiculite and finding
>>nothing, you
>> would surely suggest that star-dust or some other imaginative impurity
>>is the
>> actual explanation needing testing, would you not?  Maybe dandruff contains
>> helium.

***{Good point. Could it be that Russ George speaks with a squeaky, high
pitched voice? If so, then that alone ought to be sufficient reason to
doubt his results. :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

>>
>> >
>> > As for your fourth point--to wit: that he vermiculite emitted helium over
>> > time in a way that is not characteristic of diffusion--I disagree that the
>> > observed curve could not be due to the gradual cooking out of
>>entrained He,
>> > for the reasons given above.
>>
>> Have you ever studied the release of He from materials or even looked up the
>> literature?

***{My qualifications to address this issue are contained in my arguments,
as are yours. What books we did or did not crack, or where, or when, is
manifestly irrelevant. --MJ}***

>>
>> > --Mitchell Jones}***
>> > ***{I don't see it as "scientific" to simply assume that a less
>> > scientifically plausible interpretation is correct, when a more
>> > scientifically plausible hypothesis remains unexamined.
>>
>> To you, any imagined possibility is considered plausible.

***{Not so. And, by the way, I would suggest that these discussions will go
much more smoothly if you will speak for yourself and permit me to do
likewise. --MJ}***

 If a scientist took
>> the trouble to test every imaginable possibility, they would never reach
>>the end
>> of an experiment.

***{If you think I disagree with the above, you are mistaken. I would, for
example, consider it to be a waste to spend a lot of time analyzing the SRI
mass spec readings. They got the ambient He reading right over and over,
and I am willing to assume that they got the 11 ppm number right as well.
The possibility of contamination, however, remains something that I think
ought to be addressed. The fact that it may be unlikely does not justify
simply assuming it didn't happen. As I pointed out earlier, many reasonable
people judge it unlikely that you can induce nuclear reactions by cooking
D2 at 200 deg C and 3.4 atm. You can't prove the latter by browbeating
people into assuming the former. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Science works by evaluating the probability and choosing to
>> investigate the most likely.  The choice of which is the most likely is
>>based on
>> experience and a background in the field of study, not on a rich
>>imagination.

***{Good judgment, obviously, is required to decide what lines of
investigation are worth pursuing. Moreover, if that were the purpose here,
then it might be good judgment to discount the possibility of
contamination. What you don't seem to recognize, however, is that judgment
is *not* the same thing as proof. Like it or not, you cannot turn the Russ
George experiment into a convincing demonstration of the Case effect, if
you do not make an effort to discount the possibility of contamination.
You, of course, can simply respond: "Who cares? It is proof enough for me!
Those who still doubt the effect are idiots, and it is a waste of time to
cater to their concerns." Well, maybe so, but however you slice the apple,
it still weighs the same; and however you spin this experiment, the
conclusion is going to remain unproven until something is done that renders
the contamination hypothesis *far* less likely than the CF hypothesis.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>>
>> >
>> > Anyway, before closing this post, I would like to briefly discuss another
>> > point about the Russ George paper that I found to be disturbing: the fact
>> > that he said nothing about the amount of He-3 that he measured. This
>> > disturbs me because the SRI mass spec undoubtedly showed a peak for He-3,
>> > and, since He-3 exists in a known percentage abundance vis-a-vis He-4, it
>> > would have been a simple matter to *calculate* the amount of He-4 that was
>> > due to contamination, thereby laying that possibility to rest. Yet he
>> > didn't do it, and that leaves me scratching my head, wondering why not.
>>
>> Why not ask Russ rather than speculate?

***{Good suggestion. I think I will. --MJ}***

>>
>> On another subject
>>
>> >Since yesterday, I have been thinking about the Mizuno cell in connection
>> >with the protoneutron theory. Assuming Mizuno's excess heat is real and
>> >that his excess heat kicks in immediately, without the time for hydrogen
>> >loading that palladium requires, the implication would seem to be that some
>> >cells in the tungsten lattice of the cathode are sufficiently tight so that
>> >an H+ ion (proton) can enter, but, when it meets an electron therein, there
>> >isn't enough room for the electron to orbit at the Bohr radius. Result: the
>> >electron spirals in to a much tighter--and wildly unstable--orbit, because
>> >none of the higher, stable orbits are possible. Result: a protoneutron is
>> >produced--an unstable particle that behaves very much like a neutron and,
>> >in the process, facilitates various nuclear reactions that are capable of
>> >accounting for the excess heat claimed by Mizuno. Now, I don't know the
>> >shape or the dimensions of the unit cell of tungsten, or of thorium, which
>> >is a frequent impurity in tungsten welding rods, and I do not know what
>> >other impurities are typically present. However, if the protoneutron theory
>> >is to explain Mizuno's data, then some or all of the unit cells within his
>> >working cathodes must be too small to contain full-sized H-atoms, but large
>> >enough to permit the entry of naked protons.
>>
>> Mitchell, I find your approach to the CANR problem rather amazing.

***{Why are you telling me about your emotional state? It is of no
relevance to what we are discussing. --MJ}***

 You apply all
>> kinds of imaginative explanations as to why the experimental
>>observations may be
>> wrong.  Then you propose a theory which gives you confidence that the effect
>> may be real.

***{That's because it may be wrong, and it also may be real. Where is the
problem? --MJ}***

 Yet, you base this theory on assumptions which you treat in a
>> very uncritical manner.

***{Why attempt to tell me about the state of affairs inside my own head?
(Unless you have a "mind probe" from science fiction implanted in my brain,
you are informationally disadvantaged about such matters.) --MJ}***

  In addition, the assumptions are at odds with all that is
>> known about the behavior of materials outside of the CANR field.  For
>>example, you
>> make the assumption  that a H atom with its electron  can be placed in a
>>site
>> where there is not enough room, thereby forcing the electron into orbits
>>closer to
>> the nucleus.

***{No. The assumption is that if a disassembled hydrogen atom--e.g., a
proton and an electron--are placed at such a location, they will not be
able to obtain the energy needed to expand to the Bohr radius. That is
quite a different thing from assuming they already *have* that energy and
are being squeezed down to a smaller size. If you will compute the drift
velocities of electrons in typical electrical circuits, for example, you
will find that they are *far less* than the orbital velocity of a hydrogen
electron at the Bohr radius. [The diameter of the Bohr orbit is about 106
Å, so the circumference is about 333 Å, or 3.33x10^-6 cm = 3.33x10^-8 m.
Since an electron takes about 10^-16 sec to make one revolution around a
hydrogen atom, its orbital velocity is about 3.33x10^8 m/sec. The average
drift velocities of electrons in conductors, on the other hand, are on the
order of 10^-5 m/sec. (Calculation available upon request.)] When enough
space is available, any energy shortfall needed (i.e., not available by
conservation of angular momentum) to boost a drifting electron up from the
vicinity of 10^-5 m/sec to 3.33x10^8 m/sec is either acquired thermally or
is borrowed from the aether (the ZPF, if you prefer), and the electron
"pops" up to the Bohr radius. (Like popcorn. :-) After that has happened,
the amount of weight that it can support becomes enormously increased. That
is why, if the lattice gets too hot, expansion and enhanced lattice
vibration will permit any protoneutrons which it contains to pop into
hydrogen atoms and preclude the CF effect, as I noted in a private e-mail
to another party yesterday. The point, however, is that if a drifting
electron meets a drifting proton *and there isn't room for it to orbit at
the Bohr radius*, then it will be unable to expand out to that radius.
Result: it will settle into an unstable, classical orbit, and a
protoneutron will be formed. (Or so the theory goes, at any rate.)
--Mitchell Jones}***

Actually, when a hydrogen enters a lattice, two things happen.  The
>> electron is partially transferred into energy states associated with the
>>metal
>> atom and the distance between metal atoms increases.  In other words,
>>room is made
>> for the nucleus while the electron location is spread out and not
>>isolated at the
>> proton.  In all studies of hydride behavior, no evidence for orbital
>>collapse has
>> ever been seen.

***{To repeat: I'm not talking about orbital collapse. I'm talking about
non-expansion of the orbit  to the Bohr radius when insufficient space is
available between the outer shells of nearby atoms. --MJ}***

 If this phenomenon were overlooked, why does it only
>> happen rarely in PdD and a few other hydrides?

***{Hydrogen has only one electron in its shell structure. If that electron
cannot rise to a stable orbit, the potential exists for shrinkage all the
way down to the surface of the nucleus. There is no other atom for which
that is true. --MJ}***

 Where are the sites which are too
>> small to hold a H atom?

***{They are between the outer shells of the lattice atoms, including the
shells of any hydrogen atoms that may be fully formed (loaded) in the
lattice. --MJ}***

>> Why should the electron not move into the metal lattice as
>> has been seen under every other condition explored in such materials?

***{Once an electron has assumed grazing altitude above a proton, the
resultant particle is electrically neutral. What force would prompt it to
"move into the lattice"--or anywhere, for that matter? --MJ}***

  Why and how
>> does the lattice exert energy to move the electron to a lower, higher
>>energy orbit
>> when it can move into the conduction band without expending energy?

***{As a drifting electron and a drifting proton approach one another,
Coulomb attraction pulls them toward one another. As the radius between
them shortens, conservation of angular momentum and energy acts to increase
the rotational velocity. However, in the confined spaces, making a complete
swing around the proton at the Bohr distance, or even at lesser distances,
is impossible. The reason is that the electron keeps banging up against the
outer shells of nearby atoms. Each time that happens, some of its
rotational energy is lost, and it continues to spiral closer and closer to
the nucleus, until, at last, it is just skimming the surface. Why does it
continue until that point is reached? Possibly because the proton is in
motion, and continues to bang about in the lattice, continually whacking
the electron up against the outer shells of nearby atoms. --Mitchell
Jones}***

 (At least the
>> Mills theory of this process involves a catalyst to allow energy
>>transfer.)  You
>> should apply the same critical approach to your theory as you apply to the
>> experimental work.

***{I do. That approach consists of putting it forth on usenet and
encouraging guys like you to pounce on it. :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

 I suggest
>> you do some reading about solid-state theory and hydride chemistry.

***{I will if you get me in a corner. So far, you haven't. --MJ}***

>>
>> By the way, this idea of electron collapse has been explored by at least
>>a half
>> dozen other workers in the field.  However, no one is silly enough to
>>propose that
>> electron collapse is caused by too small a site.

***{I repeat: I'm not proposing collapse; I'm proposing that expanion
cannot take place when insufficient room is available. That is quite a
different kettle of fish. --MJ}***

 I suggest this is an example of an
>> amateur at work. A professional would know better. Sorry, Mitchell, I
>>just could
>> not help myself.

***{Not a problem. We'll just see who is on top when the dust settles. :-)
--MJ}***

>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 21:44:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA15150;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:33:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:33:30 -0700
Message-ID: <01BECF0A.96A2B220 iras-2-44.ucdavis.edu>
From: Dan Quickert <dequickert ucdavis.edu>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Update from BLP Website
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:39:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BECF0A.96A2B220"
Resent-Message-ID: <"w8RDQ.0.ci3.QOhZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29097
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


------ =_NextPart_000_01BECF0A.96A2B220
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rick,

>This could be the biggest pile of crap there ever was, but tell me I'm not
>alone in wanting, for amusement and I-told-you-so purposes only, to put a
>few hundred fully riskable bucks on these guys if they go public someday.

That's the smottest idea I've heard in a while!
I think I could spare about $150...

;-)

Dan Quickert



------ =_NextPart_000_01BECF0A.96A2B220
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BECF0A.96A2B220--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 15 21:50:16 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA17882;
	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:43:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:43:14 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990715234749.00941140 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:47:49 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
In-Reply-To: <37906f7a.433103801 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990715124011.00af3ebc mail.eden.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990715124011.00af3ebc mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NqNfo1.0.GN4.YXhZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29098
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:34 PM 7/15/99 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

>If you take a look at the web site, you will see that he has done this,
>albeit with a couple of small errors IMO.

Hey, you're right.  That's a very big step in the right direction.  Now we
just need to find out if his measurement is any good.  I wonder what this
really is:

"...a torque  device having a  5 pound load is
connected via a 12 inch diameter pulley."

and especially whether his motor could drive this load indefinitely at 50 rpm.


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 02:55:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA07805;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 02:53:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 02:53:37 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:53:31 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Thermo-electric conv
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990716104907.22833C-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Py8gu.0.tv1.X4mZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29099
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

All,
Currently having immense trouble getting Mn2Sn or FeS2 to the form I
require. Have IEE (the British IEEE) on the case searching for suppliers
and a chemist friend of a friend. In meantime, I should get on with
electronics. I need some reasonably fast circuit because if the slew-rate
is tto slow, the flux isn't independent. I'll gain up several
semiconductor relays in parallel and it should slew at > 50Amp/us.
 
I'll keep you posted.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 06:30:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA08856;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 06:29:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 06:29:01 -0700
Message-ID: <001801becf8f$29c0d990$6853ddcf Craig>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <01BECF0A.96A2B220 iras-2-44.ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:28:58 -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 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"JPwm93.0.IA2.TEpZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29100
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Smotting of which, did anyone ever get their money back from Greg Watson?

Craig Haynie (Houston)

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Quickert <dequickert ucdavis.edu>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 11:39 PM
Subject: RE: Update from BLP Website


> Rick,
>
> >This could be the biggest pile of crap there ever was, but tell me I'm
not
> >alone in wanting, for amusement and I-told-you-so purposes only, to put a
> >few hundred fully riskable bucks on these guys if they go public someday.
>
> That's the smottest idea I've heard in a while!
> I think I could spare about $150...
>
> ;-)
>
> Dan Quickert
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 07:50:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA24988;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:37:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:37:10 -0700
Message-ID: <378F43C8.6A089B3E bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:38:00 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Nature's Fullerene
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"JDPD63.0.L66.LEqZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29101
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>From Space.com's news listserver:

MEXICAN METEORITE YIELDS FIRST FULLERENE FOUND IN NATURE  

Scientists hope the discovery of soccer-ball shaped, pure carbon
molecules in a 4.6-billion-year-old meteorite may provide clues to
the origin of life. Researchers at the University of Hawaii have
found fullerenes (carbon molecules named for geodesic-dome designer
Buckminster Fuller) in the Allende meteor that landed in Mexico
three decades ago. Previously, fullerenes were only known to exist
in the laboratory. Now, this third form of pure carbon (along with
graphite and diamonds) is known to exist in nature.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 07:56:39 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA29440;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:52:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:52:37 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990716095458.00af1208 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:54:58 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: neutrons
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lN0pk2.0.rB7.rSqZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29102
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Does anybody know of any attempts to create neutrons by bombarding protons
with energetic electrons?

In several treatises on neutron generation I can find no mention of this
process.



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 Jul 16 08:43:39 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12485;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:39:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:39:58 -0700
Message-ID: <378EEFA5.5A94C51A cwnet.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:39:03 +0000
From: Jones Beene <jonesb9 cwnet.com>
Reply-To: jonesb9 cwnet.com
Organization: IdeaWorks Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: neutrons
References: <3.0.1.32.19990716095458.00af1208 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"bhKxR1.0._23.E9rZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29103
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:

> Does anybody know of any attempts to create neutrons by bombarding protons
> with energetic electrons?
>
> In several treatises on neutron generation I can find no mention of this
> process.

Check out the Conte Article in "Infinite Energy," vol. 4 Issue 23 this year. He
uses a nifty process with .54 and 2.2 MeV electrons. But more significantly
these came from radio decay sources. Following Fred Sparber's persistent
suggestions and insight into what is going on in CF,  it would appear that here,
too, the importance of light leptons from the decay process should not be
overlooked as catalysts for this reaction.

I am quite surprised, due to the enormity of the meaning of this experiment, if
true, why it hasn't created more of a stir.

Regards,
Jones Beene


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 09:06:19 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA20957;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:02:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:02:33 -0700
Message-ID: <378F5704.F098EAD7 winternet.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:00:04 -0500
From: Bob Fickle <bobfickl winternet.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: neutrons
References: <3.0.1.32.19990716095458.00af1208 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PW7n81.0.F75.OUrZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29104
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I'm sure it's been tried, but you wouldn't expect any sizeable cross section.
Strong and electromagnetic interactions don't change protons into neutrons (an
isospin change, I think??), so it could only occur via the weak interaction -
with cross sections many orders of magnitude smaller.  As in neutrino cross
sections.

Scott Little wrote:

> Does anybody know of any attempts to create neutrons by bombarding protons
> with energetic electrons?
>
> In several treatises on neutron generation I can find no mention of this
> process.
>
> 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 Jul 16 10:01:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA04856;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:58:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:58:47 -0700
Message-ID: <003701becfac$4c17b820$288f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fw: neutrons
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:56:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"WSmsi3.0.oB1.6JsZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29105
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Frederick Sparber <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <jonesb9 cwnet.com>
Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: neutrons

>
> You wouldn't want Scott to Electron Bombard Lithium-7 Deuteride with
> electrons and get
> 2 He4 + neutron +  17.3 Mev, Then Neutron + Li7 ---> Li-8 ---> Be8 ----> 2
> He4 + 16.5  Mev, just because the electron interacts with the Proton end
of
> the Deuteron, and it flies apart as a neutron and a temporarily
Neutralized
> Proton (similar to the P-e-P reaction that occurs on the Sun) that can
> effect CF reactions, now would you, Jones?    :-)
>
> Regards,     Frederick
>
>
> > Scott Little wrote:
> >
> > > Does anybody know of any attempts to create neutrons by bombarding
> protons
> > > with energetic electrons?
> > >
> > > In several treatises on neutron generation I can find no mention of
this
> > > process.
> >
> > Check out the Conte Article in "Infinite Energy," vol. 4 Issue 23 this
> year. He
> > uses a nifty process with .54 and 2.2 MeV electrons. But more
> significantly
> > these came from radio decay sources. Following Fred Sparber's persistent
> > suggestions and insight into what is going on in CF,  it would appear
that
> here,
> > too, the importance of light leptons from the decay process should not
be
> > overlooked as catalysts for this reaction.
> >
> > I am quite surprised, due to the enormity of the meaning of this
> experiment, if
> > true, why it hasn't created more of a stir.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jones Beene
> >
> >
> >
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 10:26:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA14433;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:22:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:22:23 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19990716101903.009b3d60 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:22:07 -0700
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: neutrons
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990716095458.00af1208 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"VAYpm2.0.RX3.FfsZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29106
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:54 AM 7/16/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Does anybody know of any attempts to create neutrons by bombarding protons
>with energetic electrons?
>
>In several treatises on neutron generation I can find no mention of this
>process.
>

That is just the reverse of natural beta decay.  It goes in both
directions, so it is just understood that both reactions occur and probably
isn't mentioned as it is assumed to be obvious.  Any QM text should mention
this specifically, but they may not as the reversibility of that reaction
is what would be mentioned for all reactions, and then by extension it is
assumed that you understand that this applies to your reaction of forming a
neutron from electron plus proton.

However, keep in mind that there is a neutrino involved in that reaction as
well.

rt

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 10:47:09 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA21059;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:45:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:45:10 -0700
Message-ID: <004901becfb2$cca13d80$288f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <4.1.19990716101903.009b3d60 pop3.oro.net>
Subject: Re: neutrons
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:44:02 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZUUvm2.0.z85.b-sZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29107
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Ross Tessien <tessien oro.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: neutrons

Ross Tessian wrote:


> At 09:54 AM 7/16/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >Does anybody know of any attempts to create neutrons by bombarding
protons
> >with energetic electrons?
> >
> >In several treatises on neutron generation I can find no mention of this
> >process.
> >
>
> That is just the reverse of natural beta decay.  It goes in both
> directions, so it is just understood that both reactions occur and
probably
> isn't mentioned as it is assumed to be obvious.  Any QM text should
mention
> this specifically, but they may not as the reversibility of that reaction
> is what would be mentioned for all reactions, and then by extension it is
> assumed that you understand that this applies to your reaction of forming
a
> neutron from electron plus proton.
>
> However, keep in mind that there is a neutrino involved in that reaction
as
> well.

Yes, and in the Solar Burning Reaction:  Proton + Proton --->  D + ( e+) +
neutrino  the collision has to be greater than 1.02 Mev to create the
Electron-Positron Pair as well as the Neutrino-Antineutrino Pair.

Obviously the Antineutino is in the neutron portion of the Created Deuteron.

The P-e-P ----> D + neutrino, Reaction also creates a Neutrino-Antineutrino
Pair (LIGHT LEPTONS) and the Antinutrino also stays in the Deuteron.

Regards,    Frederick
>
> rt
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 12:38:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA27465;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:28:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:28:29 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990716152317.0079a1a0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:23:17 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Papers about glow discharge effect
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"782HA3.0.zi6.SVuZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29108
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I am back from Japan. The exeriments went well. I am terribly busy
preparing material about Ohmori and Mizuno's work. I will discuss this
later. I am hampered by the fact that the videotapes are defective and I
did not take notes, so I have no access to the details. The technicians at
two different Atlanta video production companies say the tapes are
unreadable. They cannot tell whether the tapes have been degaussed or
whether the format is unique to Japan. While I was in Sapporo, we viewed
the tapes on the built-in monitor in the camera. I sent the tapes back to
Mizuno by express mail yesterday. In the meanwhile, here are some
interesting extracts from two papers about electrochemical glow discharge.

- Jed


Susanta K. Sengupta, Rajesliwar Singk, and Askok K. Srivastava Department
of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221
005, India, "A Study on the Origin of Nonfaradaic Behavior of Anodic
Contact Glow Discharge Electrolysis -- The Relationship Between Power
Dissipated in Glow Discharges and Nonfaradaic Yields," J. Electrochem.
Soc., Vol. 145, No. 7, July 1998


ABSTRACT

Chemical effects of contact glow discharge electrolysis (CGDE) at an
electrode where a plasma is sustained by dc glow discharges between the
electrode and the surrounding electrolyte, are remarkably nonfaradaic. A
critical analysis of the chemical results of anodic CGDE at varying
voltages, currents, power supplies, and pHs clearly shows that nonfaradaic
yields originate in two separate reaction zones: the plasma around the
anode and the liquid anolyte near the plasma-anolyte interface. The yields
from the former zone appear from 250 V onward (the beginning o the onset of
partial glow discharge) and vary linearly with the power dissipated in the
glow discharge. The yields from the latter zone appear from 410 V onward
(the beginning of the full glow discharge) and are independent of the power
dissipated in the glow discharge. The relative contribution of the two
zones to the total nonfaradaic yields is dependent on the voltage applied:
the plasma zone having a share of 100% up to 400 V, followed by 20% up to
450 V, and thereafter rising steadily to 57% at 500 V.


Introduction

Contact glow discharge electrolysis (CGDE) at an electrode, where a plasma
is sustained by dc glow discharges between the electrode and the
surrounding liquid electrolyte, develops spontaneously during conventional
electrolysis, if the voltage applied goes beyond a threshold value called
the breakdown voltage (VB). The glow discharge at the electrode becomes
full when the voltage is raised to a critical value called the midpoint
voltage (VD), the magnitude of which depends only on the polarity of the
electrode (420 V for the anode and 160 V for the cathode in aqueous
electrolytes) and is unaffected by the electrolyte's composition,
concentration, temperature, and surface tension. A remarkable feature of
CGDE is its highly nonfaradaic chemical effects. . . .


Modern Aspects of Electrochemistry No.6, Ed. J. O'M. Bockris, B. E. Conway

A. Hickling, "Electrochemical Processes in Glow Discharge at the
Gas-Solution Interface," p. 329

I. INTRODUCTION

The term electrolysis is conventionally applied to chemical changes brought
about by passing an electric current between conducting electrodes dipping
into a liquid phase containing ions, where the changes can be
satisfactorily explained by electron transfer between the ions and the
electrodes. If, however, the liquid phase is itself made an electrode and
an electrical glow-discharge is passed to it from a conductor located in
the gas space above the surface, a completely different situation arises in
which novel chemical reactions can be brought about in the liquid phase,
and this process is referred to as glow-discharge electrolysis (GDE). It is
worth emphasizing that it differs fundamentally from chemical decomposition
brought about by electrical discharge between metallic electrodes in gases
at low pressures, since in GDE, the reactions of interest are initiated in
the liquid phase, and the quantity of electricity passed rather than
electrical power dissipated is found to be the governing variable, as in
conventional electrolysis. In the experimental arrangement most commonly
adopted, the electrode above the surface is the anode, while the cathode is
immersed in the electrolyte; once the discharge has been initiated, e.g.,
by momentarily touching the anode to the surface or by applying a high
voltage pulse to the system, it can be maintained at voltages of 500 V and
upward with the gas or vapor at reduced pressure, and substantial currents
can be passed to the liquid surface. The technique first excited interest
because it seemed to provide a way of carrying out electrolysis without a
solid electrode in contact with the electrolyte, but early work showed that
the chemical effects produced are much greater quantitatively than would be
expected from Faraday's laws. Recent work suggests that charge transfer is
only a minor factor in GDE and that the chemical effects are produced by
charged particles which are accelerated in the potential drop near the
electrolyte surface and enter the liquid with appreciable energies,
probably of the order of 100 eV. These can bring about ionization,
excitation, or dissociation of solvent molecules by collision (in addition
to charge transfer reactions), and the chemical effects are due to the
reactive species thus produced. The situation, in fact, closely resembles
that in radiation chemistry where ionizing radiations produce chemical
reactions, and the analogy is particularly close when comparison is made
with low-energy alpha particles. Thus, a new type of electrolysis arises in
which energy transfer in addition to charge transfer brings about chemical
change. . . .

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 15:02:51 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA07958;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:00:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:00:24 -0700
Message-Id: <199907162200.SAA22594 fh105.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: test-ignore
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:56:09 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"OIc7_3.0.Dy1.tjwZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29109
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Test

--Kyle

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 15:22:58 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA18168;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:21:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:21:43 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990716182323.00ab3b10 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:23:23 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara Falls?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990712215355.11955C-100000 exeter>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990712125533.00d2e3b0 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"enEAj.0.oR4.t1xZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29110
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:58 PM 7/12/1999 +0100, Cornwall RO wrote:

>You know a lot about this. I need to get the definitions precisely
>soerted. Please references. You use things like 'incomplete'
>'inconsistent' with subtle changes of meaning...

    I don't know of any change from the standard formal meanings, but they
are two very differnt things.  A system is incomplete if there are theorems
that can't be proven (or disproven) within the system.  An example is
Euclidian geometry and the parallel postulate.  Without this postulate
(actually with or without this postulate) there are some theorems that
cannot be proven.  However, if you change the postulate, you get two other
"non-Euclidian" geometries that are also consistant.

    Now let's move on to logic, and look at the statement "This sentence is
false."  You can either have logic systems which do not allow you to say
this (one or another method of ruling out self-referential statements), or
you allow it to be both true and false.  The latter systems are
inconsistant.  You can prove anything that can be stated in them to be true
and false.  (Another such system is any system of mathematics where you are
allowed to divide by zero.)

 ...NP means non-polynominal...

    More specifically non-polynomial time.  A problem is in NP if there is
a proof of any solution that can be done in time less than some polynomial
function of the length of the statement of the problem.  A problem is not
in P if there is no algorithm to always solve the problem in less than some
polynomially bounded time.

    For example, proving that a number N is prime, believe it or not, is in
P. You can create a deterministic proof of the primeness of a prime in
polynomial time, where the polynomial is not in N, but in the number of
digits of N.  However, if N is not prime, there is currently no known way
to factor it in polynomial time.

> I need more on Peano arithmetic. Would you recommend Encyclopedia brit?

    Not really, but you don't really need to look it up.  Peano arithmetic
is a subset of usual arithmetic with equality, a successor function, and
not much else.  It is sort of a least common denominator of all unbounded
arithmetics.  (Modular arithmetic is bounded, there are only a finite
number of values.  In Peano arithmetic, every number has a successor, but
zero is not the successor of anything.)

    The importance of Peano arithmetic in this context is that Godel came
up with a neat trick (Godel numbering) to embed theorems in Peano
arithmetic, and then showed that there were either Godel numbers which
coresponded to unprovable theorems, or to inconsistant theorems.  Thus
basically any (non-finite) system is either incomplete or inconsistant.  (A
system can't be both, because once you have an inconsistant theorem, all
theorems can be proven both true and false.)

                                        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 Jul 16 16:42:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA18915;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:38:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:38:52 -0700
Message-ID: <00a201becfe4$35811e20$288f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <jonesb9 cwnet.com>
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Some Chemistry Exercises
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:36:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bzan9.0.Td4.BAyZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29111
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Jones,

If you have D2O and some Magnesium Powder 
(I don't know what they put in those 4th of July sparklers):  
                  Mg   +    D2O  -----> Mg +   MgO    +  D2
               ~ 2.4 gr      0.20 gr      ~2gr  +  0. 40 gr + 0.04 gr


Heat in a capped and evacuated 1/8" pipe, and the D2 pressure 
will be about 320 Psig in 10 cubic centimeters worth of 1/8" pipe length.

Other:  

1,   CaO + D2O ---->    Ca(OD)2

2, Ca(OD)2 + K2CO3 -----> 2 KOD +  CaCO3 (precipitates)

3,  2 KOD + 2 H3BO3  ----->  2 KBO2 +  2 HDO + 2 H2O

Or Calcium Carbide from a welders' supply store:

CaC2 + 2 D2O ----> D-C***C-D (Deutero-Acetylene) +  Ca(OD)2

The Deutero-Acetylene can Explode under pressure to form Fullerenes and D2,
but you can make all kinds of  Deuterated Organic Compounds from it.

I'm  too cheap to buy a lecture bottle of D2.   :-)

Regards,  Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 17:23:32 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA00402;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:20:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:20:55 -0700
Message-ID: <00c201becfea$16cd4200$288f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <jonesb9 cwnet.com>, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: SuperNova Ancestors?
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:17:47 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"Utk4p1.0.-5.cnyZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29112
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Speaking of Deutero-Acetylene and Magnesium and Calcium Carbides and othe
Acetylides and Nitrides, and the Cyanogens etc., and their Exothermic
Reaction with water to form Monosaccharides and all of the other "Origin of
Life" Compounds. The long chains :

H-C***C-C***C-C***C-C***C-H some shorter and some longer, have been picked
up in Star Dust.

Any "Rocks" that contain these when eroded by the Primodial Ocean would fill
it with all of the Sugars, and Amino Acids necessary to form Proteins and
the other RNA-DNA Precursors.

Was your Great Great Great........Great  Grandfather a
 Rock Star or a Star Rock, Terry?    :-)

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 17:42:30 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA05620;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:36:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:36:34 -0700
Message-ID: <378F2A0D.4D8BABAD ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:48:13 +1200
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: [Fwd: Light Vortices]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------D462A4970230D1269D9D9E06"
Resent-Message-ID: <"-20T01.0.kN1.I0zZt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29113
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.
--------------D462A4970230D1269D9D9E06
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



--------------D462A4970230D1269D9D9E06
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com
Received: from mx1.ihug.co.nz (mx1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.9]) by icarus.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA06274; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 05:20:32 +1200 (NZST)
Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48])
	by mx1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA21420;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 05:20:30 +1200
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA10613;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:14:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:14:44 -0700
Message-ID: <19990716171445.19104.rocketmail web107.yahoomail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:14:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Anton Rager <a_rager yahoo.com>
Subject: Light Vortices
To: freenrg-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"lxDwE.0.Db2.0YsZt" mx1>
Resent-From: freenrg-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: freenrg-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <freenrg-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/11089
X-Loop: freenrg-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000

Hello All,

Here's a cool article from Sciencedaily about Lasers,
photons, and vortices of light.  I'm not on Vortex
anymore, but they would probably really enjoy.  Could
someone forward this to Vo?


Laser light vortexes at extremely high outputs
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990713074413.htm


Here's the full text for the HTTP challenged [with the
formatting really screwed up!]:

Whirlpools Of Light Offer Speedy Data
                 Transmission 

                 HAIFA, Israel, and NEW YORK, N.Y.
July 6, 1999 -- Two reseachers at
                 the Technion-Israel Institute of
Technology in Haifa, Israel, have discovered
                 that small lasers can produce complex
patterns of tiny optical vortices,
                 whirlpools of light less than ten
thousandth of an inch across. The finding,
                 which will be published in the July 9
Science, could be used as the basis of
                 new methods of high speed data
transmission and processing. 

                 The Technion team, Drs. Meir
Orenstein and Jacob Scheuer, used lasers
                 called VCSELs (vertical cavity
surface-emitting lasers), which produce laser
                 light over a surface some 20 microns
on a side (about a thousand of an inch).
                 These lasers are used routinely for
such applications as optical communication
                 over glass fibers and are normally
designed to produce a single smooth beam
                 of light. The Technion team, however,
modified the lasers by doubling their
                 size and increasing the current fed
into them by three to six-fold, which causes
                 the laser beam to break up and
organize itself into the complex patterns
                 observed. 

                 Like any laser, the VCSEL operates by
bouncing light back and forth
                 between mirrors in a material that
amplifies the light. But in the conditions used
                 in the experiment, the amount of
light produced changed how much the light is
                 amplified, in turn changing the
amount of light at any point. In this way the
                 material itself builds up patterns of
light and dark. 

                 "What we observed were regular arrays
of optical vortices" Dr. Orenstein
                 explains. 

                 An optical vortex is like a tornado
in air or the whirlpool formed around a
                 bathroom drain, except that it is
made of light. Light is an electro-magnetic
                 wave and in an optical vortex, the
direction of the wave motion rotates around
                 a central axis, like water around a
drain; the closer to the axis, that faster the
                 rotation. In an optical vortex,
unlike a fluid vortex, this velocity rises without
                 limit as the center is approached.
The Technion experiments showed that the
                 vortices spontaneously formed
patterns of figure-eights and arrays of three,
                 five and seven vortices as the
researchers increased the current to the tiny
                 laser. 

                 Previous experiments by other
researchers had produced such optical
                 vortices, but they had always
required much larger and more complicated
                 devices for their production, and had
not produced such complicated patterns.

                 "These are by far the most complex
and tiniest vortices that have been
                 produced spontaneously -- with any
input pattern on our part," Orenstein
                 explains. 

                 The vortices are extremely
interesting theoretically because vortex structure
                 appears so widely in nature -- in
gases, fluids, the magnetized gas called
                 plasmas and even in living things, as
in the helix of DNA. While Orenstein and
                 Scheuer believe they understand how
the vortices arise in the laser, it is still
                 not clear why this particular pattern
occurs rather than others. 

                 The miniature vortices may have
practical uses as well. When the optical
                 vortices leave the laser and are
transmitted through space or an optical fiber,
                 they always retain their vortex
structure and the direction in which they are
                 spinning. Such vortices can therefore
be used to transmit information at high
                 speed over long distances, thus
improving optical fiber communications. Other
                 more exotic applications include
using the vortices to trap individual atoms at
                 their center and immobilize them,
cooling them to very low temperatures. The
                 Technion work has shown that
producing and controlling such light whirlpools
                 may be far easier than anyone else
had thought. 

                 The Technion-Israel Institute of
Technology is the country's premier scientific
                 and technological center for applied
research and education. It commands a
                 worldwide reputation for its
pioneering work in communications, electronics,
                 computer science, biotechnology,
water-resource management, materials
                 engineering, aerospace and medicine,
among others. The majority of Israel's
                 engineers are Technion graduates, as
are most of the founders and managers
                 of its high-tech industries. The
Technion's 13,000 students and 700 faculty
                 study and work in its 19 faculties
and 30 research centers and institutes in
                 Haifa. 

                 ### 

                 The American Technion Society (ATS)
supports the Technion. Based in New
                 York City, it is the leading American
organization supporting higher education
                 in Israel. The ATS has raised $720
million since its inception in 1940, half of
                 that during the last seven years.
Technion societies are located in 24 countries
                 around the world. 




                 Note: This story has been adapted
from a news release issued by American Society For
                 Technion, Israel Institute Of
Technology for journalists and other members of the
                 public. If you wish to quote from any
part of this story, please credit American Society
                 For Technion, Israel Institute Of
Technology as the original source. You may also wish
                 to include the following link in any
citation: 
                      
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990713074413.htm



===
Anton Rager
a_rager yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



--------------D462A4970230D1269D9D9E06--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 21:44:22 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA13284;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:41:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:41:28 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:40:54 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <379408df.537938690 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990715124011.00af3ebc mail.eden.com> <3.0.1.32.19990715124011.00af3ebc@mail.eden.com> <3.0.5.32.19990715234749.00941140@mail.eden.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990715234749.00941140 mail.eden.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 VAA13263
Resent-Message-ID: <"e_cOH1.0.PF3.ub0at" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29114
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:47:49 -0500, Scott Little wrote:

>At 11:34 PM 7/15/99 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>
>>If you take a look at the web site, you will see that he has done this,
>>albeit with a couple of small errors IMO.
>
>Hey, you're right.  That's a very big step in the right direction.  Now we
>just need to find out if his measurement is any good.  I wonder what this
>really is:
>
>"...a torque  device having a  5 pound load is
>connected via a 12 inch diameter pulley."
>
>and especially whether his motor could drive this load indefinitely at 50 rpm.

Then maybe you could go to his demo, and make your own measurements, as
he invites you to do?


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 22:05:19 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA20274;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:03:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:03:35 -0700
Message-ID: <000901bed011$94fecaa0$718f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990715124011.00af3ebc mail.eden.com> <3.0.1.32.19990715124011.00af3ebc@mail.eden.com> <3.0.5.32.19990715234749.00941140@mail.eden.com> <379408df.537938690@mail-hub>
Subject: Re: NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:01:14 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"IWyX4.0.iy4.dw0at" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29115
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Lets see, Robin. The Sun puts out about 70,000 Kw/meter^2, it arrives in
Arizona at
about 1.2 Kw/meter^2, and comes out of a solar collector at 0.12 Kw/meter^2
and into
Newman Motor at Astronomical Efficiency?   Not Bad, Huh?

Regards,      Frederick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!


> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:47:49 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
>
> >At 11:34 PM 7/15/99 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> >
> >>If you take a look at the web site, you will see that he has done this,
> >>albeit with a couple of small errors IMO.
> >
> >Hey, you're right.  That's a very big step in the right direction.  Now
we
> >just need to find out if his measurement is any good.  I wonder what this
> >really is:
> >
> >"...a torque  device having a  5 pound load is
> >connected via a 12 inch diameter pulley."
> >
> >and especially whether his motor could drive this load indefinitely at 50
rpm.
>
> Then maybe you could go to his demo, and make your own measurements, as
> he invites you to do?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 16 22:53:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA32614;
	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:52:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:52:40 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION!
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 05:52:05 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3795197d.542193946 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990715124011.00af3ebc mail.eden.com> <3.0.1.32.19990715124011.00af3ebc@mail.eden.com> <3.0.5.32.19990715234749.00941140@mail.eden.com> <379408df.537938690@mail-hub> <000901bed011$94fecaa0$718f85ce@default>
In-Reply-To: <000901bed011$94fecaa0$718f85ce default>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 WAA32572
Resent-Message-ID: <"G9sdb.0.Nz7.ee1at" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29116
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:01:14 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:

>Lets see, Robin. The Sun puts out about 70,000 Kw/meter^2, it arrives in
>Arizona at
>about 1.2 Kw/meter^2, and comes out of a solar collector at 0.12 Kw/meter^2
>and into
>Newman Motor at Astronomical Efficiency?   Not Bad, Huh?
>
>Regards,      Frederick
I gather you think I'm gullible :). Well, maybe. But then again I
haven't invested anything other than a few hours of my time in Joe so
far.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 09:43:06 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA21081;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:41:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:41:22 -0700
Message-ID: <3790DB1A.4744 bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:35:54 -0700
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: SuperNova Ancestors?
References: <00c201becfea$16cd4200$288f85ce default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Hsvg-2.0.J95.n8Bat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29117
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:
> 
> Speaking of Deutero-Acetylene and Magnesium and Calcium Carbides and othe
> Acetylides and Nitrides, and the Cyanogens etc., and their Exothermic
> Reaction with water to form Monosaccharides and all of the other "Origin of
> Life" Compounds. The long chains :
> 
> H-C***C-C***C-C***C-C***C-H some shorter and some longer, have been picked
> up in Star Dust.
> 
> Any "Rocks" that contain these when eroded by the Primodial Ocean would fill
> it with all of the Sugars, and Amino Acids necessary to form Proteins and
> the other RNA-DNA Precursors.
> 
> Was your Great Great Great........Great  Grandfather a
>  Rock Star or a Star Rock, Terry?    :-)

Dunno; but, he sure put a twinkle in Great ... Grandma's eye! ;-)

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 12:05:39 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA07688;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:04:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:04:46 -0700
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3790D4B4.47A1 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:08:36 -0700
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: SuperNova Ancestors?
References: <00c201becfea$16cd4200$288f85ce default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"OkDvz2.0.zt1.EFDat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29118
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 17, 1999,

Frederick Sparber wrote:
>Speaking of Deutero-Acetylene and Magnesium and Calcium Carbides and >other Acetylides and Nitrides, and the Cyanogens etc., and their >Exothermic Reaction with water to form Monosaccharides and all of the >other "Origin of Life" Compounds. 
>The long chains :H-C***C-C***C-C***C-C***C-H some shorter and some >longer, have been picked up in Star Dust.
> Any "Rocks" that contain these when eroded by the Primodial Ocean >would fill it with all of the Sugars, and Amino Acids necessary to form >Proteins and the other RNA-DNA Precursors.
>Was your Great Great Great........Great  Grandfather a
>Rock Star or a Star Rock, Terry?    :-)
> 
That's a pregnant thought. For sure he had plenty of 'rocks'. :)
-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 12:18:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA11356;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:16:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:16:37 -0700
Message-ID: <3790D6A2.650D7E21 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:17:02 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Latest on Russ George Cell from spf]
References: <v04011703b3b40407cf7a [207.8.127.67]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"v9FnQ1.0.Mn2.LQDat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29119
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> >Edmund Storms wrote:
> >
> >> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Since the catalyst is about 86% empty space, if it contains a piece of
> >> > grease or coal that originated in a helium rich deposit, that lump of
> >> > contaminant would likely contain a proportion of empty space similar
> >>to the
> >> > carbon catalyst. Thus if V represents the volume of the lump, then .8575V
> >> > represents the empty space, and if that space contains gases that are 50%
> >> > helium, then the volume of contained He is .5(.8575)V, or .429V. Thus
> >> > (.429)V = [1.43x10^16/(6.02x10^23)](22400), and when we solve for V we
> >> > discover that the required volume of the contaminant is .00124 ml,
> >>which is
> >> > a cube slightly more than 1 mm on a side. Such a particle would be little
> >> > more than a speck of dust, and yet it is all that would be required to
> >> > explain away Russ George's excess helium.
> >>
> >> Why assume a piece of material would contain 50% He?.  No material on
> >>earth has
> >> ever been found to retain He at that level. The fact that gas from wells
> >>may,
> >> under rare conditions, contain 50% He does not mean that the He
> >>concentration in
> >> the solid material is also 50% .  If you are going to make an objective
> >>argument
> >> at least use rational values.
>
> ***{I did. You snipped it out. Here, between the lines of asterisks, is
> what I said:
>
> *******************************************
> Since the catalyst is about 86% empty space, if it contains a piece of
> grease or coal that originated in a helium rich deposit, that lump of
> contaminant would likely contain a proportion of empty space similar to the
> carbon catalyst. Thus if V represents the volume of the lump, then .8575V
> represents the empty space, and if that space contains gases that are 50%
> helium, then the volume of contained He is .5(.8575)V, or .429V. Thus
> (.429)V = [1.43x10^16/(6.02x10^23)](22400), and when we solve for V we
> discover that the required volume of the contaminant is .00124 ml, which is
> a cube slightly more than 1 mm on a side. Such a particle would be little
> more than a speck of dust, and yet it is all that would be required to
> explain away Russ George's excess helium.
>
> Now, granted, it seems unlikely that a contaminant particle contains 50% He
> by volume. The best *producing* gas wells yield about 8% He, though I have
> read comments from field geologists who reported occasional pockets of 50%
> or more, and I recall reading about a mine somewhere in Europe--Austria, I
> think--where seepage gases were 10% He. But the point here is that there is
> a *lot* more He, percentagewise, in gases that are entrained in subsurface
> materials than there is in the atmosphere, and given the tiny amounts of
> contaminant material that would suffice to explain Russ George's
> excess--just a few grains of sand--I am not prepared to simply *assume*
> that no such thing happened.
> *******************************************
>
> Bottom line: if you want to engage in reasoned discourse, you need to pay
> closer attention to what you are criticising. :-)
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***

In your calculation, you assume the following:
1. 86% empty space
2. The space is closed
3. The space contains 50% He gas
4. This material normally exists in laboratory environments.

For this helium to behave as observed, the walls of the closed space would have to
be stable at 200° and have a rather low permeability.  Again, I suggest no such
material exists in nature.  Please give me an example of such material based on
observation, not on imagination.

> >>
> >> >Think of it this way: either Russ George has discovered "cold fusion" or he
> >>
> > Helium being an inert gas
> >> means it does not react with or absorb on materials.  It is retained by
> >>metals only
> >> after it has been placed within the structure by ion bombardment or by
> >>tritium
> >> decay. It does not get there just by being in helium.
>
> ***{Of course it does: helium diffuses through Pyrex glass, which is a
> silicaceous compound, like vermiculite. The implication is that helium will
> diffuse into just about anything, and, potentially, is retained by just
> about any mineral or petroleum product that is extracted from the vicinity
> of a helium reservoir such as those in North Texas, until such time as it
> has had time to diffuse out again. --Mitchell Jones}***

Yes, He diffuses through material.  But have you bothered to calculate the
concentration of He in pyrex while this diffusion is taking place?  I think you
will find the concentration too small to be important to our discussion.

>
> Why make an assumption that
> >> all experience says is false?
>
> ***{Does this mean you deny that helium diffuses into Pyrex, stainless
> steel, and most ordinary materials? If not, then the equilibrium
> concentration within those materials is going to match that on the outside,
> given equal pressures, and that means materials in the vicinity of an
> underground helium reservoir are going to contain a *lot* of helium at the
> moment of extraction. How long they will retain it thereafter, of course,
> depends on the permeability of the materials involved. Thus it may be that
> any helium content of contaminants in the Russ George cell diffused out
> before the contaminants made their way into the cell. However, it also may
> *not* be so, and that is the possibility with which I am concerned.
> --Mitchell Jones}***

You confuse diffusion with solubility.  The solubility of He in all materials is
extremely low.  Therefore, it does not matter how long a sample is in contact with
He, it will not contain significant He.

> >> For your argument to be
> >> logically consistent, you must assume that some foreign substance
> >>entered the
> >> catalyst after it was made, that this substance containes He which can
> >>be evolved
> >> only very slowly at 200°, and this material happened to fall into the
> >>few samples
> >> which showed excess He and not into the blank cells.  In addition, the
> >>sample of
> >> catalyst used by George happened to contain the same impurity as did the
> >>one used
> >> by Case and now the sample used by McKubre.  At some point, the low
> >>probability of
> >> all this happening makes the suggestion look ridicules.
>
> ***{At some point, if the situation were as described by you, above, then
> that would surely be the case. However, it is my understanding that McKubre
> worked *with* George, and hence that we are talking about one experiment
> there, not two. Second, it is my understanding that Case's cells frequently
> did not work. Hence we are only talking about the ones that did, not the
> others. Third, even one of Russ George's two cells did not work: when he
> vacuum flushed the "control" cell and reinfused it with D2, heated it up to
> 200 deg C, and raised the pressure to 3.4 atm, it did *not* begin to
> produce He-4. That outcome supports the contaminant hypothesis, not the CF
> hypothesis. All in all, there appears to be more than enough ambiguity to
> support doubt here, despite what you say. --Mitchell Jones}***

McKubre has set up and run cells completely independent of the initial work with
George.  He is finding the same behavior. Replacing H2 with D2 in the control cell
did not produce a nuclear reaction because no effort was made to flush the
adsorbed H from the palladium surface. As a result the potentially nuclear active
regions contained mostly H rather than D.  Such a flushing operation has been
found necessary to make the cells work.  The contamination explanation is not the
only one which can explain the behavior.

> >> > As for your fourth point--to wit: that he vermiculite emitted helium over
> >> > time in a way that is not characteristic of diffusion--I disagree that the
> >> > observed curve could not be due to the gradual cooking out of
> >>entrained He,
> >> > for the reasons given above.
> >>
> >> Have you ever studied the release of He from materials or even looked up the
> >> literature?
>
> ***{My qualifications to address this issue are contained in my arguments,
> as are yours. What books we did or did not crack, or where, or when, is
> manifestly irrelevant. --MJ}***

Mitchell, debating with you is like playing chess with someone who has never read
the rules and keeps trying to jump his pawn with his bishop.  If I have to include
in my argument the understanding of material behavior which has been developed
over decades by generations of scientists, we will never reach agreement.  Logic
is not enough.  We also need to agree about concepts and the meaning of words.
This background can only be obtained by reading the "rule book".

>  If a scientist took
> >> the trouble to test every imaginable possibility, they would never reach
> >>the end
> >> of an experiment.
>
> ***{If you think I disagree with the above, you are mistaken. I would, for
> example, consider it to be a waste to spend a lot of time analyzing the SRI
> mass spec readings. They got the ambient He reading right over and over,
> and I am willing to assume that they got the 11 ppm number right as well.
> The possibility of contamination, however, remains something that I think
> ought to be addressed. The fact that it may be unlikely does not justify
> simply assuming it didn't happen. As I pointed out earlier, many reasonable
> people judge it unlikely that you can induce nuclear reactions by cooking
> D2 at 200 deg C and 3.4 atm. You can't prove the latter by browbeating
> people into assuming the former. --Mitchell Jones}***

Is making equally unlikely assumptions a way to show that the nuclear reaction
does not occur? People who judge such nuclear reactions to be unlikely do so
because the phenomenon conflicts with nuclear behavior known to occur using high
energy environments, a rather narrow range of conditions.  On the other hand, the
prosaic explanations frequently conflict with a wide range of chemical and
physical behavior, a much wider range of conditions supported by much more
experience.  A satisfactory nuclear explanation is being explored and will result
in no need to reject other experience.  On the other hand, if the prosaic
explanations are correct, large areas of chemistry and heat measurement would be
thrown in doubt, thereby requiring a reexamination of many conclusions.  Skeptics
seem unwilling to accept a new explanation in nuclear behavior while they seem
willing to reject large, well established understandings in chemistry and
materials science.  Of course if a person has no understanding of chemistry or
material behavior, it easy to propose such prosaic explanations without feeling
any conflict.

>  Science works by evaluating the probability and choosing to
> >> investigate the most likely.  The choice of which is the most likely is
> >>based on
> >> experience and a background in the field of study, not on a rich
> >>imagination.
>
> ***{Good judgment, obviously, is required to decide what lines of
> investigation are worth pursuing. Moreover, if that were the purpose here,
> then it might be good judgment to discount the possibility of
> contamination. What you don't seem to recognize, however, is that judgment
> is *not* the same thing as proof. Like it or not, you cannot turn the Russ
> George experiment into a convincing demonstration of the Case effect, if
> you do not make an effort to discount the possibility of contamination.
> You, of course, can simply respond: "Who cares? It is proof enough for me!
> Those who still doubt the effect are idiots, and it is a waste of time to
> cater to their concerns." Well, maybe so, but however you slice the apple,
> it still weighs the same; and however you spin this experiment, the
> conclusion is going to remain unproven until something is done that renders
> the contamination hypothesis *far* less likely than the CF hypothesis.
> --Mitchell Jones}***

Your strawman has no relevance.  Contamination needs to be explored but using
experience and values based on nature, not on imagination.  A careful examination
of the behavior makes contamination as a possible explanation very unlikely.
Therefore, it is more productive to explore ways to make the effect larger rather
than using one's time analyzing every material for helium.  If the effect is made
larger and more consistent, this alone will make the contamination issue mute.

> >> On another subject
> >>In addition, the assumptions are at odds with all that is
> >> known about the behavior of materials outside of the CANR field.  For
> >>example, you
> >> make the assumption  that a H atom with its electron  can be placed in a
> >>site
> >> where there is not enough room, thereby forcing the electron into orbits
> >>closer to
> >> the nucleus.
>
> ***{No. The assumption is that if a disassembled hydrogen atom--e.g., a
> proton and an electron--are placed at such a location, they will not be
> able to obtain the energy needed to expand to the Bohr radius. That is
> quite a different thing from assuming they already *have* that energy and
> are being squeezed down to a smaller size. If you will compute the drift
> velocities of electrons in typical electrical circuits, for example, you
> will find that they are *far less* than the orbital velocity of a hydrogen
> electron at the Bohr radius. [The diameter of the Bohr orbit is about 106
> Å, so the circumference is about 333 Å, or 3.33x10^-6 cm = 3.33x10^-8 m.
> Since an electron takes about 10^-16 sec to make one revolution around a
> hydrogen atom, its orbital velocity is about 3.33x10^8 m/sec. The average
> drift velocities of electrons in conductors, on the other hand, are on the
> order of 10^-5 m/sec. (Calculation available upon request.)] When enough
> space is available, any energy shortfall needed (i.e., not available by
> conservation of angular momentum) to boost a drifting electron up from the
> vicinity of 10^-5 m/sec to 3.33x10^8 m/sec is either acquired thermally or
> is borrowed from the aether (the ZPF, if you prefer), and the electron
> "pops" up to the Bohr radius. (Like popcorn. :-) After that has happened,
> the amount of weight that it can support becomes enormously increased. That
> is why, if the lattice gets too hot, expansion and enhanced lattice
> vibration will permit any protoneutrons which it contains to pop into
> hydrogen atoms and preclude the CF effect, as I noted in a private e-mail
> to another party yesterday. The point, however, is that if a drifting
> electron meets a drifting proton *and there isn't room for it to orbit at
> the Bohr radius*, then it will be unable to expand out to that radius.
> Result: it will settle into an unstable, classical orbit, and a
> protoneutron will be formed. (Or so the theory goes, at any rate.)
> --Mitchell Jones}***

If you are going to use the concept of Bohr radius you must also acknowledge that
the concept applies only to an isolated atom. In addition, the idea of a fixed
radius was only accepted for a short time after which the electron was found to
occupy a region of space in which its location was defined by a probability
function.  When an atom exists in a lattice, all of the electrons share this
probability space with a fraction remaining in the vicinity of the H.  In this
context, the Bohr radius is only an idealized mathematical concept, not a real
condition.  Your concept is at odds with all modern understanding of electron
behavior.  Unless you can show mathematically how this process takes place and how
it fits in with present models, I suggest you drop the subject.

> >>
> >> By the way, this idea of electron collapse has been explored by at least
> >>a half
> >> dozen other workers in the field.  However, no one is silly enough to
> >>propose that
> >> electron collapse is caused by too small a site.
>
> ***{I repeat: I'm not proposing collapse; I'm proposing that expanion
> cannot take place when insufficient room is available. That is quite a
> different kettle of fish. --MJ}***

The net result is the same, only the mechanism is different.  Indeed, each of the
people proposing this model has a different mechanism.  Yours is just the most
bizarre one.

How do you know when the dust settles?

Regards,

Ed Storms



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 12:57:53 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA31422;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:56:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:56:58 -0700
Message-ID: <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:58:38 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk> <378A23A7.24D2FECF@ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6rdpo.0.ug7.A0Eat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29120
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:19:43 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> [snip]
> >The questions I want answered are:
> >How can the Pd or Ni be manufactured in such a way to be nuclear-active every
> >time?
> >What conditions should be applied to a cell to make less perfect material become
> >nuclear-active?
> >What mechanism allows the nuclear reactions to take place?
> >
> >Answer these questions and you have actually helped the work.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >Ed Storms
> >
> It would seem that the ability to identify specific nuclear active sites
> before they self destruct would be useful in narrowing down the
> conditions that make them nuclear active.
> A possible method of doing this might be to view a flat plate cathode in
> the infra-red in real time. Then as soon as a "hot spot" began to form,
> the experiment could be terminated, and the spot examined.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk

Yes, under ideal conditions, this would be a useful approach.  Indeed, several
people have seen the heat pulse using IR imaging.  In addition, the resulting melted
spots were analyzed for transmutation products which were detected.  However, the
lattice in the active region is destroyed and any information about precondition is
lost.  It appears to be impossible to stop the process fast enough.  On the other
hand, I and other people have studied the average properties of the surface and
shown that certain average conditions must be present for the process to occur.
Knowing how to achieve these average conditions with regularity is the problem.
Like all materials problems, significant resources are required to understand all of
the variables - resources which are not available.

Regards,

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 14:09:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA14706;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:08:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:08:27 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990717170904.00797780 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 17:09:04 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Azumi paper on glow discharge electrolysis
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7YL6R.0.ib3.B3Fat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29121
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Interest in glow discharge electrolysis seems to be picking up, in part
prompted by cold fusion. Here is a recent paper from Japanese
Electrochemical Society journal "Denkikagaku oyobi kougyoubuturigaku," 67,
No 4, 1999. The paper is in Japanese but the title and Abstract are in
English, as follows:


	Light Emission Spectroscopy from Metal

	Electrodes during Electrolysis

	Kazuhisa AZUMI,* Masahiro SEO, and Tadahiko MIZUNO


	Graduate School of Engineering, Hokkaido University (Kita 13, Nishi 8,
Kitaku, Sapporo 060-8628, Japan)


	Received September 28, 1998 Accepted January 5, 1999


Light emission from the metal electrodes cathodically polarized at cell
voltages up to 250 V was investigated in various aqueous electrolyte
solutions. The light emission was observed when the temperature of
electrodes exceeded the boiling temperature of the electrolyte due to the
intense cathodic polarization a thin vapor layer was formed at the metal /
electrolyte interface in which a high electric field ionized vapor
molecules to generate the plasma state. The light emission was caused by a
glow discharge at relatively low cell voltages and by a spark discharge at
high cell voltages. The spectra of the emitted light were assigned to the
constituents of the electrolyte solution, electrode material and gaseous
hydrogen evolved at the electrode.

Key Words; Plasma-electrochemistry, Photo-spectroscopy Glow Discharge,
Spark Discharge


They divide electrolysis into three phases:

I. Hydrogen evolution, 0 to 100 Volts, Direct electron transfer from
cathode to solution.
II. Glow light emission, 100 - 175 V, Indirect electron transfer through
plasma layer.
III. Spark light emission, 175 V and above.

Mizuno says Azumi and Seo did not attempt to look for excess heat, to avoid
the stigma of cold fusion.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 18:20:52 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA08773;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:19:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:19:55 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990717211334.00dbe1a0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:13:34 -0400
To: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
In-Reply-To: <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"bjpCt2.0.w82.wkIat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29122
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 01:58 PM 7/17/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>> It would seem that the ability to identify specific nuclear active sites
>> before they self destruct would be useful in narrowing down the
>> conditions that make them nuclear active.
>> A possible method of doing this might be to view a flat plate cathode in
>> the infra-red in real time. Then as soon as a "hot spot" began to form,
>> the experiment could be terminated, and the spot examined.
>
>Yes, under ideal conditions, this would be a useful approach.  Indeed,
several
>people have seen the heat pulse using IR imaging.  In addition, the
resulting melted
>spots were analyzed for transmutation products which were detected.
However, the
>lattice in the active region is destroyed and any information about
precondition is
>lost.  It appears to be impossible to stop the process fast enough.  On
the other
>hand, I and other people have studied the average properties of the
surface and
>shown that certain average conditions must be present for the process to
occur.
>Knowing how to achieve these average conditions with regularity is the
problem.
>Like all materials problems, significant resources are required to
understand all of
>the variables - resources which are not available.


  Robin has some good points, although observation is always difficult.

  Also, we have studied the internal properties that allow these processes
to occur [Swartz. M., 1994 "Catastrophic Active Medium Hypothesis of Cold
Fusion"
Vol. 4. "Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion"
sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research,
and Swartz, M., 1997, "Hydrogen Redistribution By Catastrophic Desorption In
Select Transition Metals", Journal of New Energy, 1, 4,  26-33.

  The roles of surface and volume are both complicated it seems.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 18:21:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA09216;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:20:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:20:56 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:20:20 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk> <378A23A7.24D2FECF@ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub> <3790E060.7796D4DD@ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 SAA09166
Resent-Message-ID: <"KvG502.0.rF2.ulIat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29123
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:58:38 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
[snip]
>Yes, under ideal conditions, this would be a useful approach.  Indeed, several
>people have seen the heat pulse using IR imaging.  In addition, the resulting melted
>spots were analyzed for transmutation products which were detected.  However, the
>lattice in the active region is destroyed and any information about precondition is
>lost.  It appears to be impossible to stop the process fast enough.  On the 

Now this is important information. If I interpret it correctly, then it
says that highly localised heat bursts are of very short duration. 
The implication is that either some form of complex chain reaction is
responsible, or the conditions are suddenly met, to collapse a BEC,
according to Horace's hypothesis. Either of which processes eventually
uses up all the fuel in the local active region and dies out.

>other
>hand, I and other people have studied the average properties of the surface and
>shown that certain average conditions must be present for the process to occur.

If I'm not mistaken, then most of the conditions you have discovered are
prerequisites for a high Pd-D ratio aren't they?
(or perhaps more generally, a high M-<hydrogen isotope> ratio).
If so, then the further implication is that the reaction can only occur
in such regions of high <h-isotope> density.
(None of which is news of course).

>Knowing how to achieve these average conditions with regularity is the problem.
>Like all materials problems, significant resources are required to understand all of
>the variables - resources which are not available.

Do you have the physical resources to melt and recast your own Pd, such
that you can control cooling rate?
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 18:24:35 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA11476;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:23:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:23:38 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990717211616.00dc1430 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:16:16 -0400
To: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Corrections to Ed Storms re: Continuum Electromechanics
  and Einstein Relation
Cc: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>,
        Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>, BriggsRO@aol.com,
        Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>,
        Michael T Huffman <knuke LCIA.COM>, Mitchell Jones <mjones@jump.net>,
        "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>,
        little mail.eden.com, "E.F. Mallove" <editor@infinite-energy.com>,
        Ed Wall <ewall infinite-energy.com>,
        Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>, Tstolper@aol.com,
        ATP <ATP worldnet.att.net>, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net,
        Dieter Britz <db kemi.aau.dk>, "George H. Miley" <g-miley@uiuc.edu>,
        "Frank, Alex MD" <FrankAl uhpcc.medserv.net>,
        el <melmiles ridgecrest.ca.us>
In-Reply-To: <3790FF6D.E02D0F2F ix.netcom.com>
References: <v01530501b3b01ef56c43 [12.21.208.59]>
 <3.0.1.32.19990714203058.00dbb560 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"h4veZ1.0.9p2.QoIat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29124
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 04:11 PM 7/17/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>>    Actually, Horace is correct in some ways, Ed, about
>> this.
>>
>> In the short run, as the solubility decreases there can
>> result GREAT disequilibrium populations of deloaded
>> hydrogen.  In fact, this may occur microscopically
>> repeatedly in some systems, as we discussed in
>> Swartz. M., 1994 "Catastrophic Active Medium Hypothesis of Cold Fusion"
>> Vol. 4. "Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion"
>> sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research,
>> and which was later confirmed, as partially discussed in
>> Swartz, M., 1997, "Hydrogen Redistribution By Catastrophic Desorption In
>> Select Transition Metals", Journal of New Energy, 1, 4,  26-33
>
>Yes, Mitchell, I agree that the situation at the surface will be very
complex.
>Some sites will be loading, some will be deloading and some will be
>nuclear-active.  In spite of this agreement, I do not see how your particular
>approach provides insight into the average behavior nor how we can use the
OOP to
>understand what is happening at the nuclear-active sites.  Perhaps you can
>further clarify this for me. The power variable applies to all regions
while the
>excess energy variable applies to the nuclear-active sites, the number and
area
>of which are unknown.

   They are not totally independent, but
 separate matters, each discussed in separate papers.  Like the 
flux within the material, the bremsstrahlung radiation, they are
linked -- but should be separately considered at this time until
they are each better understood.


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

>>   There are at least two errors in Ed's claims.
>> First, actually, although Ed ignores voltage, claiming current dominates
>> it does not, because it is the applied electric field intensity which
>> creates the current flow to begin with.
>
>Yes, the voltage is required to cause the chemical decomposition of D2O
(H2O). My
>only points are:
>1. If current is fixed, the voltage is not an independent variable, i.e. the
>experimenter has no control over the voltage except by changing the current.
>2. The voltage is changed by many factors which have very little to do with
>production of excess energy.
>
>Therefore, it is less confusing to use current alone because it can give
the same
>insight without these distractions.  A plot of current density vs excess
power
>also shows an OOP.  Why not use this variable instead of power?

   Power is the correct parameter, and power gain is may be an
important nondimensional number characterizing these systems.
Power -- from an engineering point of view -- is not only the correct
variable, but the optimal operating points speak for themselves.

  BTW it is NOT seen as well in the current curves such as the ones which
you sent me, and to which the data partially checked.

  THAT is the advantage of the OOP method of analysizing the data.
It certainly also demonstrates 'maturing' of the optimal operating
point with a 'drift to the left', suggesting that during loading
the peak driving power decreases.


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

>>    The electric field is KEY to the loading,
>> [Swartz, M., 1992, "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical
>> Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology,
>> 22, 2, 296-300, Swartz, M., 1994, "Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled To
>> Reactions At An Electrode",  Fusion Technology, 96, 4T, 74-77]
>> and the understanding to effect to rapid reactions
>> [eg. Swartz. M., 1997, "Codeposition Of Palladium And Deuterium",
>> Fusion Technology, 32. 126-130 (1997)].
>
>The statement that the electric field is KEY to loading is an assertion not a
>demonstrated fact.  I can just as well argue that the current density is the
>KEY.  For example, where the field gradient is higher, the reaction will be
>enhanced and the current will be higher.  The higher current will mean
that more
>H(D) ions will be available for reaction with the cathode.  Thus, both the
>voltage at the surface and the current can give the same insight.
Unfortunately,
>the voltage at the surface can not be easily measured  because of the voltage
>drop across the electrolyte gap and across the barrier layer.  The current
does
>not suffer from this problem.  Therefore current is a better variable to
use in
>such studies.


  It is fact that it is KEY. 

 The relevant variable (a nondimensional ratio, often named after
Einstein) is qV/kT which is the ratio of the energy from 
the electric field intensity to k*T .  
    The ratio involves voltage, and not I.

  Suggestion: read the books on Continuum Electromechanics
by Melcher,J. R., "Continuum Electromechanics", MIT Press, 
Cambridge, (1981) which demonstrate that in the quasielectrostatic
mode, V is the relevant parameter, not I.
I apologize for not having much time on this, but this is
a serious matter and subject of great depth. You might speak
to Michael Schaffer who took courses from the late and great
Jim Melcher at MIT with me in the late 60s and 70s.


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


>Also, you made a an assumption in your paper ("Isotopic Fuel Loading
Coupled To
>Reactions At An Electrode",  Fusion Technology, 96, 4T, 74-77]) which
later turns
>out not to be completely correct.  In equation (1), you separate the
deuterium
>flux into three components, (1) the number that enter the cathode, (2) the
number
>that recombine at the surface, and (3) the number that enter into a nuclear
>reaction.  Another component exists which is (4) the number that enter,
find a
>crack and leave as gas.  My work shows that most D enters a clean surface,
and is
>lost as the fourth component.  Your study applies to a dirty surface, a
condition
>which produces no nuclear activity.  You may want to reexamine this approach.

  This is not totally accurate.
 You might consider rerereading it.  The component is listed as Jg 
-- the component that goes to the gas phase -- as it is defined in that model.

>From the very article:
   "The non-dimensional parameter ... is defined as the ratio of the two 
   largest and most important pericathodic fluxes; the loading flux (Je) 
   to the gas evolution (Jg). It is very much a function of the isotope 
   and the material, hence the paired subscript. ... 
   This fusion flux equation (equation 7) contains five terms after 
   separation of variables.  The first term results from gas evolution.  
   The second term is composed of geometric and material factors.  
   The next two terms reflect the applied electric field intensity 
   and kBT ..."

   In fact, in the Q1D model, even the first order reaction rates are
given -- INCLUDING for gas phase loss.

   Hope that helps.
   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 19:50:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA12044;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:49:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:49:48 -0700
Message-ID: <19990718025038.9858.rocketmail web108.yahoomail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 22:50:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Continuum Electromechanics and Einstein Relation
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"7mUg23.0.6y2.C3Kat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29125
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I'm still away, but I saw my name used:

>The relevant variable (a nondimensional ratio, often named after
>Einstein) is qV/kT which is the ratio of the energy from 
>the electric field intensity to k*T .  
>   The ratio involves voltage, and not I.
> 
>  Suggestion: read the books on Continuum Electromechanics
>by Melcher,J. R., "Continuum Electromechanics", MIT Press, 
>Cambridge, (1981) which demonstrate that in the quasielectrostatic
>mode, V is the relevant parameter, not I.
>I apologize for not having much time on this, but this is
>a serious matter and subject of great depth. You might speak
>to Michael Schaffer who took courses from the late and great
>Jim Melcher at MIT with me in the late 60s and 70s.

I don't have Melcher's book, since he only used class notes way back in 1962
when I took the course, so I cannot make any comments that might depend in
its specific contents. Back then, and also when I was his PhD student, he had
not done any work with electrolytes. I don't know if they are covered in his
book.

>From my nonexpert point of view (I have studied some electrochemistry since
becoming interested in CF, but certainly I know less than either of you) I
find each of you partly right. Mitchell seems to have forgotten that reaction
rates depend on the supply of reactants, some of which arrive as ions at the
rate J/q. Therefore, current density is an important variable, as Ed says.
Reaction rates also depend on sources of energy available to push reacting
species over energy barriers, and the relative effectiveness of the electric
potential relative to thermal agitation is measured by qV/kT, as Mitchell
says and which I am sure Ed knows. Of course, the relevant V is the potential
between two interacting atoms or similar species, not the cell potential, as
I am sure Mitchell knows. A relevant V might be, for example, the potential
drop across the atomic layer in contact with the cathode surface.

Now I will disappear from the internet for another week.

===
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 20:05:50 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA18648;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:04:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:04:39 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990717225917.00dc4610 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 22:59:17 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Continuum Electromechanics and Einstein Relation
In-Reply-To: <19990718025038.9858.rocketmail web108.yahoomail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"tppC23.0.IZ4.6HKat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29126
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



  At 10:50 PM 7/17/99 -0400, Michael Schaffer wrote:
>I'm still away, but I saw my name used:
>
>>The relevant variable (a nondimensional ratio, often named after
>>Einstein) is qV/kT which is the ratio of the energy from 
>>the electric field intensity to k*T .  
>>   The ratio involves voltage, and not I.
>> 
>>  Suggestion: read the books on Continuum Electromechanics
>>by Melcher,J. R., "Continuum Electromechanics", MIT Press, 
>>Cambridge, (1981) which demonstrate that in the quasielectrostatic
>>mode, V is the relevant parameter, not I.
>>I apologize for not having much time on this, but this is
>>a serious matter and subject of great depth. You might speak
>>to Michael Schaffer who took courses from the late and great
>>Jim Melcher at MIT with me in the late 60s and 70s.
>
>I don't have Melcher's book, since he only used class notes way back in 1962
>when I took the course, so I cannot make any comments that might depend in
>its specific contents. Back then, and also when I was his PhD student, he had
>not done any work with electrolytes. I don't know if they are covered in his
>book.

  Books. ... He had 3 for 6.06 and 5.527/8, and the above one
was/is a large compendium on many of his topics.
 Any inventor ought get it, because like the Uhlig and Bockris books
on electrochemistr, dont leave home without them  ;-)X


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

>>From my nonexpert point of view (I have studied some electrochemistry since
>becoming interested in CF, but certainly I know less than either of you) I
>find each of you partly right. Mitchell seems to have forgotten that reaction
>rates depend on the supply of reactants, some of which arrive as ions at the
>rate J/q. Therefore, current density is an important variable, as Ed says.
>Reaction rates also depend on sources of energy available to push reacting
>species over energy barriers, and the relative effectiveness of the electric
>potential relative to thermal agitation is measured by qV/kT, as Mitchell
>says and which I am sure Ed knows. Of course, the relevant V is the potential
>between two interacting atoms or similar species, not the cell potential, as
>I am sure Mitchell knows. A relevant V might be, for example, the potential
>drop across the atomic layer in contact with the cathode surface.


   Actually, I did not forget.  We barely control how the electric
field intensity adjusts over between the electrodes, and we can only
hope which reactions occur (except for a few, often not wanted  ;-)X
Martin F. had a wonderful quote in the first BBC tape on this.

   Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 21:26:03 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA06386;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:24:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:24:48 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: A variation
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:24:14 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37925587.623123223 mail-hub>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 VAA06370
Resent-Message-ID: <"d0wNn1.0.iZ1.GSLat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29127
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

A variation on the infra-red detection method is to carefully
investigate and map say 100 separate regions, chosen at random, on a
given foil before use, then see which, if any, of these resulted in a
hot-spot during use.
Granted this method is labour intensive, and tedious, yet may
nevertheless be more revealing than other approaches, and could possibly
lead to large short term gains.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 17 21:28:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA07608;
	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:27:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:27:39 -0700
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 00:31:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Ifra red deection of hot spots...Re: Swartz paper
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990717211334.00dbe1a0 world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990718003024.21722B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"I4npL.0.js1.xULat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29128
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Folks,

	Who is the party which is trying to image near IR "hot spots"?

				John Schnurer

On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

> 
> 
> At 01:58 PM 7/17/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> >Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> >> It would seem that the ability to identify specific nuclear active sites
> >> before they self destruct would be useful in narrowing down the
> >> conditions that make them nuclear active.
> >> A possible method of doing this might be to view a flat plate cathode in
> >> the infra-red in real time. Then as soon as a "hot spot" began to form,
> >> the experiment could be terminated, and the spot examined.
> >
> >Yes, under ideal conditions, this would be a useful approach.  Indeed,
> several
> >people have seen the heat pulse using IR imaging.  In addition, the
> resulting melted
> >spots were analyzed for transmutation products which were detected.
> However, the
> >lattice in the active region is destroyed and any information about
> precondition is
> >lost.  It appears to be impossible to stop the process fast enough.  On
> the other
> >hand, I and other people have studied the average properties of the
> surface and
> >shown that certain average conditions must be present for the process to
> occur.
> >Knowing how to achieve these average conditions with regularity is the
> problem.
> >Like all materials problems, significant resources are required to
> understand all of
> >the variables - resources which are not available.
> 
> 
>   Robin has some good points, although observation is always difficult.
> 
>   Also, we have studied the internal properties that allow these processes
> to occur [Swartz. M., 1994 "Catastrophic Active Medium Hypothesis of Cold
> Fusion"
> Vol. 4. "Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion"
> sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research,
> and Swartz, M., 1997, "Hydrogen Redistribution By Catastrophic Desorption In
> Select Transition Metals", Journal of New Energy, 1, 4,  26-33.
> 
>   The roles of surface and volume are both complicated it seems.
> 
>    Mitchell Swartz
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 03:21:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA20205;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 03:20:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 03:20:43 -0700
Message-ID: <002101bed107$08a10860$1c8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pg-Hg Phase Diagram,  Potarite?
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:18:15 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"DRvM51.0.dx4.wfQat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29129
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed Storms most likely has a copy of Hansen's; Constitution of Binary Alloys,
right?  :-)

What would the be the effect on H2-D2 absorption at less than 2% Hg "doping"
of Pd?

What is the percentage of Hg in the naturally occurring "alloy" of  Hg-Pd,
Potarite?

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 06:57:17 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA10788;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 06:56:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 06:56:17 -0700
Message-ID: <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 07:57:24 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk> <378A23A7.24D2FECF@ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub> <3790E060.7796D4DD@ix.netcom.com> <379125ac.610868574@mail-hub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Wkn5k2.0.Ue2.0qTat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29130
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:58:38 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> [snip]
> >Yes, under ideal conditions, this would be a useful approach.  Indeed, several
> >people have seen the heat pulse using IR imaging.  In addition, the resulting melted
> >spots were analyzed for transmutation products which were detected.  However, the
> >lattice in the active region is destroyed and any information about precondition is
> >lost.  It appears to be impossible to stop the process fast enough.  On the
>
> Now this is important information. If I interpret it correctly, then it
> says that highly localised heat bursts are of very short duration.
> The implication is that either some form of complex chain reaction is
> responsible, or the conditions are suddenly met, to collapse a BEC,
> according to Horace's hypothesis. Either of which processes eventually
> uses up all the fuel in the local active region and dies out.

I do not believe the fuel is used up but that the necessary environment is destroyed.
This change in environment might include the physical loss of fuel caused by the high
temperature.  An apparent steady production of heat is caused by many such local spots
going critical.  The measured production rate would depend on the number/sec lighting
up.  Good Pd would have a high value and poor Pd would have a low value with most
activity located in a small region.  Thus, a measurement of average properties is
diluted by a lot of inactive conditions. My measurements show that the surface
composition of an inactive sample is above PdD1.5, while the average composition is near
PdD0.85, This observation suggests the active regions could be as high as PdD2.0.  This
is not normal beta-PdD and all theories and models based on this structure are barking
up the wrong tree.  You can see the problem in trying to explain this phenomenon.  We do
not even understand the environment much less the mechanism.  Unfortunately, too many
people are searching for the mechanism while ignoring the environment.

> >other
> >hand, I and other people have studied the average properties of the surface and
> >shown that certain average conditions must be present for the process to occur.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, then most of the conditions you have discovered are
> prerequisites for a high Pd-D ratio aren't they?
> (or perhaps more generally, a high M-<hydrogen isotope> ratio).
> If so, then the further implication is that the reaction can only occur
> in such regions of high <h-isotope> density.
> (None of which is news of course).

In addition, I propose the high composition must convert to a new phase.  This
conversion not only requires a high composition, but is encouraged by certain
impurities.

>
> >Knowing how to achieve these average conditions with regularity is the problem.
> >Like all materials problems, significant resources are required to understand all of
> >the variables - resources which are not available.
>
> Do you have the physical resources to melt and recast your own Pd, such
> that you can control cooling rate?

No.  Few people in the field have this ability.  However, while I was at LANL we did
this and found no effect of cooling rate.  People have studied annealing after the wire
and plate were manufactured and find confused behavior because too many variables were
not controlled during the studies.  It is a very complex problem which will take the
skills of many people to solve.  Unfortunately, the necessary skills and resources have
not being applied.

Regards,
Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 06:58:33 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA11373;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 06:57:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 06:57:46 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990718090142.00938aa0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:01:42 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Latest on Russ George Cell from spf]
In-Reply-To: <3790D6A2.650D7E21 ix.netcom.com>
References: <v04011703b3b40407cf7a [207.8.127.67]>
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 GAA11342
Resent-Message-ID: <"C7k602.0.Zn2.QrTat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29131
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>> Mitchell Jones wrote:

>> ...The diameter of the Bohr orbit is about 106 Å,

Apologies to the group if this has already been pointed out:  Mitchell,
you're off by a factor of 100.  It's 1.06 Angstroms for the ground state of
the hydrogen atom.

Ed Storms wrote:

>If you are going to use the concept of Bohr radius you must also
acknowledge that
>the concept applies only to an isolated atom. In addition, the idea of a
fixed
>radius was only accepted for a short time after which the electron was
found to
>occupy a region of space in which its location was defined by a probability
>function.

Correct...and the probability function for the ground state peaks at the
nucleus.  Yes, this means the most likely location for the hydrogen atom's
electron (in the ground state) is AT THE NUCLEUS.  QM says you really need
to abandon the notion that the electron orbits the proton in a circle with
the Bohr radius.



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 Jul 18 07:49:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA21742;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 07:48:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 07:48:26 -0700
Message-ID: <3791E974.D366F144 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:49:42 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Pg-Hg Phase Diagram,  Potarite?
References: <002101bed107$08a10860$1c8f85ce default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"TQC1g2.0.YJ5.vaUat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29132
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> Ed Storms most likely has a copy of Hansen's; Constitution of Binary Alloys,
> right?  :-)
>
> What would the be the effect on H2-D2 absorption at less than 2% Hg "doping"
> of Pd?
>
> What is the percentage of Hg in the naturally occurring "alloy" of  Hg-Pd,
> Potarite?
>
> Regards,    Frederick

Hg does not form a hydride at room temperature.  According to Shunk, HgH2 is
only stable below -125°C.  Therefore, I would expect PdH to contain a reduced
amount of H when Hg is present, just as is the case when Ag is present.  This is
not to say such an alloy would not be nuclear-active.  The problem is complex
and depends on more variables than the D or H compositions. For example, the
10%Ag-90%Pd alloy has been found to be nuclear-active even though the D content
is less than that in pure Pd. There are hundreds of potential alloys which can
be suggested.  Unless a very GOOD reason exist to try a particular one and money
is made available for such a study, all suggestions are a waste of time.

Potarite is PdHg with a small amount of Au.

Regards, Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 08:33:12 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA01510;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:32:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:32:22 -0700
Message-ID: <003a01bed132$90d37620$1c8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <002101bed107$08a10860$1c8f85ce default> <3791E974.D366F144@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram,  Potarite?
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:31:08 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"uo9Cv.0.WN.6EVat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29133
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 1999 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?

Ed Storms wrote:


> Frederick Sparber wrote:
>
> > Ed Storms most likely has a copy of Hansen's; Constitution of Binary
Alloys,
> > right?  :-)
> >
> > What would the be the effect on H2-D2 absorption at less than 2% Hg
"doping"
> > of Pd?
> >
> > What is the percentage of Hg in the naturally occurring "alloy" of
Hg-Pd,
> > Potarite?
> >
> > Regards,    Frederick
>
> Hg does not form a hydride at room temperature.  According to Shunk, HgH2
is
> only stable below -125°C.  Therefore, I would expect PdH to contain a
reduced
> amount of H when Hg is present, just as is the case when Ag is present.
This is
> not to say such an alloy would not be nuclear-active.  The problem is
complex
> and depends on more variables than the D or H compositions. For example,
the
> 10%Ag-90%Pd alloy has been found to be nuclear-active even though the D
content
> is less than that in pure Pd. There are hundreds of potential alloys which
can
> be suggested.  Unless a very GOOD reason exist to try a particular one and
money
> is made available for such a study, all suggestions are a waste of time.
>
> Potarite is PdHg with a small amount of Au.

Thanks Ed.   I agree, however, wasting time is cheaper than wasting money.
:-)

Regards,     Frederick
>
> Regards, Ed Storms
>
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 09:42:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA14993;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:41:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:41:48 -0700
Message-ID: <004a01bed13c$45106d60$1c8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Polarite?
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:39:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"zyCrn1.0.3g3.CFWat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29134
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed Storms wrote:

>
> 10%Ag-90%Pd alloy has been found to be nuclear-active even though
> the D content is less than in pure Pd.
>

This suggests that the only "unique" property that Pd has is it's ability to
import H into the lattice in quantities that give cold plasma Hydrogen
Numbers of about 5.5E22 H atoms/cm^3.

Interesting that liquid H2O or D2O with "autoionization" and/or electrolysis
comes close to that and exhibits "nuclear-active" behavior also.

IOW, a Solution of  Hydrogen (H or H2) in any compound that has a high
electron/H-atom ratio
with practical considerations taken into account is worthy of consideration
for experimental funding.

Since the electrolysis cells use the electrical energy to dissociate H2 or
D2 to load the Pd, why not forget about the "Hydrides" and use Hg and/or
Pd-Hydrogen alloys as a cathode, to see if the H will go into Solution in
Liquid (Self-Healing) Hg or Pd-Hg alloys?

Exploring ideas that can use "Cookbook" data to delineate an experiment is
not a waste of time.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 10:50:05 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA29011;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:42:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:42:03 -0700
Message-ID: <005801bed144$b00d5e40$1c8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:39:51 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"dcTV7.0.D57.h7Xat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29135
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

BTW:

One can easily hydrostatically pressurize a small diameter coaxial
electrolysis cell with a Pt wire anode and a Pd, PdAg, or PdHg cathode to
2,000 atmospheres or more. This can be ran above the 375 C supercritical
temperature of water.

The use of Ag, Pd, and Hg, is predicated on their high Z number ( high
electron/H-atom ratio)and their resistance to forming stable oxides.

That narrows the number of possible experiments from "hundreds" to a few,
unless one is going to explore every possible alloy combination of these.
:-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 11:19:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA11106;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:18:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:18:50 -0700
Message-ID: <37921AD7.263D4CEA ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:20:43 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?
References: <005801bed144$b00d5e40$1c8f85ce default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ttakX3.0.Sj2.9gXat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29136
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> BTW:
>
> One can easily hydrostatically pressurize a small diameter coaxial
> electrolysis cell with a Pt wire anode and a Pd, PdAg, or PdHg cathode to
> 2,000 atmospheres or more. This can be ran above the 375 C supercritical
> temperature of water.
>
> The use of Ag, Pd, and Hg, is predicated on their high Z number ( high
> electron/H-atom ratio)and their resistance to forming stable oxides.
>
> That narrows the number of possible experiments from "hundreds" to a few,
> unless one is going to explore every possible alloy combination of these.

You make a choice of which alloys to study based on your particular model.  My
model is different.  Indeed, everyone would suggest a different set of alloys.
Consequently, the number of possible experiments has not been reduced at all.

>
> Regards,    Frederick

Ed Storms wrote:

>
> 10%Ag-90%Pd alloy has been found to be nuclear-active even though
> the D content is less than in pure Pd.
>

>This suggests that the only "unique" property that Pd has is it's ability to
>import H into the lattice in quantities that give cold plasma Hydrogen
>Numbers of about 5.5E22 H atoms/cm^3.

That surely is one of the important properties but not necessarily the only one.
At this point, we do not know what conditions are required to allow a nuclear
reaction.  Each scientist picks the property which supports his particular
model.  None of the models has been demonstrated to be correct.

>Interesting that liquid H2O or D2O with "autoionization" and/or electrolysis
>comes close to that and exhibits "nuclear-active" behavior also.

I suggest H2O or D2O are not nuclear active but only supply the necessary
hydrogen to a site which is nuclear-active.  The method to cause this transfer
of H or D from water to the site does not matter.  It can be electrolysis, sonic
cavitation, plasma discharge or any one of the other methods which have been
suggested but not implemented.  The challenge is to identify the site and
determine its characteristics.

>IOW, a Solution of  Hydrogen (H or H2) in any compound that has a high
>electron/H-atom ratio
>with practical considerations taken into account is worthy of consideration
>for experimental funding.

True, and many have been tried

>Since the electrolysis cells use the electrical energy to dissociate H2 or
>D2 to load the Pd, why not forget about the "Hydrides" and use Hg and/or
>Pd-Hydrogen alloys as a cathode, to see if the H will go into Solution in
>Liquid (Self-Healing) Hg or Pd-Hg alloys?

>Exploring ideas that can use "Cookbook" data to delineate an experiment is
>not a waste of time.

It is only a waste of time when there is no chance that the suggestions will be
tried.  This is presently the case.  It is also a waste when the suggestions are
based on an incomplete knowledge of the accumulated experience in the field.
The problem is not that we lack ideas, the problem is that the ideas can not be
tried.  Are you willing to set up a calorimeter and other equipment to try your
suggestion?

Regards,
Ed Storms



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 11:25:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA16594;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:24:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:24:49 -0700
From: HLafonte aol.com
Message-ID: <fe279d3e.24c375c1 aol.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:24:01 EDT
Subject: Site update, building easy design!
To: newman-l emachine.com
CC: energy21 listbot.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 10
Resent-Message-ID: <"A0Df-1.0.C34.nlXat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29137
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I am building at this time the PM motor/generator design shown on my site. I 
hope to have detailed drawings of all parts and data needed to build this 
proof of concept device on the site by midnight tonight central time, USA. If 
you do not understand the spin balance system, please go to the link I have 
on my site to fully understand the balance system. The balance system has 
been proven many times over the last 7 years. I will be using flexiable 
magnetic strips and radio shack magnets, and a wood form. It should be very 
easy to build. Email me if you have any questions, please.But first study the 
spin balance system at my link Iist on the site. 
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/hlafonte/index.html">LaFonte Research site 1
</A>  or  http://hometown.aol.com/hlafonte/index.html
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
If you have any trouble pulling up site please let me know!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 12:00:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA22870;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:54:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:54:01 -0700
Message-ID: <006401bed14e$bdb0fde0$1c8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <005801bed144$b00d5e40$1c8f85ce default> <37921AD7.263D4CEA@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:51:29 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"jgjg_.0.Cb5.9BYat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29138
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 1999 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?

Ed Storms wrote:

>
> It is only a waste of time when there is no chance that the suggestions
will be
> tried.  This is presently the case.  It is also a waste when the
suggestions are
> based on an incomplete knowledge of the accumulated experience in the
field.
> The problem is not that we lack ideas, the problem is that the ideas can
not be
> tried.  Are you willing to set up a calorimeter and other equipment to try
your
> suggestion?

Nope.  :-)

I lean more toward convincing the stewards of public money that such an
experiment is worthy of funding, just as you did between 1989 and 1992, from
whence you got your  "accumulated experience in the field".   :-)

The D.o.E Labs  are beating the bushes for Qualified Private
Individuals/Entities to apply for
Tech transfer/ Tech Assistance and CRADAs that is mandated by Congress. Easy
to get $5K to $500K as long as you don't mention COLD FUSION.   :-)

Regards,      Frederick
>
> Regards,
> Ed Storms
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 14:34:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA21130;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:33:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:33:43 -0700
Message-ID: <37924897.286ECD32 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 15:36:13 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?
References: <005801bed144$b00d5e40$1c8f85ce default> <37921AD7.263D4CEA@ix.netcom.com> <006401bed14e$bdb0fde0$1c8f85ce@default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"foFo6.0.4A5.tWaat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29139
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> Ed Storms wrote:
>
> >
> > It is only a waste of time when there is no chance that the suggestions
> will be
> > tried.  This is presently the case.  It is also a waste when the
> suggestions are
> > based on an incomplete knowledge of the accumulated experience in the
> field.
> > The problem is not that we lack ideas, the problem is that the ideas can
> not be
> > tried.  Are you willing to set up a calorimeter and other equipment to try
> your
> > suggestion?
>
> Nope.  :-)
>
> I lean more toward convincing the stewards of public money that such an
> experiment is worthy of funding, just as you did between 1989 and 1992, from
> whence you got your  "accumulated experience in the field".   :-)

As you know, the DOE funded work for the first two years.  When the results were
not as expected and the theoreticians got control, the funding stopped.  The
accumulated experience during this this was a small fraction of what is
presently known.  I for one have been studying the phenomenon almost
continuously up until the present time.  If you need any help in convincing the
stewards of public money to support CANR, please let me know.

> The D.o.E Labs  are beating the bushes for Qualified Private
> Individuals/Entities to apply for
> Tech transfer/ Tech Assistance and CRADAs that is mandated by Congress. Easy
> to get $5K to $500K as long as you don't mention COLD FUSION.   :-)

Or mention any other subject which even hints of cold fusion.  Even so, it is
not so easy.  There are numerous forms to fill out, a long wait for the peer
review process to tell you you did not get the money, and many reporting
requirements if you actually do get funding.  I small operation has little
chance to obtain support and even less chance of doing both the paperwork and
the promised research without going crazy.  Private, investor money is much more
useful but just as hard to obtain.

Regards,
Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 16:17:23 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA17188;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:16:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:16:37 -0700
Message-ID: <007e01bed173$69c03140$1c8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <005801bed144$b00d5e40$1c8f85ce default> <37921AD7.263D4CEA@ix.netcom.com> <006401bed14e$bdb0fde0$1c8f85ce@default> <37924897.286ECD32@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:15:16 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"-TC_D.0.UC4.L1cat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29140
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 1999 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?

Ed Storms wrote:
> Or mention any other subject which even hints of cold fusion.  Even so, it
is
> not so easy.  There are numerous forms to fill out, a long wait for the
peer
> review process to tell you you did not get the money, and many reporting
> requirements if you actually do get funding.  I small operation has little
> chance to obtain support and even less chance of doing both the paperwork
and
> the promised research without going crazy.  Private, investor money is
much more
> useful but just as hard to obtain.

This sounds like the woes of  Kip M. Seigal (sp?) of KMS, Ann Arbor
Michigan,back in the early 70's. Kip collapsed and died at a congressional
hearing while trying to convince folks to do LASER
FUSION.  His (KMS) Patent U.S. 4,608,222  filed in 1973 didn't issue until
1986.

Regards,      Frederick
>
> Regards,
> Ed Storms
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 18:06:30 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA15680;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:05:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:05:35 -0700
Message-ID: <3792792D.893704DD harborside.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:02:37 -0700
From: Steven Myers <stevenm harborside.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Great Pyramid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-3idN1.0.wq3.Vddat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29141
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I maintain a site that showcases the discoveries and ideas in the book
called Pharaoh's Pump.  This site talks about how the Great Pyramid was
built.

This is the book that is so highly regarded in the recent best selling
book, 5/5/2000 : Ice, the Ultimate Disaster by Richard W. Noone, and
other
books.

Please check out the site at:
http://www.thepump.org







**The Great Pyramid is a huge water pump**
This pump uses vortex properties of water to make it operate!!!
I have written an article about this that is suitable for a magazine.
If you know of a publication interested in this information let me know.




Thank you for your time and consideration.
If you have any questions or comments let me know.

Warm regards,

Steven Myers

Pharaoh's Pump Foundation
http://www.thepump.org

--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 19:03:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA32019;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:02:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:02:40 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 02:02:05 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk> <378A23A7.24D2FECF@ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub> <3790E060.7796D4DD@ix.netcom.com> <379125ac.610868574@mail-hub> <3791DD3A.1820BFC8@ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 TAA31996
Resent-Message-ID: <"fSk3J.0.9q7.0Teat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29142
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 07:57:24 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
[snip]
>diluted by a lot of inactive conditions. My measurements show that the surface
>composition of an inactive sample is above PdD1.5, while the average composition is near
>PdD0.85, This observation suggests the active regions could be as high as PdD2.0.  This
>is not normal beta-PdD and all theories and models based on this structure are barking
>up the wrong tree.  You can see the problem in trying to explain this 
[snip]
Now that this has come up, perhaps this is the appropriate time for me
to suggest something I have had in the back of my mind for a while.
(Mind you, it has probably been suggested by others previously).
It goes something like this:
The shell filling of Rh is 4d85s1, while that of Pd makes a jump to
4d105s0, finding it apparently energetically more beneficial to complete
the filling of the 4d than that of the 5s. This has the consequence of
leaving the 5s empty. So perhaps two D's can bind with a single Pd using
the vacant 5s. Perhaps also this bond results in the two D's being
closer together than usual (on average?). If so, then perhaps this type
of bond can lead to fusion, particularly as the many other electrons of
the Pd might provide screening for the D's.

I mention this now, only because it results in a Pd:D2 ratio, and seems
to fit with your own observations and suspicions.




Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 19:17:20 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03201;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:16:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:16:25 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 02:15:51 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3795898b.4655408 mail-hub>
References: <005801bed144$b00d5e40$1c8f85ce default> <37921AD7.263D4CEA@ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <37921AD7.263D4CEA ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 TAA03184
Resent-Message-ID: <"-UOhb2.0.xn.vfeat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29143
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:20:43 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
[snip]
>The problem is not that we lack ideas, the problem is that the ideas can not be
>tried.  
[snip]
Perhaps if all the ideas were on the table, and we all had a
brainstorming session, some ideas could be ruled out immediately,
reducing the remainder to a more tractable number. Such a session may
also be able to assign a "collective" probability, resulting in an order
of preference for experiments.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 19:33:43 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07562;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:32:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:32:37 -0700
Message-ID: <000d01bed18e$cd257d60$a9b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "Phil Fish" <philthefish hotbot.com>
Subject: Kasparov Vs. The World
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 20:31:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED15C.7F887BC0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jjhy02.0.-r1.4veat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29144
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED15C.7F887BC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Wanna vote, Robin?    :-)

 http://www.zone.com/Kasparov/Home.asp

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED15C.7F887BC0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Kasparov Vs. The World.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Kasparov Vs. The World.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.zone.com/Kasparov/Home.asp

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.zone.com/Kasparov/Home.asp
Modified=40D59B928ED1BE0160

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED15C.7F887BC0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 18 19:34:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA08069;
	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:33:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:33:31 -0700
Message-ID: <009a01bed18e$eb6e7b00$1c8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <005801bed144$b00d5e40$1c8f85ce default> <37921AD7.263D4CEA@ix.netcom.com> <3795898b.4655408@mail-hub>
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 20:32:08 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"wcuxz1.0._z1.xveat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29145
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 bigpond.net.au>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 1999 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?

Gee, Robin, that sounds like the internet chess game that is going on with
Kasparov.

I think he is playing thousands of opponents that vote on the best move.

Regards,   Frederick


> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:20:43 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> [snip]
> >The problem is not that we lack ideas, the problem is that the ideas can
not be
> >tried.
> [snip]
> Perhaps if all the ideas were on the table, and we all had a
> brainstorming session, some ideas could be ruled out immediately,
> reducing the remainder to a more tractable number. Such a session may
> also be able to assign a "collective" probability, resulting in an order
> of preference for experiments.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 02:49:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA06857;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 02:48:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 02:48:27 -0700
Message-Id: <v01510101b3b8a2e0bf68 [195.132.13.201]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.1
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:59:18 +0200
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "JEAN DELAGARDE" <jlagarde cyberaccess.fr>
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"0WQO_1.0.3h1.gHlat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29146
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

After reading the new 20 page "Business Summary" in BLP site, you may
wonder why, with so many "independant" labs involved in verifications and
checkings of its incredible claims, the scientific world is still
practically ignorant of its work and why the papers everywhere are not full
of reports on Randell Mills and on his fantastic invention. May I have some
vortexian reactions on this ?

                                        Jean DeLagarde


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 03:43:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA11896;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 03:42:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 03:42:52 -0700
Message-ID: <000501bed1d3$48c00140$9eb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Xenon-Deuterium "Gas Lattice" Experiment
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:40:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"T8yWs2.0.ov2.h4mat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29147
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Since the laws of Nature are now being determined by Popular Vote, how would
you vote on this one, Robin?  :-)

A pressurized mix (100 to 3,000 Atm)of Deuterium and Xenon should come close
to the Cold Plasma conditions of Deuterium in Palladium:

          Ionization Potential (ev)

          I            II             III            no. of electrons

Pd    8.34      19.43       32.93              46

Xe   12.13      21.21       32.10              54

Ar    15.76     27.63        40.74              18

K     4.34      31.65         45.72               19

D   13.6        -----          -----               2 in D2

Xe gas is easier to come by than Pd, and should be self-healing,
easy to "dope" with CF activating agents, high melting point,
and not prone to forming stable oxides.

Regards,     Frederick








From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 04:24:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA20662;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:23:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:23:38 -0700
Message-ID: <001301bed1d9$b1908720$234eccd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:27:03 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"-9rI53.0.h25.vgmat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29148
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: JEAN DELAGARDE <jlagarde cyberaccess.fr>
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website


>After reading the new 20 page "Business Summary" in BLP site, you may
>wonder why, with so many "independant" labs involved in verifications and
>checkings of its incredible claims, the scientific world is still
>practically ignorant of its work and why the papers everywhere are not full
>of reports on Randell Mills and on his fantastic invention. May I have some
>vortexian reactions on this ?
>
>                                        Jean DeLagarde


Mill's problem is the same facing the CF community. The general science
community regards his theoretical structure as elaborate foolishness,
therefore experimental results are tangles of errors of some kind.
Self-published thick books delineating a new Theory of Everything are not
uncommon but do not garner serious attention. In the CF world, the lack of a
theoretical structure compatible with existing paradigms invalidates all the
experimental findings. It's that simple.

Mills has a strong board of directors and raised $10.6 million in funding
with another private offering of $5 million in play (I don't know if it has
been fully subscribed). He has spent some $6 million without any product
result. He has quite enough money to keep going for the present.

Mills business plan includes making a lot of noise and positioning BLP as a
household word in the near future.

As with CF, what is needed for the public is tangible products that can be
sold.

Originally Mills targeted the utility industry with the idea of retrofitting
utility power plants with BLP reactors running on water as a fuel, replacing
fossil fuel and nuclear. To get money, all he had to talk to was a handful
of executives and technical people who could risk discretionary funds. No
need to face mass-marketing problems.

Problem with this is that even if he could demonstrate a multi-kilowatt gas
phase reactor (not yet ready), the jump to a fully qualified megawatt
reactor is a very long and expensive road. I'd guess a decade and $XX
million. With fossil fuel currently cheap, there is little incentive for a
utility to go that route. (The preceding is the essence of a conversation I
had with Mills.)

The chemicals are tangible and samples can be given to qualified parties for
independent tests. They can do their own measurements and conclude that the
hydrino hydrides are evidence of a unique process and have unique
properties; they can even make compounds of interest.

Mills is putting a lot of chips on the battery possibilities. He has hydrino
hydrides which suggest the possibility of truly remarkable batteries that
would be revolutionary in their impact. But chemistry does not a useable
product make. There is here a $XX million product development program of XX
years duration before a product family is ready for prime time. Pursuit of
such an enterprise exceeds discretionary spending for most companies and the
decision process can be multi-month in duration.

As with the atomic bomb, they only true secret is that it could be built and
would work. In the six months since the new BLP website went up, there is
ample time for alliances to begin to form, and every incentive to do so very
quietly until actual products can be shown. Once it is obvious that the BLP
theory is not nonsense, there can be a rush to copy. BLP has patents on the
hydrino hydride family and can detect unlicensed production of the
compounds. The success of copiers will depend on control of the BLP process
to produce compounds of the required degree of collapse. The same goes for
energy production; there is every indication that commercial success goes
with multi-stage collapse, and controlling this will be a matter of
proprietary know-how.

I see Mills on a tightrope across a chasm, with fame and fortune on the
other side.

Mike Carrell

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 08:13:26 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12475;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:12:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:12:09 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3b8e4a3af92 [207.8.127.61]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990718090142.00938aa0 mail.eden.com>
References: <3790D6A2.650D7E21 ix.netcom.com>
 <v04011703b3b40407cf7a [207.8.127.67]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:09:25 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Latest on Russ George Cell from spf]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id IAA12454
Resent-Message-ID: <"IFGGP1.0.r23.81qat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29149
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>>> Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>> ...The diameter of the Bohr orbit is about 106 Å,
>
>Apologies to the group if this has already been pointed out:  Mitchell,
>you're off by a factor of 100.  It's 1.06 Angstroms for the ground state of
>the hydrogen atom.

***{It's a typo. I copied that number from a four year old post which
contained detailed calculations concerning the relationship between the
sizes of Pd lattice openings and the sizes of the H atoms that would be
trying to pass through those openings. The number was correct in the
original post, and so were the calculations. However, when I copied the
number forward, I inadvertently dropped the decimal point. --MJ}***

>
>Ed Storms wrote:
>
>>If you are going to use the concept of Bohr radius you must also
>acknowledge that
>>the concept applies only to an isolated atom. In addition, the idea of a
>fixed
>>radius was only accepted for a short time after which the electron was
>found to
>>occupy a region of space in which its location was defined by a probability
>>function.
>
>Correct...and the probability function for the ground state peaks at the
>nucleus.  Yes, this means the most likely location for the hydrogen atom's
>electron (in the ground state) is AT THE NUCLEUS.

***{The average position of the electron is at the center of the nucleus,
of course, but that does not mean that's its most likely location, or even
that you will *ever* find it there. (The average person has more than one
eye but less than two; but, clearly, no such "person" actually exists. :-)
--Mitchell Jones}***

 QM says you really need
>to abandon the notion that the electron orbits the proton in a circle with
>the Bohr radius.

***{The QM folks say a lot of things that demonstrably ain't so. Their
problem is that when they abandoned the concept of causality, they gave up
the ability to separate signal from noise. Result: they view the world
through a fog. --MJ}***

>
>
>
>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 Jul 19 08:57:43 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA23840;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:46:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:46:01 -0700
Message-ID: <19990719154547.81360.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [207.56.129.233]
From: "e lewis" <elewis1 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Using Radioactivity to Stimulate CF
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:45:47 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"YN-n83.0.Qq5.vWqat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29150
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Mitchell,

See the interspersed comment:

>From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Using Radioactivity to Stimulate CF
>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:15:02 -0500
>
> >Hi.
> >
> >This is weird.  I sent a vortex-l email which didn't appear on the list!
>
>***{The server appears to be inhabited by gremlins. Mostly it works, but
>sometimes it doesn't. I have no idea what causes it. --MJ}***
>
> >So here it goes again.
> >
> >Mitchell,
> >
> >I think your idea is interesting since you seem to focus on the change of
> >protons to neutrons, right?
>
>***{Sort of. The central idea that leads to the protoneutron concept is
>based on a question--to wit: if a proton is attracted into the lattice
>structure of a cathode and meets an electron, and if there isn't enough
>room for the electron to orbit at the Bohr radius (about 53Å), what
>happens? Logically, if there isn't room for the electron to orbit at the
>Bohr radius, it will still be attracted to the proton. (Coulomb's law
>presumably still applies.) Therefore, logic would seem to indicate that the
>electron will spiral down *below* the Bohr radius, to just above the
>"surface" of the proton, and begin to orbit there. (What *else* could it
>do?) If that happens, then the result is going to be a very unstable
>neutral particle that I have dubbed a "protoneutron." It is not a neutron
>because it has not picked up the .7875 MeV that would be required to
>transform it into a neutron. Likewise, it is not a hydrogen atom, either,
>because its electron lacks the space that it would need to orbit at the
>Bohr radius. On the other hand, the object is not a "hydrino," because I do
>not claim that it is a stable particle, or that there are fractional orbits
>below the Bohr radius. Instead, I view the protoneutron as a *wildly
>unstable* particle that exists only within confined spaces that do not
>permit it to expand into a hydrogen atom, or to pick up the energy it needs
>to become a neutron. So long as it does exist, however, I would expect it



Ok, could you explain if you knew of any evidence back when you first 
thought of this about people using radiation in this way?  When did you 
first think of this?  Could you analyze Conte's paper in this way too?  Ed


>hunger for the energy of transformation--the .7875 MeV that is needed to
>turn it into a neutron--and I would expect a cathode with a large
>population of protoneutrons to respond to incident radiation by producing
>neutrons, which would then precipitate nuclear reactions, which would then
>produce radioactivity. Most of that radioactivity, of course, would be
>absorbed by the lattice or by other protoneutrons, but under the right
>circumstances enough of it might escape to explain the results of the
>experiment that you conducted. (The cobalt-60 that was probably in your
>radioactive source decays with the emission of a 1.33 MeV gamma, which
>would supply the .7875 MeV needed to transform a protoneutron into a
>neutron, with energy to spare.)
>
>Letting pn symbolize a protoneutron, I would sum up as follows:
>
>(1) p + e + space --> H
>
>(2) p + e + no space --> pn
>
>(3) pn + .7875 MeV --> n
>
>(4) And, of course, a neutron can facilitate lots of reactions that produce
>radiation--e.g.: n + H --> D + 2.22 MeV, etc.
>
>Bottom line: when you moved the radioactive source near the cathode in your
>experiment, you may have been supplying the .7875 MeV required in step (3).
>(Assuming that CF is real and that the protoneutron theory is the correct
>explanation for how it occurs.)
>
>An alternative to the Pons-Fleischmann type of electrolysis experiments
>would be to expose an appropriately sized lattice structure to a gas such
>as D2, at temperatures and pressures that would force some molecules into
>spaces where the electrons of the constituent atoms would not be able to
>maintain the Bohr radius. Examples are the experiments of Les Case and Russ
>George. If a deuterium atom were forced into an appropriately confining
>space, the result might be the generation of a deuteroneutron--i.e., an
>electron skimming the surface of a deuterium nucleus. If we symbolize a
>deuteroneutron by dn, we have:
>
>(1) D2 + no space --> 2dn
>
>(2) 2dn --> He-4 + 23.8 MeV
>
>The reason (2) might work is that the two deuteroneutrons, being
>electrically neutral, would be able to approach without experiencing
>significant Coulomb repulsion. As for why the 23.8 MeV does not manifest as
>a gamma, perhaps the cramped spaces somehow couple the energy to the
>lattice, yielding up phonons--lattice vibrations--rather than gammas. Maybe
>there is a space requirement for the generation of gammas, just as their is
>a space requirement for the production of an H atom.
>
>While the observed levels of He-4 in the Case experiment may be due to
>contamination, I must admit that applying the protoneutron type of analysis
>to the Case design makes it more plausible to me. The reason is that if the
>protoneutron theory is valid, then an underlying commonality can be seen to
>link the Case protocol with that of Pons & Fleischmann--and to that of
>James Patterson as well, come to think of it. Without such a commonality, I
>see the Case experiment as a blind stab in the dark, and, while such stabs
>may be acceptable to Ed Storms, they are most assuredly not acceptable to
>me. (Sorry for the dig, Ed. I don't know what  came over me! :-)
>
>--Mitchell Jones}***
>
>[snip}
>
> >
> >Ed
>
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 09:05:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA29806;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:04:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:04:09 -0700
Message-ID: <37934C85.67A30F8 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:04:33 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Pd-Hg Phase Diagram, Potarite?
References: <005801bed144$b00d5e40$1c8f85ce default> <37921AD7.263D4CEA@ix.netcom.com> <3795898b.4655408@mail-hub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gz1WV3.0.eH7.unqat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29151
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:20:43 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> [snip]
> >The problem is not that we lack ideas, the problem is that the ideas can not be
> >tried.
> [snip]
> Perhaps if all the ideas were on the table, and we all had a
> brainstorming session, some ideas could be ruled out immediately,
> reducing the remainder to a more tractable number. Such a session may
> also be able to assign a "collective" probability, resulting in an order
> of preference for experiments.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

Perhaps, but unless money were available to explore those that remained, the effort
would still be a waste of time.  In spite of my ideal view of science I share with
you, I have learned from hard experience that ideas, even very good ones, are not
enough.  In addition, such brainstorming sessions are generally useful only when
the participants have a shared goal, such as employees of a company trying to
produce a product or a research group focused on a narrow problem.  It is too easy
for such a discussion to decay into a bull secession and be distracted by other
issues as has been seen to happen during discussions on Vortex.

Regards,
Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 09:19:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA02194;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:17:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:17:43 -0700
From: BriggsRO aol.com
Message-ID: <49e3c221.24c4a996 aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:17:26 EDT
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 24
Resent-Message-ID: <"-I4b03.0.7Y.c-qat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29152
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In a message dated 7/19/99 4:24:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mikec snip.net 
writes:

<< As with CF, what is needed for the public is tangible products that can be
 sold. >>
Mike, 
A useful product on the market would be very convincing but even before that, 
if Mills (or Case) could demonstrate a self-sustaining reactor that would 
produce output energy with no input energy after a startup boost,  I think it 
would be very difficult for the scientific establishment to ignore. I recall 
reading a Mills announcement of a project to make a self sustaining reactor 
almost two years ago with a projected completion date of a few months.  It 
must not be as easy as he thought at that time.

Bob Briggs

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 09:30:41 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA26299;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:15:05 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk> <378A23A7.24D2FECF@ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub> <3790E060.7796D4DD@ix.netcom.com> <379125ac.610868574@mail-hub> <3791DD3A.1820BFC8@ix.netcom.com> <37948236.2777839@mail-hub>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"XCvw-2.0.qQ6.o1rat" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29153
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

>
> Now that this has come up, perhaps this is the appropriate time for me
> to suggest something I have had in the back of my mind for a while.
> (Mind you, it has probably been suggested by others previously).
> It goes something like this:
> The shell filling of Rh is 4d85s1, while that of Pd makes a jump to
> 4d105s0, finding it apparently energetically more beneficial to complete
> the filling of the 4d than that of the 5s. This has the consequence of
> leaving the 5s empty. So perhaps two D's can bind with a single Pd using
> the vacant 5s. Perhaps also this bond results in the two D's being
> closer together than usual (on average?). If so, then perhaps this type
> of bond can lead to fusion, particularly as the many other electrons of
> the Pd might provide screening for the D's.
>
> I mention this now, only because it results in a Pd:D2 ratio, and seems
> to fit with your own observations and suspicions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

The electron structure will affect the ability of a compound to form and the structure of
that compound, but I do not see how this can be a mechanism for a nuclear reaction.  Any
successful mechanism must answer five questions.

1. How can the coulomb barrier be overcome?
2. How can the resulting energy release be coupled to the general lattice, not to the
nuclear products?
3. Why does He form rather than products from the other fusion branches?
4. What mechanism causes multiple additions of nuclei to the metal nuclei in the material?
5. What is the nature of the environment required for the above processes to operate?

Unless all of these questions can be answered, the theory is incomplete and essentially
useless.  I suggest you think in terms of these questions.

Regards,
Ed Storms


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 10:41:10 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA28171;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:39:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:39:14 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3b90d1d3604 [207.8.127.61]>
In-Reply-To: <19990719154547.81360.qmail hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:37:43 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Using Radioactivity to Stimulate CF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id KAA28145
Resent-Message-ID: <"KAdho.0.0u6.1Bsat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29154
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell,
>
>See the interspersed comment:
>
>>From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
>>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>>Subject: Using Radioactivity to Stimulate CF
>>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:15:02 -0500
>>
>> >Hi.
>> >
>> >This is weird.  I sent a vortex-l email which didn't appear on the list!
>>
>>***{The server appears to be inhabited by gremlins. Mostly it works, but
>>sometimes it doesn't. I have no idea what causes it. --MJ}***
>>
>> >So here it goes again.
>> >
>> >Mitchell,
>> >
>> >I think your idea is interesting since you seem to focus on the change of
>> >protons to neutrons, right?
>>
>>***{Sort of. The central idea that leads to the protoneutron concept is
>>based on a question--to wit: if a proton is attracted into the lattice
>>structure of a cathode and meets an electron, and if there isn't enough
>>room for the electron to orbit at the Bohr radius (about .53Å), what
>>happens? Logically, if there isn't room for the electron to orbit at the
>>Bohr radius, it will still be attracted to the proton. (Coulomb's law
>>presumably still applies.) Therefore, logic would seem to indicate that the
>>electron will spiral down *below* the Bohr radius, to just above the
>>"surface" of the proton, and begin to orbit there. (What *else* could it
>>do?) If that happens, then the result is going to be a very unstable
>>neutral particle that I have dubbed a "protoneutron." It is not a neutron
>>because it has not picked up the .7875 MeV that would be required to
>>transform it into a neutron. Likewise, it is not a hydrogen atom, either,
>>because its electron lacks the space that it would need to orbit at the
>>Bohr radius. On the other hand, the object is not a "hydrino," because I do
>>not claim that it is a stable particle, or that there are fractional orbits
>>below the Bohr radius. Instead, I view the protoneutron as a *wildly
>>unstable* particle that exists only within confined spaces that do not
>>permit it to expand into a hydrogen atom, or to pick up the energy it needs
>>to become a neutron. So long as it does exist, however, I would expect it
>
>
>
>Ok, could you explain if you knew of any evidence back when you first
>thought of this about people using radiation in this way? When did you
>first think of this?

***{I had the germ of the idea shortly after Pons and Fleischmann announced
their result--within a week or so of the original announcement, if memory
serves. Thus the presumed validity of their result was the only evidence I
had at that time. (Unless, of course, you count my generalized distrust of
much of "modern" physics as part of the mix. :-) Of course, the idea has
evolved a lot since then, as I have encountered various objections and have
tweaked my presentation where appropriate, in order to deal with them.
Indeed, while the idea is simple, the applications are complex enough so
that it is easy to make mistakes and misstatements, and I continue to do
that on occasion. Thus it is a subject that I remain interested in
discussing and arguing about. I would add that I am not yet convinced that
the theory is true, because I am still not convinced that CF is real. If it
does turn out to be real, however, then something very much like the
protoneutron theory will be necessary to explain it. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Could you analyze Conte's paper in this way too?  Ed

***{I don't know, since I haven't read it. If you can point me to an
appropriate URL, I'll be happy to check it out. --MJ}***

[snip]

>> >
>> >Ed
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 10:47:55 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA30422;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:45:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:45:51 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990716205852.00c89eb0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:58:52 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: RE: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at Niagara
  Falls?
In-Reply-To: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0215B25D XCH-CPC-02>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"8clm8.0.GR7.FHsat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29155
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:11 PM 7/12/1999 -0700, Scudder, Henry J wrote:
>Robert
>	Is there any chance you can post copies of these papers, either by
>e-mail or by putting them on your home page.

    Papers are not a good place to start, but if you have read (books by)
Penrose, Wheeler, and Hawking, here are some more recent developments.

    Okay, go refresh your knowledge of the famous Schroedinger's cat:
                   
http://www.emr.hibu.no/lars/eng/cat/Default.htm

    And finally seeing that the cat is dead and alive:

http://www.fusionist.com/celestial/infokill/schroed.htm
http://www.physics.nist.gov/News/Releases/n96-18.html

    Can QM be reconciled with causality?  Let's start with theory.  Let's
ask a "simple" question.  Is it possible to ignore non-local states when
computing QM probabilities?  No:

http://www.ed-phys.fr/articles/euro/full/1996/21/b35302/b35302.html

    Note that this really asks a subtly different question from the one it
seems to.  The state of the emitter at time T does not depend on the
presence or absence of observers at time T, it depends on the probability
of a photon emitted at time T being observed at some point in the future.

    Now go to the transactional interpretation of QM.  In this model, the
relation between quantum probability waves and reality is that the quantum
waves are advanced waves (i.e. travelling backward in time) and when the
wave reaches the emitter of the retarded wave it is absorbed.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/ti_over/ti_over.html

   Okay, but older phyicists will say that these are nice models of
reality, but they are not testable.  If a photon is emitted, you can't
detect that before it hits the detector.  But this is where entangled
states come in.  If we measure the state of the emitter, we can determine
whether or not it has decayed.  This experiment is usually done by
measuring a decay from an excited state rather than a nuclear decay, but it
has been done.  AFAIK though, no one has managed to use the effect to send
messages to the past.

   Now read the paper by Chiao that is most of this document:
http://www.qedcorp.com/Q/ChiaoBell.html.  (Note the references are a good
guidt to the "standard" QM references.)   The key observation in this
paper, as far as I am concerned is the mention that Bell's Theorem depends
on a lack of advanced waves, as well as reality and locality.

     Okay, now to argue my position.  I said that one of the three, QM,
relativity, and causality must go, and that I and others think that the
conflict between QM and causality is independent of relativity.  The paper
by B. Crosignani and P. Di Porto above does not depend on relativity when
it shows the conflict between locality and QM.  But the conflict goes
further, and demonstrates a conflict between QM and causality.  If whether
or not a particle will undergo spontaneous emission at time T depends on
whether or not the emitted photon will be observed at a later time T', this
is a clear violation of causality.   Note that the key part of this
argument is theory.  The experiments have been done, but only looking for
whether or not observation can affect decay probabilities.  The experiments
I know of didn't attempt to violate causality, just to measure the observer
effect.

   Now to go a bit farther.  This paper gets a into the relationship
between human perception and quantum mechanics, and again seems to support
an advaced wave (transactional interpretation) model of QM:

http://www.hia.com/pcr/wolf/libet.html

   And finally, why the Nimtz results imply causality violation.  (Although
this article is from a popular magazine, note that the author is the same
as on the transactional QM paper above.  Or you can hunt up the original
Nimtz papers.)  

http://mist.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw75.html

   Did that answer your question?  (I hope not, but it should give you a
place to start.)


                                        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 Jul 19 12:37:58 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA29434;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:34:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:34:44 -0700
Message-Id: <199907191934.PAA07461 fh105.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at NiagaraFalls?
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:30:31 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"FJYlx3.0.pB7.Jttat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29156
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> AFAIK though, no one has managed to use the effect to send
> messages to the past.

First of all: has anything been seen which DOES move backwards in time? If
not, then the physical theory, no matter how many Ph. D's have worked on
it, is not proven. It is pure conjecture. Now go do an experiment.
 
>      Okay, now to argue my position.  I said that one of the three, QM,
> relativity, and causality must go, and that I and others think that the
> conflict between QM and causality is independent of relativity.  

Not necessarily true. QM shows us: superluminal processes and nonlocal
action. No time travel event has been observed to date. For now, causality
and QM seem okay together. Relativity says: No FTL can happen, or you have
time travel. We have FTL actions, and haven't seen any time travel effects
in them to date. Therefore, who is more likely to be wrong, relativity or
QM? If both say FTL should have causality violations, yet we don't see any,
it is obvious that theoretical physics needs to be revised somewhat.

>The paper
> by B. Crosignani and P. Di Porto above does not depend on relativity when
> it shows the conflict between locality and QM.  But the conflict goes
> further, and demonstrates a conflict between QM and causality.  If
whether
> or not a particle will undergo spontaneous emission at time T depends on
> whether or not the emitted photon will be observed at a later time T',
this
> is a clear violation of causality.   Note that the key part of this
> argument is theory.  The experiments have been done, but only looking for
> whether or not observation can affect decay probabilities.  The
experiments
> I know of didn't attempt to violate causality, just to measure the
observer
> effect.

Good. Then we have an unproven physical theory. To prove whether it is
right or not does not require a couple of scientists writing papers to
support it. It requires a carefully conducted experiment to prove or
disprove the theory. That is science.

>    And finally, why the Nimtz results imply causality violation. 

Nimtz supported FTL, not causality violation, AFAIK. A _human contrived
theory_ supported causality violation. If we think there is some way to
communicate backwards in time with Nimtz's system, we need an experiment,
not more theories. Maybe I sound a bit harsh, but I am somewhat tired of
Ph.D's thinking that a theory they create is better than a well-thought-out
experiment. The experiment also need not be performed by a Ph.D, regardless
of what the science journal's may say. A result is worth a hundred
theories.

--Kyle

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 13:27:45 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA09448;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <004901bed223$aaf7afc0$9eb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Palladium-Alkali Metal Phase Diagrams
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:15:31 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"MuGDp.0.YJ2.yXuat" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29157
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

In the late 60s I worked with Lithium-Tin as an isotope-fueled power
generator (The Thermally Regenerative Galvanic Cell) in collaboration with
Cairns at Argonne Labs.

Interesting there are "alloys" of the alkali metals with the heavier metals.
I recall a very exothermic reaction between Lithium and copper.

Unfortunately, my metallurgical Oracle-Mentor, Dr. Maurice M. Karnowsky, a
Sandia Labs Cohort for many years, passed away last December, so my access
to Hansen's ; Constitution of Binary Alloys, along with lucid explanations
of the content has been terminated.  :-(

The point is, there could be uptake of  Potassium or Lithium by the Pd
cathode along with the Hydrogen, which could make things interesting,
CF-wise.

What say you, Ed?

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 14:11:51 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03195;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:09:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:09:52 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990719161232.014f70fc mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:12:32 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Latest on Russ George Cell from spf]
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3b8e4a3af92 [207.8.127.61]>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990718090142.00938aa0 mail.eden.com>
 <3790D6A2.650D7E21 ix.netcom.com>
 <v04011703b3b40407cf7a [207.8.127.67]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"AT-Ff.0.nn.WGvat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29158
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:09 7/19/99 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>***{The average position of the electron is at the center of the nucleus,
>of course, but that does not mean that's its most likely location...

According to QM, it is.  The PROBABILITY function for the electron's
location peaks at the nucleus (when the electron is in the ground state).

>***{The QM folks say a lot of things that demonstrably ain't so.

Maybe so...but only in more exotic areas of physics.  When it comes to
simple systems like the hydrogen atom, QM is correct...and your intuition
is likely incorrect.

I'm certainly receptive to a new theory which supplants QM...but there is
one undeniable prerequisite: it will have to align with most of QM's
predictions.  That's because most of QM's predictions have been proven
correct by experiment.  Why else would something as uncomfortable as QM be
accepted!?

And don't feel bad if you find QM confusing. I believe Feynman said that
anybody who claims to really understand QM doesn't.



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 Jul 19 14:21:12 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA05205;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:13:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:13:39 -0700
Message-ID: <37939544.676C1E5E bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:14:44 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
References: <001301bed1d9$b1908720$234eccd1 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2FA0C2.0.EH1.3Kvat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29159
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mike Carrell wrote:
> 
> From: JEAN DELAGARDE <jlagarde cyberaccess.fr>
> Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
> 
> >After reading the new 20 page "Business Summary" in BLP site, you may
> >wonder why, with so many "independant" labs involved in verifications and
> >checkings of its incredible claims, the scientific world is still
> >practically ignorant of its work and why the papers everywhere are not full
> >of reports on Randell Mills and on his fantastic invention. May I have some
> >vortexian reactions on this ?

<snip>

> Problem with this is that even if he could demonstrate a multi-kilowatt gas
> phase reactor (not yet ready), the jump to a fully qualified megawatt
> reactor is a very long and expensive road. I'd guess a decade and $XX
> million. With fossil fuel currently cheap, there is little incentive for a
> utility to go that route. (The preceding is the essence of a conversation I
> had with Mills.)

<snip>

A typical coal-fired generator has a capacity of 818 MW.  The
average plant has two to four such machines providing up to 3.3
GigaWatts.  No doubt it would take a decade to reach to this
magnitude.

The fuel may be cheap for coal plants; but, how do we price the
impact on the ecosystem?  I know that, here in Atlanta, I use
approximately 10 lbs of baking soda per month in my 16' x 32'
swimming pool to maintain the total alkalinity due to acid rain. 
And if the greenhouse effect is real, what is the cost of a 3
centigrade degree rise in the average temperature?  The loss of all
our beaches?  A shifting of the food belt?

No offense intended, Mike.  It's just that I believe that a
Manhattan-esque project is justified to scale up the first viable
alternative fuel system . . both financially and morally.

Regards,
Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 14:56:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA17640;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:52:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:52:55 -0700
Message-ID: <37939E7D.334EB16F ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:54:12 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Palladium-Alkali Metal Phase Diagrams
References: <004901bed223$aaf7afc0$9eb4bfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"oWmKX.0.YJ4.tuvat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29160
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

>
> The point is, there could be uptake of  Potassium or Lithium by the Pd
> cathode along with the Hydrogen, which could make things interesting,
> CF-wise.
>
> What say you, Ed?
>
> Regards,     Frederick

Yes, Pd forms an alloy with Li and this alloy reacts with hydrogen.  This effect
has been addressed in detail in my paper ( "The Nature of the Energy-Active
State in Pd-D" E. K. Storms, Infinite Energy, 1, #5 & 6, (1996) 77. ) In
addition, several people have measured the concentration and depth of Li in Pd
after electrolysis in a P-F cell.  Deposition of this element may be the cause
of the long delay required for a P-F cell to turn on.  Potassium reacts less
rapidly than Li because it can not diffuse into the Pd as rapidly, a process
which is required to prevent back reaction.  In any case, the amount of Li is
too small to account for the excess as chemical energy.

Regards,
Ed




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 15:09:07 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA24290;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:07:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:07:23 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990719180923.00b2f100 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:09:23 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Xenon-Deuterium "Gas Lattice" Experiment
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <000501bed1d3$48c00140$9eb4bfa8 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3QN9R1.0.Sx5.R6wat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29161
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:40 AM 7/19/1999 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:

>Xe gas is easier to come by than Pd, and should be self-healing,
>easy to "dope" with CF activating agents, high melting point,
>and not prone to forming stable oxides.

    Sorry, I HAVE to respond to this.  I hope it is only a troll.  XeO3 is
stable in solution.  It is also stable in crystaline 

                                        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 Jul 19 15:09:52 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA24329;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:07:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:07:31 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990719180444.00799830 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:04:44 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Report on visit to Mizuno and Ohmori
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZanpY1.0.-x5.Y6wat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29162
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Here is a partial, belated report on my trip to visit Mizuno. As I
mentioned, I do not have the videotapes so I am missing some details. I am
optimistic that the tapes can be read. We will know in a few days.

I traveled to the University of Hokkaido from July 10 to 14, and visited
with the following people, listed in alphabetical order:

Akimoto, Tadashi - Prof., specializes in neutron and charge particle detection
Katagiri, Tomoki - 4th year engineering student, doing spectroscopy in
Mizuno's lab
Kawasaki, Tomako - Mizuno's assistant
Mizuno, Tadahiko - Prof. electrochemistry
Ohmori, Tadayoshi - Prof. electrochemistry

(I did not meet them in alphabetical order, methodical though I am.)

On Saturday, July 10, I familiarized myself with the instruments, and we
performed a brief calibration run with flow calorimetry. Mizuno is now
concentrating mostly on a form of simple isoperibolic calorimetry with a
well insulated cell, instead of flow calorimetry. He is developing a
high-pressure steel cell which will require flow calorimetry. Mizuno and
Ohmori are using a variety of different cells and techniques for different
purposes, a fact which was not clear from the draft of the paper I am
working with. During the runs to look for neutrons and transmutations, a
special plastic closed cell is used. After runs with the ordinary open,
quartz glass cell, some analysis of the cathode material can be performed,
but the results are doubtful because of potential contamination.

Concerns have been expressed here about issues like radio frequency (RF)
affecting the thermocouples. Mizuno and Ohmori have used a variety of
different configurations and instruments, which have effectively eliminated
these areas of concern in my opinion, for the following reasons:

1. Many runs were done with a mercury or alcohol thermometers instead of
thermocouples. This was not only because of RF, although Ohmori said that
with his set up RF is a severe problem and it is the main reason he uses
alcohol thermometers exclusively. Mizuno said RF was a problem initially
but that his thermocouple leads are well grounded and compensated, so no
longer appears to be a problem.

2. The water is pumped from a large constant temperature bath, which has
extremely precise control over the bath temperature. The bath was
remaindered from the NHE and it must cost a fortune. The inlet thermocouple
agreed closely with the bath temperature. The bath was above ambient and
the water traveled three meters to the cell, so it was slightly cooler when
it reached the inlet thermocouple

3. In some runs (including the calibration I ran), the electrolyte
temperature was monitored with a mercury thermometer. The thermocouple
agreed closely with the thermometer, and the thermocouple showed no
significant downward fluctuations, which would be impossible. The cell came
to boil audibly and visibly at the exact moment the thermocouple registered
99 deg. Since the inlet and the cell temperature thermocouples were
demonstrably correct, it is hard to believe that only the outlet one was
wrong.

4. I taped a thermistor to the outlet tube and it agreed with the outlet
thermocouple to within 2 or 3 degrees. The outlet temperature was ten
degrees hotter than the inlet, and 15 degrees warmer than ambient. By the
time the water returned from the outlet thermocouple to the constant
temperature bath three meters away, it was several degrees cooler.


On Monday, July 12 we performed three runs with the simple
bomb-calorimeter, isoperibolic heat-up method that has been successfully
used at the Kansai Research Center to replicate this experiment. The first
run produced no heat; the second and third produced significant, convincing
levels of heat. In the third run, excess was ~12% overall, or 50% during
the periods when excess heat was present. The heat required to warm the
water alone did not exceed input. Heat loss to radiation is significant
even though the cell is well insulated with several centimeters of
Styrofoam. Radiation becomes critical above ~90 deg C. It can be accounted
for easily and accurately by examining the heat decay curve, which is
always measured after power is turned off. The curve taken between five
degree intervals reasonably linear. Using simple methods, you can determine
that the heat loss is ~25 watts when the temperature is close to boiling,
and ~15 watts at 80 degrees. I'm not quite sure how Mizuno computes this; I
will review his method with him. Ohmori's equations are in the draft of an
unpublished paper which I have here, and which I would reproduce but it has
Greek letters, superscripts and what not so to heck with it for now. Here
is how I compute the heat loss for one example:

The thermal mass consists of a kilogram of water and 500 grams of Pyrex.
According to Mizuno's handbook the specific heat of Pyrex is 0.810 joules
per gram, or 1/5 the specific heat of water, so it is like having 1,100
grams of water total. I took a starting points 20 seconds after the power
turned off. Over the next 310 seconds the temperature dropped from 99.2 to
97.4 deg C, or 1.8 degrees. That's 1.8 deg C * 4.18 * 1,100 grams = 8,276
joules. Divided by 310 seconds equals ~27 watts.

Here is input compared to output:

The run was 640 seconds long. The starting temperature was 86.0 deg C. The
instantaneous electric power readings for each 10 second interval added up
to 68 kilojoules input. The mass of water was 1 kg. Temperature increased
13 deg C. 1 kg * 13 deg C * 4.18 = 55 kilojoules, which is only 80% of
input. However, the 500 gram Pyrex container also rose 13 degrees and
absorbed 5 kilojoules, and the cell radiated 16 kilojoules, so total output
was 76 kJ, 112% of input. The question is, did the cell really radiate 16
kJ? For that I must consult with Mizuno, who computed that number.

During the calibration runs this calorimeter and these algorithms
repeatedly came out very close to unity, with values like 99.990% and
100.008%.


Here are some details about the experimental method that have not been
explained clearly in the papers or messages sent to Scott Little. Perhaps
these procedures explain why he is not been able to replicate the heat. It
is impossible for Mizuno, Scott Little or I to know for sure that the
following points really are critical and that they constitute the "missing
information" that will allow Scott to succeed. To really pin down the
differences between the experiments, we would have to look at the equipment
side-by-side, and then do a sophisticated analysis of the cathode surfaces.
Anyway, here are some starting points:

1. Clean everything carefully. Details will be on the videotape, I hope.

2. Use a highly pure, clean platinum anode. Nickel and other elements in
less pure anodes will plate out onto the cathode, and prevent the excess
heat effect.

3. It is best to score (scratch) the surface of the cathode. Post
experiment micro-photos and spectroscopic analyses show melted tungsten and
apparent transmutations at reaction sites where the surface is uneven.

4. To score the cathodes, you need glass fragments. Here is Ohmori's method:

	Put a clean Pyrex vessel in a plastic bag (Mizuno uses quartz glass).

	Smash it with hammer.

	Clean the fragments in warm aqua regia for ten minutes. Wash
	thoroughly in Milli-Q water.

	Watch your fingers when you use it, to avoid cuts and to avoid touching
	the cathode with the part of the glass your fingers touch.

	Scrape each side at least 100 times, in an XXX pattern (scratch one
	direction, then the other).

	Wash cathode in Milli-Q water after scoring. Ohmori does not perform
	any additional cleaning at this stage. He suggested it might even be
	counter-productive. (The cathode is quite clean when he begins.)

5. Age the cathode for at least an hour with ordinary electrolysis, at
fairly high power levels, below glow discharge. Details are on the tape.

6. Use the bomb calorimeter heat-up method first. It is easier. Flow
calorimetry calls for controlling the temperature by varying the flow rate,
which keeps the experiment are very busy. The process could be automated of
course, but why spend time automating your calorimetry when another method
works easily. If the bomb calorimeter  works, you can always go back to
flow calorimetry later on.

The advantages to aging (or tempering) are clear. Ohmori recommends
ordinary electrolysis aging, but low-level glow discharge may be effective
too. Here are some of Mizuno's sample results summarized. This is with the
1-liter cell heat up method. The same plate was run 5 times on July 8. The
first four runs, for 4000 seconds total, were deliberately set a low power
and low temperatures, where excess heat does not occur.

				Volts		Duration	Average Energy Balance
Date		Cathode	Maximum	Seconds	Input/Output ratio
1999/7/8	W plate	100 V		1200		1.008
1999/7/8	W plate	120 V		1200		1.024
1999/7/8	W plate	160 V		1200		1.028
1999/7/8	W plate	180 V		1200		1.028
1999/7/8	W plate	200 V		800		1.103

Average is ~10% excess for entire run. Excess appeared during the last 5
minutes of the run, and when it was present the balance was much larger
than ~10%. Excess peaked at 300% before the plate melted and the run was
terminated.

- Jed


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 15:22:58 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA29981;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:19:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:19:25 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990719182137.00b03b50 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:21:37 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Xenon-Deuterium "Gas Lattice" Experiment
In-Reply-To: <000501bed1d3$48c00140$9eb4bfa8 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"sHtRB.0.MK7.iHwat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29163
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

(Sorry about the previous partial message, I hit the wrong key when editing.)

At 04:40 AM 7/19/1999 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:

>Xe gas is easier to come by than Pd, and should be self-healing,
>easy to "dope" with CF activating agents, high melting point,
>and not prone to forming stable oxides.

    Sorry, I HAVE to respond to this.  I hope it is only a troll.  XeO3 is
stable in solution.  It is also stable in crystalline form at STP, but
don't breathe hard if you are near it.  (It is one of the nastiest
explosives known, so don't try this at home kiddies, unless you really know
what you are doing.  The only thing I can think of which is more lethal
than XeO3 if you don't handle it very carefully is fluorine gas, and guess
what you start with.)

    The usual way to make XeO3 is to mix fluorine and xenon in a nickel
container at 400 degrees C for several hours, then add water:
          XeF4 + 2 H2O --> XeO2 + 4 HF
          2 XeO2 + O2 --> 2 XeO3

    (Although it isn't really clear what the intermediates are with
partially oxygenated water.  But with pure water with no disssolved oxygen,
it is possible
to make and study XeO2.  There is also a xenon hexafluoride.)

                                        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 Jul 19 15:28:52 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA00692;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:27:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:27:11 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990719183001.009a8420 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:30:01 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Definition please
In-Reply-To: <379175e8.434750426 mail-hub>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"JzVfm.0.bA.-Owat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29164
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:01 AM 7/16/1999 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
 
>Can someone provide me with the precise definition of the term: "fission
>spectrum average", as used in the table of the nuclides at bnl?

    Sure, it is referring to the fraction of that isotope found in the
debris from (Uranium or Plutonium) fission.  Some nucleotides show up
considerably more often than others.
 

                                        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 Jul 19 15:36:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02552;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:30:04 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:30:04 -0700
From: SEALOVE100 aol.com
Message-ID: <ce6eb847.24c500b2 aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:29:06 EDT
Subject:  Re: Update from BLP Website
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 15
Resent-Message-ID: <"1j7pP2.0.od.hRwat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29165
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

unsubscribe please

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 15:37:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA05552;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:35:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:35:40 -0700
Message-ID: <379345A9.5771852F cwnet.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:35:30 +0000
From: Jones Beene <jonesb9 cwnet.com>
Reply-To: jonesb9 cwnet.com
Organization: IdeaWorks Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: protoneutron theory- was CF/OU...
References: <005801bed144$b00d5e40$1c8f85ce default> <37921AD7.263D4CEA@ix.netcom.com> <3795898b.4655408@mail-hub>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Md-Ky2.0.ZM1.wWwat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29166
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>[snip]
> Take a look at
<A HREF="http://hpngp01.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/w3graf?n=Pd105&l=n&amp;amp;m=102">http://hpngp01.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/w3graf?n=Pd105&amp;l=n&amp;amp;m=102</A> .

If I read this correctly, then a low energy neutron (slightly > 10 eV)
has a good chance of fissioning Pd105. So a proton shielded in some way
by one or more electrons may also have a good chance....</pre>
</blockquote>
Robin,
<p>This cross section chart, if I am getting to the same page that your
are, is not for fission as you post suggests. Rather it is an absorption
cross section, and - yes - it is surprisingly high. The Pd atom presents
nearly 1000 times its own geometric cross section to absorb a neutron at
around 10ev.
<p>But serendipity is at work as you may have stumbled onto something that
forms a major fit with Mitchell Jones' protoneutron theory. When you combine
the high absorption cross section of this isotope together with the "cramped
spaces" of deuterium in the lattice, the stage is set for some QM weirdness.
The resultant extra Pd106 in CF electrodes would probably have gone unnoticed,
as it is the primary isotope anyway and who would have been looking for
it?
<p>Actually, there have are a number of similar ideas to the protoneutron
theory (i.e. theories that depend on a not yet proven "virtual" neutral
particle) floating around including the "hydron" of Mayer and Reitz, which
suggest that&nbsp; the&nbsp; excess&nbsp; heat and other nuclear&nbsp;
products detected in CF involve an isotope switch mediated by a short-lived
neutral particle. Mayer calls his theorized reactions RDNR or Resonant
Direct Nuclear Reactions. They are discussed in "Fusion Technology" a few
years back (sorry, I've lost the cite). Probably more to the point, but
harder to understand is Conte's biquaternion quantum mechanics going back
to 1994.
<p>So, here is your serendipity. The Pd105 (n,gamma) reaction emits a photon
very close to the needed .78 MeV that Mitchell suggests would be necessary
to create the neutron. Ah, but there's the rub, says your non-QM subconscious...
how can the gamma precede the absorption? Well, the chicken and egg paradox
gets even stranger at a few angstroms. Without getting into super luminosity
and all that jazz, lets just say that there is some evidence of time reversal
at these distances.
<p>As to why the gamma couldn't come from adjoining but previous in "normal
time" CF reactions, the answer is simple. Gammas have been surprisingly
absent from day one in CF research, and BTW that fact has been the skeptics
most convincing argument. So, indeed, we may be left with a QM interpretation
for CF after all.
<p>I think I'll go back and try to understand Conte's piece. That guy may
know more than he is getting credit for.
<p>Regards,
<br>Jones
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre></pre>
</blockquote>
</html>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 15:57:54 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA15832;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:53:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:53:09 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990719185558.00c93480 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:55:58 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Metaphysics, was: Re: No math...Re: ZPE/OU at NiagaraFalls?
In-Reply-To: <199907191934.PAA07461 fh105.infi.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"z1ibM3.0.It3.Knwat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29167
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:30 PM 7/19/1999 -0500, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
>First of all: has anything been seen which DOES move backwards in time? If
>not, then the physical theory, no matter how many Ph. D's have worked on
>it, is not proven. It is pure conjecture. Now go do an experiment.

    It is a non-trivial experiment, but it is within reach of current
technology.  The problem is that any government that financed such research
would only make it public if it didn't work.

>>      Okay, now to argue my position.  I said that one of the three, QM,
>> relativity, and causality must go, and that I and others think that the
>> conflict between QM and causality is independent of relativity.  

>Not necessarily true. QM shows us: superluminal processes and nonlocal
>action. No time travel event has been observed to date. For now, causality
>and QM seem okay together. Relativity says: No FTL can happen, or you have
>time travel. We have FTL actions, and haven't seen any time travel effects
>in them to date. Therefore, who is more likely to be wrong, relativity or
>QM? If both say FTL should have causality violations, yet we don't see any,
>it is obvious that theoretical physics needs to be revised somewhat.

     You are stating the common position that one of the three must go.
The other position, which I take is that QM is inherently non-causal.
 
>Good. Then we have an unproven physical theory. To prove whether it is
>right or not does not require a couple of scientists writing papers to
>support it. It requires a carefully conducted experiment to prove or
>disprove the theory. That is science.

      You are one of those people who believe that extrodinary results
require extrodinary proof?  I'm not.  There have been many experiments
performed to prove that QM is wrong because it conflicts with causality.
In every case, causality lost instead.  The only difference between the
many attempts and the combination with the Nimtz work is that they didn't
threaten to create causal loops.   Read up on the delayed choice
experiment, where a future action affects an earlier observation.  (The
only "problem" with using the effect for communication is that you have to
coordinate two non-local observations to "read" the information.  Nimtz, if
scaled up to give a sufficiently high bit rate, or transmission over
significant distances, allows those non-local observations to be compared.
So all those explanations for why QM can't be used to create time travel
paradoxes are no longer valid.

>Nimtz supported FTL, not causality violation, AFAIK. A _human contrived
>theory_ supported causality violation. If we think there is some way to
>communicate backwards in time with Nimtz's system, we need an experiment,
>not more theories. Maybe I sound a bit harsh, but I am somewhat tired of
>Ph.D's thinking that a theory they create is better than a well-thought-out
>experiment. The experiment also need not be performed by a Ph.D, regardless
>of what the science journal's may say. A result is worth a hundred
>theories.

    The real open question is not whether causality violation is possible,
but what happens if you start shooting grandfathers.  There are lots of
nice theories, but there it will take observation.  But as far as whether
or not it is possible, we are at game, set, and match.  Previous time
travel machine designs have not been possible at our (then) current
engineering abilities.  Nimtz shows how to do it more efficiently, in
current laboratories, that's all. 

                                        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 Jul 19 17:38:27 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA16068;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:35:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:35:20 -0700
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <3e979427.24c51df2 aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:33:54 EDT
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZZNqV.0.-w3.8Hyat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29168
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:44:24 -1000, Rick Monteverde said he'd like to bet a 
few hundred fully-riskable bucks on BLP just for amusement and to be able to 
say I-told-you-so if BLP struck it rich, meaning that he'd like to be able to 
say that he bought BLP at $0.02 in the year 2000.

Later that day, Dan Quickert wrote that he thought this the smottest idea 
he'd heard in a while and could spare about $150.

Come on now, guys.  It's high time to take BLP more seriously than that.  
When BLP raised $10 million or $11 million in 1997, I think the minimum 
investment was $30,000 (thirty thousand US dollars), from accredited 
investors only, meaning annual income of $200,000 or net worth of $1,000,000. 
 I don't know how many shares the $30,000 bought, but it's dollars to donuts 
that the share price was already way over two cents.  If it ever goes down to 
two cents, which it won't, you wouldn't be interested anymore.

Tom Stolper

P.S.  Due to inflation, the old saying "dollars to donuts" may be seriously 
out-of-date.  Make that sawbucks to donuts.

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 17:47:23 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA19076;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:45:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:45:59 -0700
Message-ID: <009501bed249$0e298440$9eb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re:  Palladium-Alkali Metal Phase Diagrams
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:43:09 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"0zvG01.0.-f4.6Ryat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29169
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed Storms wrote:

>
> Yes, Pd forms an alloy with Li and this alloy reacts with hydrogen.
>
> Deposition of this element may be the cause of  the long delay
> for a P-F cell to turn on.
>
> Potassium reacts less rapidly than Li because it can not diffuse into
> the Pd as rapidly, a process which is required to prevent back reaction.
>
> In any case the amount of  Li is too small to account for the
> excess as chemical energy.
>
Thanks, Ed.   I wasn't meaning to imply that the excess heat was due to
formation of Pd-Alkali compounds. If  I recall correctly formation of
the Lithium-Tin compounds only released about 0.25 ev or so.

Interestingly, the Potassium in the Activated Charcoal that Les Case is
using could be several percent, depending on the method of depositing the
Pd, and might be diffusing into the Pd and acting as a "nuclear-active site"
catalyst, also.

Regards,      Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 18:20:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA26932;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:17:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:17:30 -0700
Message-ID: <00b301bed24d$75d412a0$9eb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990719182137.00b03b50 spectre.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Xenon-Deuterium "Gas Lattice" Experiment
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:15:02 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"n9A_i3.0.ka6.guyat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29170
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Robert I. Eachus <eachus mitre.org>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Xenon-Deuterium "Gas Lattice" Experiment


This sounds like solution-formed Ozone forming a compound with the Xe,
Robert.

I wasn't thinking in terms of anything more than a high pressure Xenon gas
doped with
Potassium or Argon, or such. Or, H2O/D2O-K2CO3 pressurized with Xe gas.

Regards,    Frederick

>
> At 04:40 AM 7/19/1999 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
>
> >Xe gas is easier to come by than Pd, and should be self-healing,
> >easy to "dope" with CF activating agents, high melting point,
> >and not prone to forming stable oxides.
>
>     Sorry, I HAVE to respond to this.  I hope it is only a troll.  XeO3 is
> stable in solution.  It is also stable in crystalline form at STP, but
> don't breathe hard if you are near it.  (It is one of the nastiest
> explosives known, so don't try this at home kiddies, unless you really
know
> what you are doing.  The only thing I can think of which is more lethal
> than XeO3 if you don't handle it very carefully is fluorine gas, and guess
> what you start with.)
>
>     The usual way to make XeO3 is to mix fluorine and xenon in a nickel
> container at 400 degrees C for several hours, then add water:
>           XeF4 + 2 H2O --> XeO2 + 4 HF
>           2 XeO2 + O2 --> 2 XeO3
>
>     (Although it isn't really clear what the intermediates are with
> partially oxygenated water.  But with pure water with no disssolved
oxygen,
> it is possible
> to make and study XeO2.  There is also a xenon hexafluoride.)
>
>                                         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 Jul 19 18:43:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA05446;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:42:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:42:08 -0700
Message-ID: <3793D431.E2FA5718 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:43:17 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Palladium-Alkali Metal Phase Diagrams
References: <009501bed249$0e298440$9eb4bfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"p3mvl.0.0L1.lFzat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29171
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> Ed Storms wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, Pd forms an alloy with Li and this alloy reacts with hydrogen.
> >
> > Deposition of this element may be the cause of  the long delay
> > for a P-F cell to turn on.
> >
> > Potassium reacts less rapidly than Li because it can not diffuse into
> > the Pd as rapidly, a process which is required to prevent back reaction.
> >
> > In any case the amount of  Li is too small to account for the
> > excess as chemical energy.
> >
> Thanks, Ed.   I wasn't meaning to imply that the excess heat was due to
> formation of Pd-Alkali compounds. If  I recall correctly formation of
> the Lithium-Tin compounds only released about 0.25 ev or so.
>
> Interestingly, the Potassium in the Activated Charcoal that Les Case is
> using could be several percent, depending on the method of depositing the
> Pd, and might be diffusing into the Pd and acting as a "nuclear-active site"
> catalyst, also.
>
> Regards,      Frederick

Interesting idea.
Ed




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 18:57:41 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA10054;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:55:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:55:59 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Xenon-Deuterium "Gas Lattice" Experiment
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:55:22 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3799d1c4.88703948 mail-hub>
References: <000501bed1d3$48c00140$9eb4bfa8 default>
In-Reply-To: <000501bed1d3$48c00140$9eb4bfa8 default>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 SAA10005
Resent-Message-ID: <"QcUvH.0.xS2.kSzat" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29172
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:40:21 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:

>Since the laws of Nature are now being determined by Popular Vote, how would
>you vote on this one, Robin?  :-)

Frederick, I didn't say the laws of nature are being determined by
popular vote. I said that if all the ideas were on the table, and we had
a brainstorming session, some of them could be ruled out immediately.
What I had in mind is the fact the no one thinks of *all* the reasons
why a particular notion is wrong. However when many people put their
heads together, there is a good chance that at least one person can come
up with  compelling reason for shooting a notion down. If only those
ideas survive, that no one can shoot down, then we will have pared down
the list somewhat.

>
>A pressurized mix (100 to 3,000 Atm)of Deuterium and Xenon should come close
>to the Cold Plasma conditions of Deuterium in Palladium:

Because Xe is a noble gas not a metal, I doubt you could expect the D to
exist as anything other than molecules and we already know that
molecular D doesn't undergo much cold fusion.
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 20:03:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA02086;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <00c701bed25b$c948c940$9eb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick  Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <000501bed1d3$48c00140$9eb4bfa8 default> <3799d1c4.88703948@mail-hub>
Subject: Re: Xenon-Deuterium "Gas Lattice" Experiment
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:56:45 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Resent-Message-ID: <"4K-ZF1.0.UW.RQ-at" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29173
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 bigpond.net.au>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Xenon-Deuterium "Gas Lattice" Experiment

Robin wrote:
[snip]
>
> Because Xe is a noble gas not a metal, I doubt you could expect the D to
> exist as anything other than molecules and we already know that
> molecular D doesn't undergo much cold fusion.
> Regards,
>
I beg to differ, Robin. A Plasma is a Plasma. D2 mixed with Xe and Potassium
Vapor,
with 2.54E3 atmospheres pressure gives the same number of Xe atoms/cm^3 as
Solid Pd.

If you don't believe me, stare into a Xenon flash tube. :-)

With the K vapor (K+ ions) possibly acting as a "catalyst"  the Dirac
"Electron Sea" from 54 electrons from each Xe atom, 19 electrons from each K
atom, and an electron from each Deuteron the Plasma doesn't care squat about
stoichiometric chemistry. What you are after is the creation of an
evironment conducive to effecting the CF reactions in an expedient manner.

Plug in the Saha equation for K ionization and D2 dissociation at a given
plasma temperature, fire it up and see if it goes OU.

If it does, you can convert the photons into electrical energy with Solar
Cells.  :-)

Regards.  Frederick
>
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 20:26:09 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA17825;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:24:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:24:27 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 03:23:50 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk> <378A23A7.24D2FECF@ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub> <3790E060.7796D4DD@ix.netcom.com> <379125ac.610868574@mail-hub> <3791DD3A.1820BFC8@ix.netcom.com> <37948236.2777839@mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 UAA17799
Resent-Message-ID: <"jPgrj3.0.NM4.gl-at" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29174
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:15:05 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
[snip]
>The electron structure will affect the ability of a compound to form and the structure of
>that compound, but I do not see how this can be a mechanism for a nuclear reaction.  Any
>successful mechanism must answer five questions.

First it wasn't necessarily my intention to supply a complete
explanation, but I hoped that it might provide an idea that someone else
could do something with.

>
>1. How can the coulomb barrier be overcome?

By tunnelling. Which in turn is dependant upon distance and screening if
one relies upon standard theory, or also upon relative velocity if one
takes into consideration the notions of the Chubbs, or Charles Cagle.
The relationship to the chemical makeup in this case might be that the
minimum D-D distance in the 3-d lattice may be less for this particular
chemical structure than in say a D-D molecule, or alternatively, that
the density of screening electrons available may well be greater in this
case (due to the filled 4d sub-shell perhaps?)

>2. How can the resulting energy release be coupled to the general lattice, not to the
>nuclear products?

Personally, I think this can only be the case for the Chubbs' theory.
However there is also the possibility that the energy isn't coupled to
the lattice, but rather released through a multitude of particles,
resulting in, on average, not much energy in each. E.g. the very
electrons that provided the screening and got "caught in the middle" may
well also distribute the energy.
This is sort of neat, because it implies that whenever fusion occurs,
there will also be a multitude of electrons present to distribute the
energy.

>3. Why does He form rather than products from the other fusion branches?

In hot fusion, essentially only "two particle" reactions take place
(very thin plasma). Thus conservation of both energy and momentum
dictate that the only "fast" energy release mechanism available is that
where two nuclei are produced. It is however also obvious that the much
greater stability of the He4 nucleus means that it will form by
preference, provided that energy and momentum considerations can also be
satisfied in a "fast" mechanism. 
Either a transfer of momentum to the entire lattice, or to multiple
other particles would satisfy these requirements, ensuring that He4 is
the main product.

>4. What mechanism causes multiple additions of nuclei to the metal nuclei in the material?

At one point, Dick Blue, in his discussion with the Scott Chubb, tried
to point out that Scott still had a momentum "problem". At the time I
agreed with him, though with a little more thought, I realised that it
wasn't necessarily so. Put simply the point is this: If the whole
lattice goes in one direction, then what goes in the other direction?
Dick was trying (IMO) to point out that this should result in energetic
particles. Later it occurred to me that perhaps part of the lattice
could go in one direction, and another part in the opposite direction,
resulting in net zero momentum (just as existed prior to the reaction).
Now I wonder, if perhaps in some cases, energetic nuclei are produced
and in some cases only dual lattice shifts. If/when the former, then
such energetic nuclei could collide with others resulting occasionally
in quite heavy nuclei (i.e. doubling of A). This of course provided that
the energy of the initial fusion is sufficient to compensate for the
mass increase required to produce the heavier nucleus.

An alternative might be a fusion reaction triggering a cold fission
reaction, with some of the energetic fragments undergoing further fusion
reactions. This mechanism might be applicable in this case.

Both of these mechanisms would tend to result in a product distribution
which is "light" on heavy elements, due to the reduced likelihood of
ensuing fusion reactions (much too low a likelihood perhaps?).

>5. What is the nature of the environment required for the above processes to operate?

Perhaps if the formation of PdD2 in the lattice is slightly endothermic,
then it will only form temporarily at points of extreme loading. These
would then be most likely at the surface where the D is being loaded,
and where it had no chance of escape, or at various other random points
in the lattice during transport of D from one place in the lattice to
another, especially where that transport was forced to pass through a
neck in the material (as would be the case with transport between packed
particles).

>
>Unless all of these questions can be answered, the theory is incomplete and essentially
>useless.  I suggest you think in terms of these questions.

I disagree that incomplete theories are useless. In fact all of current
science is based upon incomplete theories. If it weren't, then we could
all pack up and go home, as science would be finished.
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 20:48:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA26796;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:47:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:47:38 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Xenon-Deuterium "Gas Lattice" Experiment
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 03:47:02 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <379cf027.96485297 mail-hub>
References: <000501bed1d3$48c00140$9eb4bfa8 default> <3799d1c4.88703948@mail-hub> <00c701bed25b$c948c940$9eb4bfa8@default>
In-Reply-To: <00c701bed25b$c948c940$9eb4bfa8 default>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 UAA26770
Resent-Message-ID: <"6sYOw3.0.cY6.Q5_at" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29175
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:56:45 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>> Because Xe is a noble gas not a metal, I doubt you could expect the D to
>> exist as anything other than molecules and we already know that
>> molecular D doesn't undergo much cold fusion.
>> Regards,
>>
>I beg to differ, Robin. A Plasma is a Plasma. D2 mixed with Xe and Potassium
>Vapor,
>with 2.54E3 atmospheres pressure gives the same number of Xe atoms/cm^3 as
>Solid Pd.
[snip]
Sorry Frederick, I didn't realise from your initial post that you meant
that the whole thing should be heated to plasma temperatures.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 20:53:35 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA28752;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:51:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:51:59 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Definition please
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 03:51:21 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <379df185.96834980 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990719183001.009a8420 spectre.mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990719183001.009a8420 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 UAA28728
Resent-Message-ID: <"BfOSG3.0.A17.U9_at" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29176
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:30:01 -0400, Robert I. Eachus wrote:

>At 12:01 AM 7/16/1999 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> 
>>Can someone provide me with the precise definition of the term: "fission
>>spectrum average", as used in the table of the nuclides at bnl?
>
>    Sure, it is referring to the fraction of that isotope found in the
>debris from (Uranium or Plutonium) fission.  Some nucleotides show up
>considerably more often than others.
[snip]
In this case, I am still left wondering why it is specified in barns,
and not as a percentage.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 19 21:27:00 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA05204;
	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:22:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:22:59 -0700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:22:52 -1000
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
From: "Rick Monteverde" <rick highsurf.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <199907200022.SM00219 [192.168.0.2]>
Resent-Message-ID: <"UN-O62.0.1H1.Zc_at" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29177
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Tom Stolper wrote:

<snip>
 
> Come on now, guys.  It's high time to take BLP more seriously than that.
> When BLP raised $10 million or $11 million in 1997, I think the minimum
> investment was $30,000 (thirty thousand US dollars), from accredited
> investors only, meaning annual income of $200,000 or net worth of $1,000,000.
>  I don't know how many shares the $30,000 bought, but it's dollars to donuts
> that the share price was already way over two cents.  If it ever goes down to
> two cents, which it won't, you wouldn't be interested anymore.

<snip>

I don't know that it wouldn't be a penny stock. They could float tens of
millions of shares and who knows what the price would be. It's SERIOUSLY
speculative. I mean, how good are "cold fusion" stocks going to look on the
market? I know their in-house publicity steers sharply away from that term,
but I can't imagine it not sticking to them if publicity in the broader
financial press from outside sources starts to appear.

Ok then, and this has been raised here before, but why not again: I know
some people lurk this and other boards hoping to get a hint of the Next Big
Thing before everybody else. So what have we learned in this regard? BLP
seems to be the only entity that's organized enough to legitimately take on
investors. What else passes through these threads which might be investment
grade? Solar cells? Fuel cells? The Great Energy Machine of Alfred E.
Newman? Any other real ideas? There's money freshly won from the big
internet gains now snooping around in the small caps and pennies, looking
for gems overlooked in the big net stampede.

If BLP did do some better promotion with open demonstrations, I bet they
could go public and raise huge funds for the kind of development curve Terry
mentioned.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 07:26:51 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA15210;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:19:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:19:09 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990720102200.00ac4700 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:22:00 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Xenon-Deuterium "Gas Lattice" Experiment
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <00b301bed24d$75d412a0$9eb4bfa8 default>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990719182137.00b03b50 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"FPy892.0.Vj3.TL8bt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29178
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:15 PM 7/19/1999 -0600, Frederick  Sparber wrote:
>This sounds like solution-formed Ozone forming a compound with the Xe,
>Robert.

(Previiously:)

>>Xe gas is easier to come by than Pd, and should be self-healing,
>>easy to "dope" with CF activating agents, high melting point,
>>and not prone to forming stable oxides.

    Why was I "playing" with XeO3?  Because in Xenon lamps the typical
failure mode was for oxygen from devitrification of the quartz reacting
with the electrodes.  However there were several different deposits on the
quartz near the ends.  It turned out that the three major components were
silicon, WO3 and WXeO4.  Wash in a mildly acid solution, such as carbonated
water, and you get:

    H2CO3 + WXeO4 --> H2O + XeO3 + WCO3

    Trying to do quanitative chemistry on this stuff was a real bitch.  We
eventually found out that adding thorium to the electrodes lowered the
avalance voltage and also catalyzed 2 WXeO4 + Si --> 2 WO3 + 2 Xe + SiO2.
This still caused electrode erosion and deposits around the electrodes, but
the gas pressure stayed effectively constant.

    In any case my point was that XeO3 makes nitroglycerin look tame.  It
is much more sensitive than nitrogen triiodide, packs more energy per gram
than TNT, and explodes with a brissiance normally only found in exploding
wires and nuclear devices.  (Brissiance is the sharpness of the explosion.)
 If you have any risk of forming anhydrous XeO3, take serious precautions.

    Incidently argon also forms an oxide that isn't as dangerous since it
is really only stable in solution.  Neon, AFAIK doesn't form any stable
compounds.  Radon is just too dangerous radioactively to experiment with.

                                        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 Jul 20 07:38:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA23231;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:37:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:37:34 -0700
Message-ID: <004d01bed2bd$f3aff700$634eccd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:40:52 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"PzDqk3.0.vg5.jc8bt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29179
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Terry said:

<snip>

>The fuel may be cheap for coal plants; but, how do we price the
>impact on the ecosystem?  I know that, here in Atlanta, I use
>approximately 10 lbs of baking soda per month in my 16' x 32'
>swimming pool to maintain the total alkalinity due to acid rain.
>And if the greenhouse effect is real, what is the cost of a 3
>centigrade degree rise in the average temperature?  The loss of all
>our beaches?  A shifting of the food belt?
>
>No offense intended, Mike.  It's just that I believe that a
>Manhattan-esque project is justified to scale up the first viable
>alternative fuel system . . both financially and morally.


No offense taken. It happens that with the Manhattan Project there was a war
on, which like the prospect of hanging, wonderfully concentrates one's
attention. There was agreement in the physics community about the fission of
U235 and Einstein was asked to write a letter to Roosevelt pointing out the
possibility of a weapon. There is now no acute emergency to accelerate the
process. The cold war and the threat of ICBMs had much to do with
acceleration of development of microelectronics -- without that spur the
process might have taken decades longer.

Radioactive remediation is an immediate candidate for a Manhattan scale
effort -- already billions are being spent on vitrification and burial
strategies which are being actively opposed by environmental groups for
various NIMBY reasons. Electrochemical remediation has been demonstrated by
the Cincinnati Group, CETI, and Miley. Miley currently has a small contract
with DoE to study electrochemical remediation. NB: there are individuals
within the US government and the physics community who have openly declared
that they will root out *any* government support of CF-related projects.

Aside from BLP, the CANR/LENR processes and the Correa PAGD reactor could
each justify massive investment. Correa has demonstrated energy extraction
from the vacuum in significant amounts.

Gene Mallove is a frequent speaker at meetings of Investors International
(?), very wealthy people who gather at various plush resorts -- he is just
back from Kuwala Lampour. There is interest, but nothing tangible to show in
terms of demos, so people don't step up. Gene relies for support on a few
benefactors who give him keep-alive money. Same with Earth Tech.

DoE, DARPA, and charitable foundations such as Ford, Rockefeller and others
are traditional sources of seed money for speculative work. These each have
their internal agendas and external advisors. In the case of CF projects,
the anathema cast by the ERAB report and the ridicule of Park and Zimmerman
essentially drive away mainstream support. Gene has been a voice in the
wilderness working against this tide.

A singular feature of the scene is that there is no widely-felt energy
emergency. The alternative sources -- photovoltaics, wind farms, fuel
cells -- all have conspicuous limitations but rest on established physics
and chemistry. Yet each has required decades of development to reach any
useful deployment. The above-cited technologies are potentially much more
useful, but it would be naive to expect that their development to commercial
scale would not take a massive investment.

As for BLP, there is an expressed intention to go public and I might be one
the the first in line. Right now, it is indeed speculative and only those
who can afford to lose everything are qualified to invest. Given alliances
in place, technical support staff in place, then it might be time to go
public to get the massive funds necessary for commercial development -- and
pay off the initial investors. Mills could potentially rival Gates in
personal wealth. Until more groundwork has been done, massive investment
isn't quite appropriate.


Mike Carrell


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 09:34:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23557;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:30:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:30:19 -0700
From: SEALOVE100 aol.com
Message-ID: <4d1dae7a.24c5fb44 aol.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:18:12 EDT
Subject:  Re: Update from BLP Website
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 15
Resent-Message-ID: <"VE-Hh.0._l5.RGAbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29180
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

unsubscribe please

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 10:31:30 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA08267;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:29:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:29:36 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990720132853.00797bd0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:28:53 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: BLP versus Mizuno
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ePuaP1.0.512.08Bbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29181
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde writes:

	If BLP did do some better promotion with open demonstrations, I
	bet they could go public and raise huge funds for the kind of
	development curve Terry mentioned.

I agree completely. The question is, can they do open demonstrations? Does
their stuff really work? I do not know. CETI cannot.

Mizuno recently published a description of his glow discharge experiments
in a $300 per year industry newsletter of some kind. While I was there, his
phone was ringing frequently as industrial chemists and engineers called
him for details. This shows how much sincere interest there is in industry,
and how easy it would be to sell a real, reproducible CF effect. The Kansai
Research Institute (KRI) has already replicated the excess heat. Let us
hope these other labs will replicate, too. This experiment has the
potential to end the cold fusion controversy overnight. It isn't "easy" to
replicate, but with practice and some dedication, an experienced
electrochemist at a place like KRI or Mitsubishi can make it work in a few
weeks, and it works more often than it fails. It is *far* easier than
traditional palladium or nickel based cold fusion. There are, as far as I
know, two or three other robust experiments in this category, including the
Case cell and, perhaps, Mills.

Of course, the effect still might be an experimental error. We need more
replications to be sure. Scott Little's inability to replicate remains
puzzling and troubling. I do not know of a reason to think it is an error,
but I am still searching, as are Mizuno and Ohmori.

By the way, the KRI is using a Dewar instead of Styrofoam insulation. It
has a clear plastic plug in the top to allow observation of the glow
discharge. The plug cannot be air-tight, so it does not have to be
precisely fitted. I believe this simplifies the calorimetry, removing a
term in the equation. Even at high temperatures radiation losses are not
significant. Mizuno talked about using a Dewar. He got started on this
method this month, and I think he said the large Dewars in the lab would
not fit into the incubator. Gene Mallove says that if we get a chance to do
this experiment again, we have a large Dewar that should work nicely.

I told Mizuno he should prepare a step-by-step set of instructions to mail
or e-mail in response to these enquiries. It can be based on the papers he
has already written. He is working on a dozen different things, including
additional cathodes for Scott Little and for us, but I hope he takes the
time to do this. We started to work on it while I was there. The bare bones
English version is what I posted yesterday.

Mike Carrell repeated a vivid analogy:

	I see Mills on a tightrope across a chasm, with fame and fortune
	on the other side.

The last time he wrote that, I think I responded by saying yes, but that is
Mills' fault. If he would only do what other successful businessmen have
done throughout history, he could sidestep the chasm and drive down an
8-lane highway instead. In a few months he would have billions of dollars
in capital. I still believe this. Mills, the Correas, Swartz, Stringham and
many other secretive CF scientists face many obstacles, but they themselves
have built these obstacles. They could walk away from these so-called
problems overnight. They would soon be rolling in money, with the Congress,
the DoE, and the APS at their feet. I hope that Mizuno is widely replicated
and that he and others like him push the secretive researchers onto oblivion.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 11:18:43 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA30326;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:11:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:11:50 -0700
MR-Received: by mta EUROPA; Relayed; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:58:11 -0400 (EDT)
MR-Received: by mta GOSIP; Relayed; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:10:48 -0400 (EDT)
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:26:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 <MH2_BRIGGS ODNVMS.A1.Ohio.Gov>
Subject: Vortex speculations
To: vortex-l <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-id: <E2147ZYAEJYSEJ*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Posting-date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
Sensitivity: Company-Confidential
UA-content-id: E2147ZYAEJYSEJ
X400-MTS-identifier: [;11853102709991/3874127 ODNVMS]
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
Resent-Message-ID: <"A7M041.0.UP7.blBbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29182
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vort's,

I've been playing around with a few ideas in the back of my head on how the 
vortex works.  I would like to preface this by saying that I am clearly out 
of my field in this topic, and would appreciate any pointers on good web 
sites to visit to further my understanding of the vortex effect.

Again this is just my speculation.  Some, all or none of the ideas 
presented may actually be happening.

>From what I have seen a vortex can be created under both high and low 
pressure conditions.  Low pressure vortex's such as a tornado, and high 
pressure vortex's as created in the Vortec tubes.  I have chosen the high 
pressure type to use in my speculations as it is easier for me to grasp.

Reference "http://www.vortec.com/"

1) The initial spin is mechanically forced by the shape of the tube.

2) Centrifugal force concentrates the atoms in the outer edges of the tube.

3) As the atoms get closer together they start interacting with each other.
   a) Collisions will start occurring with the electrons in their random 
      orbit (in relation to each other).  They don't even have to 
      physically touch, since like charges repel, they only have to get       
      close.  Some of the electrons will be knocked off their atom, but I       
      would think the majority would not, instead they would gyroscopically       
      precess to a different spin orbit at the same distance from the       
      nucleus.
   b) The more this happens there would be a tendency for them to end up 
      with the same orbital plane and spin direction as any other orbit
      would make them more likely to get hit again by their neighbors.
   c) I would think that this would be oriented counter spinward to the 
      spin of the vortex like a gear spinning in the opposite direction 
      than the gear that it is connected too.  Similar to a wheel rolling 
      on a road, the orbits would roll on the surface of the tube.
   d) This could be thought of as a form of coherent matter.  Similar in 
      some respects to a magnet where the poles have lined up, but still in 
      a fluid state, and also their orbits are lined up, not just the 
      poles.  This may also have properties similar to a plasma.
   e) When it falls over the threshold of this state of orderliness the 
      atoms can now fit much close together, and relatively speaking a 
      partial vacuum is created that draws more and more similarly oriented 
      atoms in closer & closer.
   f) But as they get closer yet the density of the oriented electron 
      orbits create a type of field, again similar to a magnet, squeezing 
      the electrons orbit more & more.  At some point this squeeze imparts 
      enough energy to the electron that it can jump to a lower orbit 
      around the nucleus (QM?).
   g) This orbital squeeze thus creates yet another relative partial vacuum 
      that allows the atoms to get closer & closer again.  It may go 
      through this phase multiple times depending on how many orbits are 
      available.
   h) At some point we may even have occasional instances of pole to pole       
      nucleus collisions.  At this point nucleus cohesion (what ever that       
      is?) kicks in creating a new combination of neutrons positrons 
      electron, any excess parts are released as it attempts to reach a new       
      balance into the next stable atomic structure (CF? Transmutation?).
   i) And of course the space that was taken up by two atoms now only has 
      one denser atom, again we have a relative partial vacuum, the atoms 
      get closer & closer yet again.
4) At some point the vortex reaches the exit door and this whole process 
   unwinds.  The collapsed orbit atoms will want to give up this stored    
   energy in the form of heat when the electrons go back to their normal    
   orbit.  This excess heat is absorbed by the temperature drop associated    
   with decompression of the more normal lower pressure entrained air.
   a) The Vortec tube separates these two into hot & cold air outputs.

Questions:
1) Has anyone checked for magnetic fields or radiation in a vortex?
2) Has anyone tried ionized air in a vortex?
3) Has anyone done calorimetry in a vortex?
4) Has anyone done gas analysis before and after a vortex?
5) Has anyone tried using CF type materials in a vortex (i.e. Heavy Water)?
6) Has anyone tried creating a vortex inside a magnetic field?
7) Combinations of any of the above?

Let the critiquing begin, I'll be hiding out here in left field hanging off 
the wall.

Bill
webriggs concentric.net
briggs XLNsystems.com

Disclaimer:  Any ideas presented are my own hair brained ideas,
             and NOT the hair brained ideas of my employer. ;^{>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 12:09:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA17144;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:04:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:04:03 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3b6dd73461a [207.8.127.205]>
In-Reply-To: <3790D6A2.650D7E21 ix.netcom.com>
References: <v04011703b3b40407cf7a [207.8.127.67]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:57:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Latest on Russ George Cell from spf]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA17116
Resent-Message-ID: <"65Drn2.0.oB4.ZWCbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29183
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>> >Edmund Storms wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Since the catalyst is about 86% empty space, if it contains a piece of
>> >> > grease or coal that originated in a helium rich deposit, that lump of
>> >> > contaminant would likely contain a proportion of empty space similar
>> >>to the
>> >> > carbon catalyst. Thus if V represents the volume of the lump, then
>>.8575V
>> >> > represents the empty space, and if that space contains gases that
>>are 50%
>> >> > helium, then the volume of contained He is .5(.8575)V, or .429V. Thus
>> >> > (.429)V = [1.43x10^16/(6.02x10^23)](22400), and when we solve for V we
>> >> > discover that the required volume of the contaminant is .00124 ml,
>> >>which is
>> >> > a cube slightly more than 1 mm on a side. Such a particle would be
>>little
>> >> > more than a speck of dust, and yet it is all that would be required to
>> >> > explain away Russ George's excess helium.
>> >>
>> >> Why assume a piece of material would contain 50% He?.  No material on
>> >>earth has
>> >> ever been found to retain He at that level. The fact that gas from wells
>> >>may,
>> >> under rare conditions, contain 50% He does not mean that the He
>> >>concentration in
>> >> the solid material is also 50% .  If you are going to make an objective
>> >>argument
>> >> at least use rational values.
>>
>> ***{I did. You snipped it out. Here, between the lines of asterisks, is
>> what I said:
>>
>> *******************************************
>> Since the catalyst is about 86% empty space, if it contains a piece of
>> grease or coal that originated in a helium rich deposit, that lump of
>> contaminant would likely contain a proportion of empty space similar to the
>> carbon catalyst. Thus if V represents the volume of the lump, then .8575V
>> represents the empty space, and if that space contains gases that are 50%
>> helium, then the volume of contained He is .5(.8575)V, or .429V. Thus
>> (.429)V = [1.43x10^16/(6.02x10^23)](22400), and when we solve for V we
>> discover that the required volume of the contaminant is .00124 ml, which is
>> a cube slightly more than 1 mm on a side. Such a particle would be little
>> more than a speck of dust, and yet it is all that would be required to
>> explain away Russ George's excess helium.
>>
>> Now, granted, it seems unlikely that a contaminant particle contains 50% He
>> by volume. The best *producing* gas wells yield about 8% He, though I have
>> read comments from field geologists who reported occasional pockets of 50%
>> or more, and I recall reading about a mine somewhere in Europe--Austria, I
>> think--where seepage gases were 10% He. But the point here is that there is
>> a *lot* more He, percentagewise, in gases that are entrained in subsurface
>> materials than there is in the atmosphere, and given the tiny amounts of
>> contaminant material that would suffice to explain Russ George's
>> excess--just a few grains of sand--I am not prepared to simply *assume*
>> that no such thing happened.
>> *******************************************
>>
>> Bottom line: if you want to engage in reasoned discourse, you need to pay
>> closer attention to what you are criticising. :-)
>>
>> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>In your calculation, you assume the following:
>1. 86% empty space
>2. The space is closed
>3. The space contains 50% He gas
>4. This material normally exists in laboratory environments.
>
>For this helium to behave as observed, the walls of the closed space would
>have to
>be stable at 200° and have a rather low permeability.  Again, I suggest no
>such
>material exists in nature.  Please give me an example of such material
>based on
>observation, not on imagination.

***{Ed, I'm not saying it exists. I'm saying that it may exist. As for the
specifics of the calculation, they were intended merely as an example. The
lower the percentage of He that you assume, the larger the volume of
contaminants that is required. However, even if you assume 5%, or even 1%,
the volume required remains trivial, and easily achieved, due to the tiny
amount of the excess helium that was observed and the large volume of the
catalyst.

The reason I think it is important to focus on this possibility, even if it
is surprising, is that the alternative is also surprising. Basically, we
have two choices:

(1) If we assume that Russ George is generating D + D --> He-4 + 23.8 MeV,
as he and you would have us believe, then he must have somehow managed to
circumvent the Coulomb barrier which, based on all prior measurements,
ought to prevent the close approach of these nuclei under these conditions.
Moreover, he must have somehow managed to circumvent the low gamma
absorption cross sections which, again based on all prior measurements,
ought to have fried his ass like a strip of fresh bacon if fusion had been
taking place in the cell at the claimed rate. The circumvention of one of
these barriers would be a very large surprise, and the circumvention of
both constitutes something approaching a miracle. Hence this possibility
must be regarded as a virtual miracle.

(2) If we assume that materials exist which are capable of entraining lots
of helium, and that some of those materials managed to find their way into
George's experimental cell but not into his control cell, that too would be
surprising. It would not, however, be anything approximating a miracle, in
my opinion.

Given the choices, as sketched out above, I think a reasonable person will
not be convinced that D + D fusion is, in fact, taking place in the Russ
George cell. Thus, based on the evidence we have at present, I would have
to say that more work needs to be done to discount the contamination
hypothesis, before it will be proper to claim the Russ George result as a
proof of CF.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>> >>
>> >> >Think of it this way: either Russ George has discovered "cold
>>fusion" or he
>> >>
>> > Helium being an inert gas
>> >> means it does not react with or absorb on materials.  It is retained by
>> >>metals only
>> >> after it has been placed within the structure by ion bombardment or by
>> >>tritium
>> >> decay. It does not get there just by being in helium.
>>
>> ***{Of course it does: helium diffuses through Pyrex glass, which is a
>> silicaceous compound, like vermiculite. The implication is that helium will
>> diffuse into just about anything, and, potentially, is retained by just
>> about any mineral or petroleum product that is extracted from the vicinity
>> of a helium reservoir such as those in North Texas, until such time as it
>> has had time to diffuse out again. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>Yes, He diffuses through material.  But have you bothered to calculate the
>concentration of He in pyrex while this diffusion is taking place?  I
>think you
>will find the concentration too small to be important to our discussion.

***{At equilibrium, the partial pressures will equalize. Thus if a rock
remains in a helium rich pocket for a million years, the partial pressure
of He in any internal spaces it contains will be equal to the product of
the concentration of the He in the pocket times the total pressure. I read
an article recently, for example, about a South African gold mine that was
several miles deep. The pressure was 2 atm at that depth, and they had to
pump huge amounts of air into the mine on a continuous basis to get rid of
gas seepage and for cooling purposes. If the seepage were 10% He, then the
spaces within the rocks would contain He at a partial pressure of
.1(2)(1013.25) = 202.65 mbar. Given the low amount of excess He claimed in
the Russ George experiment (about 9.5 ppm, or (9.5x10^-6)(3.4)(1013.25) =
.0327 mbar), a tiny amount of contaminated material would be sufficient to
account for it. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>
>> Why make an assumption that
>> >> all experience says is false?
>>
>> ***{Does this mean you deny that helium diffuses into Pyrex, stainless
>> steel, and most ordinary materials? If not, then the equilibrium
>> concentration within those materials is going to match that on the outside,
>> given equal pressures, and that means materials in the vicinity of an
>> underground helium reservoir are going to contain a *lot* of helium at the
>> moment of extraction. How long they will retain it thereafter, of course,
>> depends on the permeability of the materials involved. Thus it may be that
>> any helium content of contaminants in the Russ George cell diffused out
>> before the contaminants made their way into the cell. However, it also may
>> *not* be so, and that is the possibility with which I am concerned.
>> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>You confuse diffusion with solubility.  The solubility of He in all
>materials is
>extremely low.  Therefore, it does not matter how long a sample is in
>contact with
>He, it will not contain significant He.

***{This is utter nonsense. Empty space inside a rock acquires He by
diffusion through the rock in accordance with the same diffusion laws that
control diffusion into Russ George's cell, and, if such a rock were in Russ
George's cell, those laws would govern the diffusion of He *out* of the
rock and into the cell. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>> >> For your argument to be
>> >> logically consistent, you must assume that some foreign substance
>> >>entered the
>> >> catalyst after it was made, that this substance containes He which can
>> >>be evolved
>> >> only very slowly at 200°, and this material happened to fall into the
>> >>few samples
>> >> which showed excess He and not into the blank cells.  In addition, the
>> >>sample of
>> >> catalyst used by George happened to contain the same impurity as did the
>> >>one used
>> >> by Case and now the sample used by McKubre.  At some point, the low
>> >>probability of
>> >> all this happening makes the suggestion look ridicules.
>>
>> ***{At some point, if the situation were as described by you, above, then
>> that would surely be the case. However, it is my understanding that McKubre
>> worked *with* George, and hence that we are talking about one experiment
>> there, not two. Second, it is my understanding that Case's cells frequently
>> did not work. Hence we are only talking about the ones that did, not the
>> others. Third, even one of Russ George's two cells did not work: when he
>> vacuum flushed the "control" cell and reinfused it with D2, heated it up to
>> 200 deg C, and raised the pressure to 3.4 atm, it did *not* begin to
>> produce He-4. That outcome supports the contaminant hypothesis, not the CF
>> hypothesis. All in all, there appears to be more than enough ambiguity to
>> support doubt here, despite what you say. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>McKubre has set up and run cells completely independent of the initial
>work with
>George.  He is finding the same behavior. Replacing H2 with D2 in the
>control cell
>did not produce a nuclear reaction because no effort was made to flush the
>adsorbed H from the palladium surface.

***{That is a possibility, not a fact. The differences in the treatment of
the control sample and the experimental sample were very slight--so slight
that Russ George apparently expected the control to produce He after
flushing to vacuum and infusion of D2. It was only later, when that didn't
happen, that the differences were decreed to be important. --MJ}***

As a result the potentially nuclear active
>regions contained mostly H rather than D.  Such a flushing operation has been
>found necessary to make the cells work.  The contamination explanation is
>not the
>only one which can explain the behavior.

***{Agreed. But until it is discounted, Russ George will not have a cogent
demonstration of the CF effect. That's why I am arguing that he should
thoroughly test potential contaminant materials--the catalyst, the
palladium, the vermiculite, and anything else that might plausibly have
made its way into his cell--and discuss those tests in the final draft of
his paper. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>> >> > As for your fourth point--to wit: that he vermiculite emitted
>>helium over
>> >> > time in a way that is not characteristic of diffusion--I disagree
>>that the
>> >> > observed curve could not be due to the gradual cooking out of
>> >>entrained He,
>> >> > for the reasons given above.
>> >>
>> >> Have you ever studied the release of He from materials or even looked
>>up the
>> >> literature?
>>
>> ***{My qualifications to address this issue are contained in my arguments,
>> as are yours. What books we did or did not crack, or where, or when, is
>> manifestly irrelevant. --MJ}***
>
>Mitchell, debating with you is like playing chess with someone who has
>never read
>the rules and keeps trying to jump his pawn with his bishop.  If I have to
>include
>in my argument the understanding of material behavior which has been developed
>over decades by generations of scientists, we will never reach agreement.
>Logic
>is not enough.  We also need to agree about concepts and the meaning of words.
>This background can only be obtained by reading the "rule book".

***{Your claim of superior understanding rings hollow, coming from a man
who thinks diffusion into a rock is governed by different laws than
diffusion into a stainless steel flask. In any case, I have no interest in
these sorts of personal, ad hominem exchanges, in which substantive issues
are ignored, and I would (politely) suggest that you avoid such comments in
the future. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>  If a scientist took
>> >> the trouble to test every imaginable possibility, they would never reach
>> >>the end
>> >> of an experiment.
>>
>> ***{If you think I disagree with the above, you are mistaken. I would, for
>> example, consider it to be a waste to spend a lot of time analyzing the SRI
>> mass spec readings. They got the ambient He reading right over and over,
>> and I am willing to assume that they got the 11 ppm number right as well.
>> The possibility of contamination, however, remains something that I think
>> ought to be addressed. The fact that it may be unlikely does not justify
>> simply assuming it didn't happen. As I pointed out earlier, many reasonable
>> people judge it unlikely that you can induce nuclear reactions by cooking
>> D2 at 200 deg C and 3.4 atm. You can't prove the latter by browbeating
>> people into assuming the former. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>Is making equally unlikely assumptions a way to show that the nuclear reaction
>does not occur?

***{It is a way to show that Russ George's paper, as it presently stands,
does not constitute an adequate demonstration of the CF effect. The reason:
the nuclear reaction that would be required is, itself, enormously
unlikely--far, far more unlikely than the contamination hypothesis, for the
reasons given previously. Thus the contamination hypothesis must be
discounted, if Russ George wants to do anything more than preach to the
converted. --Mitchell Jones}***

People who judge such nuclear reactions to be unlikely do so
>because the phenomenon conflicts with nuclear behavior known to occur
>using high
>energy environments, a rather narrow range of conditions.  On the other
>hand, the
>prosaic explanations frequently conflict with a wide range of chemical and
>physical behavior, a much wider range of conditions supported by much more
>experience.  A satisfactory nuclear explanation is being explored and will
>result
>in no need to reject other experience.  On the other hand, if the prosaic
>explanations are correct, large areas of chemistry and heat measurement
>would be
>thrown in doubt, thereby requiring a reexamination of many conclusions.
>Skeptics
>seem unwilling to accept a new explanation in nuclear behavior while they seem
>willing to reject large, well established understandings in chemistry and
>materials science.  Of course if a person has no understanding of chemistry or
>material behavior, it easy to propose such prosaic explanations without
>feeling
>any conflict.

***{I am open to the possibility that CF is real, but I am also open to the
possibility that it isn't, and I do not see CF as the preferred explanation
for Russ George's result as his paper now stands. --MJ}***

>
>>  Science works by evaluating the probability and choosing to
>> >> investigate the most likely.  The choice of which is the most likely is
>> >>based on
>> >> experience and a background in the field of study, not on a rich
>> >>imagination.
>>
>> ***{Good judgment, obviously, is required to decide what lines of
>> investigation are worth pursuing. Moreover, if that were the purpose here,
>> then it might be good judgment to discount the possibility of
>> contamination. What you don't seem to recognize, however, is that judgment
>> is *not* the same thing as proof. Like it or not, you cannot turn the Russ
>> George experiment into a convincing demonstration of the Case effect, if
>> you do not make an effort to discount the possibility of contamination.
>> You, of course, can simply respond: "Who cares? It is proof enough for me!
>> Those who still doubt the effect are idiots, and it is a waste of time to
>> cater to their concerns." Well, maybe so, but however you slice the apple,
>> it still weighs the same; and however you spin this experiment, the
>> conclusion is going to remain unproven until something is done that renders
>> the contamination hypothesis *far* less likely than the CF hypothesis.
>> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>Your strawman has no relevance.  Contamination needs to be explored but using
>experience and values based on nature, not on imagination.  A careful
>examination
>of the behavior makes contamination as a possible explanation very unlikely.

***{Choice does not take place in a vacuum. Until you can (a) explain how
Russ George managed to circumvent the Coulomb barrier which, at 200 deg C
and 3.4 atm, should have--by an enormous margin--prevented his deuterium
nuclei from fusing, and (b) explain how he circumvented the low gamma
absorption cross sections which should have caused his butt to be fried
like a strip of bacon, reasonable people are going to regard the CF
explanation as *far less likely* than the contamination explanation. Thus
you are wasting both our times by continuing, like a robot, to hammer away
at the unlikelihood of contamination. The fact that it is unlikely is
irrelevant, given the vastly lower likelihood of the alternative you are
trying to support. --Mitchell Jones}***

>Therefore, it is more productive to explore ways to make the effect larger
>rather
>than using one's time analyzing every material for helium.  If the effect
>is made
>larger and more consistent, this alone will make the contamination issue mute.

***{I don't care how the effect is proven, if it can be. There are lots of
ways to skin a cat. My point, however, is that at the moment the cat
remains unskinned. --MJ}***

>
>> >> On another subject
>> >>In addition, the assumptions are at odds with all that is
>> >> known about the behavior of materials outside of the CANR field.  For
>> >>example, you
>> >> make the assumption  that a H atom with its electron  can be placed in a
>> >>site
>> >> where there is not enough room, thereby forcing the electron into orbits
>> >>closer to
>> >> the nucleus.
>>
>> ***{No. The assumption is that if a disassembled hydrogen atom--e.g., a
>> proton and an electron--are placed at such a location, they will not be
>> able to obtain the energy needed to expand to the Bohr radius. That is
>> quite a different thing from assuming they already *have* that energy and
>> are being squeezed down to a smaller size. If you will compute the drift
>> velocities of electrons in typical electrical circuits, for example, you
>> will find that they are *far less* than the orbital velocity of a hydrogen
>> electron at the Bohr radius. [The diameter of the Bohr orbit is about 106
>> Å, so the circumference is about 333 Å, or 3.33x10^-6 cm = 3.33x10^-8 m.
>> Since an electron takes about 10^-16 sec to make one revolution around a
>> hydrogen atom, its orbital velocity is about 3.33x10^8 m/sec. The average
>> drift velocities of electrons in conductors, on the other hand, are on the
>> order of 10^-5 m/sec. (Calculation available upon request.)] When enough
>> space is available, any energy shortfall needed (i.e., not available by
>> conservation of angular momentum) to boost a drifting electron up from the
>> vicinity of 10^-5 m/sec to 3.33x10^8 m/sec is either acquired thermally or
>> is borrowed from the aether (the ZPF, if you prefer), and the electron
>> "pops" up to the Bohr radius. (Like popcorn. :-) After that has happened,
>> the amount of weight that it can support becomes enormously increased. That
>> is why, if the lattice gets too hot, expansion and enhanced lattice
>> vibration will permit any protoneutrons which it contains to pop into
>> hydrogen atoms and preclude the CF effect, as I noted in a private e-mail
>> to another party yesterday. The point, however, is that if a drifting
>> electron meets a drifting proton *and there isn't room for it to orbit at
>> the Bohr radius*, then it will be unable to expand out to that radius.
>> Result: it will settle into an unstable, classical orbit, and a
>> protoneutron will be formed. (Or so the theory goes, at any rate.)
>> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>If you are going to use the concept of Bohr radius you must also
>acknowledge that
>the concept applies only to an isolated atom. In addition, the idea of a fixed
>radius was only accepted for a short time after which the electron was
>found to
>occupy a region of space in which its location was defined by a probability
>function.

***{Measurements of phenomena in the microcosm are difficult because they
must be done with instruments in the macrocosm. Result: the forces which
the instruments are capable of exerting are very large relative to the
effects which we seek to measure, and tend to perturb those effects.
Result: measured data points are highly variable, and it is often
convenient to describe them in terms of frequency distributions. The
resulting state of uncertainty, however, exists in our minds, not in
reality. The fact that we may find it difficult to get consistent numbers
for, say, the radius of a hydrogen atom, does not mean that it does not
persist in a specific stable state when the conditions warrant. --Mitchell
Jones}***

When an atom exists in a lattice, all of the electrons share this
>probability space with a fraction remaining in the vicinity of the H.

***{Everything which happens is caused. That applies just as surely to the
microcosm as to the macrocosm. Unfortunately, our efforts to determine what
is going on in the microcosm are fraught with uncertainty. Our position is
similar to that of a man standing on 50 foot stilts, with 50 foot
extensions attached to his arms, attempting to juggle a dozen eggs. Result:
we get lots of bad data points. To cull them out, we need causal reasoning,
not mystical mumbo jumbo. In the case of data points that show the orbital
electron located in the center of the nucleus, it is obvious that this is
going to be the average location of the bad data points, even if the
electron is, in fact, tucked snugly into the Bohr orbit at all times, and
so logic says to throw them out. As for the data points which appear at
grazing altitude above the nucleus, the decision is a bit more complex,
because in cases where there is insufficient room in the lattice for the
electron to orbit at the Bohr radius, we might plausibly expect them to be
at grazing altitude. Thus further reflection is required in a case of this
kind. What is clearly foolish, however, is to simply give up, as you
apparently advocate, and accept all the data points, good and bad alike.
--Mitchell Jones}***

 In this
>context, the Bohr radius is only an idealized mathematical concept, not a real
>condition.

***{Incorrect. You  need to accept the inherent difficulty of taking
measurements of phenomena in the microcosm, and its implication: that we
must use reason to separate bad data points from good ones, if we are to
have any hope of comprehending what is going on. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Your concept is at odds with all modern understanding of electron
>behavior.

***{No. My concept is what makes understanding possible. Those who reject
it--e.g., the proponents of "quantum mechanics"--give up all hope of
understanding the microcosm, and live their lives in a perpetual mental
fog. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Unless you can show mathematically how this process takes place and how
>it fits in with present models, I suggest you drop the subject.

***{Mathematical formulae that have been curve fitted to bad data points do
not describe the microcosm; they merely describe the data. Without the
belief that causal logic applies to the microcosm, there is no way to cull
bad data points, and hence no way to create curve fitted mathematical
constructs that describe the microcosm. Hence the use of causal logic to
analyze these phenomena must *precede* the recourse to mathematics, not
follow it. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>> >>
>> >> By the way, this idea of electron collapse has been explored by at least
>> >>a half
>> >> dozen other workers in the field.  However, no one is silly enough to
>> >>propose that
>> >> electron collapse is caused by too small a site.
>>
>> ***{I repeat: I'm not proposing collapse; I'm proposing that expanion
>> cannot take place when insufficient room is available. That is quite a
>> different kettle of fish. --MJ}***
>
>The net result is the same, only the mechanism is different.  Indeed, each
>of the
>people proposing this model has a different mechanism.  Yours is just the most
>bizarre one.

***{Describing the protoneutron theory as "bizarre" does not move you one
millimeter toward refuting it, so why bother to post such a statement? Why
are you wasting bandwidth with these sorts of subjective descriptions of
your inner emotional state? --MJ}***

>
>How do you know when the dust settles?

***{It was just a metaphor. Dust obscures vision. Hence when a state of
clarity has been achieved about an issue, one might say that the dust has
settled. --MJ}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 12:38:10 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA28020;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:33:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:33:43 -0700
Message-ID: <3794CF5C.4089CA9D bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:34:52 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: BLP versus Mizuno
References: <3.0.6.32.19990720132853.00797bd0 pop.mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"SUuOE1.0.Xr6.NyCbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29184
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed Rothwell wrote:

<snip>

> Scott Little's inability to replicate remains
> puzzling and troubling. I do not know of a reason to think it is an error,
> but I am still searching, as are Mizuno and Ohmori.

Well, does Scott score and "age" his cathode?  I don't recall either
of these in his procedure.  From your post:

> 3. It is best to score (scratch) the surface of the cathode. Post
> experiment micro-photos and spectroscopic analyses show melted tungsten and
> apparent transmutations at reaction sites where the surface is uneven.

> 5. Age the cathode for at least an hour with ordinary electrolysis, at
> fairly high power levels, below glow discharge. Details are on the tape.

The rough surface area could be very critical.  Also, Dr. Storms
discussed the importance of having an oxide layer on the cathode in
earlier posts.  Maybe "aging" the cathode creates just such a layer.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 12:53:05 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA02206;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:50:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:50:25 -0700
Message-ID: <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:51:04 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk> <378A23A7.24D2FECF@ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub> <3790E060.7796D4DD@ix.netcom.com> <379125ac.610868574@mail-hub> <3791DD3A.1820BFC8@ix.netcom.com> <37948236.2777839@mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com> <379bdffc.92344680@mail-hub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Oei282.0.OY.1CDbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29185
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:15:05 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >Unless all of these questions can be answered, the theory is incomplete and essentially
> >useless.  I suggest you think in terms of these questions.
>
> I disagree that incomplete theories are useless. In fact all of current
> science is based upon incomplete theories. If it weren't, then we could
> all pack up and go home, as science would be finished.
> [snip]

Of course all theories are incomplete and I did not say that incomplete theories are useless.
I said that a CANR theory was incomplete and useless if it can not answer each of the listed
questions.  This also means that the same mechanism must do each job.  It is unlikely that
more than one mechanism is involved because all would have to occur simultaneously in a
lattice thereby giving a lower probability the more independent mechanisms had to operate.
Thus, you can not invoke tunneling or neutron formation without also using the same mechanism
to carry away the energy.  Saying an electron did it is not sufficient. You need to show
exactly how the process works so that quantitative predictions can be made.  A theory is only
useful when it shows why a phenomenon happens and how the phenomenon can be controlled, i.e.
how the conditions can be modified to alter the phenomenon in predictable ways.  None of the
proposed theories have met this criteria.  Until they do, they are only useful to people who
like to speculate, not to the rest of the world. Besides, such  primitive models will not
convert skeptics, a very necessary event if the field is to grow.

Regards,
Ed Storms

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 13:02:12 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA05348;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:59:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:59:58 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990720160038.00798c30 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:00:38 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: BLP versus Mizuno
In-Reply-To: <3794CF5C.4089CA9D bellsouth.net>
References: <3.0.6.32.19990720132853.00797bd0 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"dy0cG3.0.UJ1.-KDbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29186
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Terry writes:

>Well, does Scott score and "age" his cathode?  I don't recall either
>of these in his procedure.

You don't recall them because I did not know about them, and as far as I
know Mizuno did not communicate them to Scott Little. I did describe
scoring the gold cathodes used in earlier experiments.

Comparing data from Ohmori and Mizuno, we (the three of us) concluded that
both procedures help. They are not panaceas, but they do appear to
significantly improve replicability and the strength of the reaction.
Sometimes, smooth, un-aged cathodes produce heat, but it is marginal. When
an un-aged cathodes are run at glow discharge power levels again and again,
the trend seems to be that they work better and better.

In my opinion, Ohmori and Mizuno do not compare notes and data often enough.


>The rough surface area could be very critical.  Also, Dr. Storms
>discussed the importance of having an oxide layer on the cathode in
>earlier posts.  Maybe "aging" the cathode creates just such a layer.

I do not see why it would create an oxide layer . . .

Bockris has often talked about the importance of dislocations and built-up
structures on the surface. Mizuno and others have said this enhances
discharge overpotential, which causes fantastic pressure on a microscopic
scale. The idea has been around since the '70s. See "Nuclear Transmutation"
p. 103.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 13:28:31 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14188;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:26:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:26:29 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990721030006.00f09ba0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 03:00:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Report on visit to Mizuno and Ohmori
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990719180444.00799830 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"LAMVT3.0.UT3.qjDbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29187
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 06:04 PM 7/19/99 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>1. Clean everything carefully. Details will be on the videotape, I hope.

I look forward to details.  "Clean everything" covers a universe of
possibilities.

>2. Use a highly pure, clean platinum anode.

Ours appears to meet this requirement.  I'll look into it.

>3. It is best to score (scratch) the surface of the cathode.

I've never done this (yet).

>(Mizuno uses quartz glass).

Please clarify.  The term "quartz glass" is like saying "alcohol wine".
Quartz...i.e. SiO2...is a consituent of virtually all glasses.  Do you mean
 glass made with quartz (i.e. Pyrex) or do you mean just plain quartz
(a.k.a. fused silica).

>Watch your fingers when you use it, to avoid cuts and to avoid touching
>the cathode with the part of the glass your fingers touch.

Does this mean you hold the broken pieces with your bare fingers and rub
them over the W cathode?

>5. Age the cathode for at least an hour with ordinary electrolysis

I've done this once or twice, but not usually.

>Average is ~10% excess for entire run. Excess appeared during the last 5
>minutes of the run, and when it was present the balance was much larger
>than ~10%. Excess peaked at 300% before the plate melted and the run was
>terminated.

Jed, when the large excess heat appeared at the end of the run, did it
manifest itself mainly as an increase in the dT/dt (rate of temp rise)...or
mainly as a decrease in the input power?  Do you have the actual data?  If
so, please post.

Thanks for all the data/info.  It is wonderful to have a native English
eyewitness.



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 Jul 20 14:00:20 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA24553;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:55:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:55:42 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3ba793e2665 [207.8.127.137]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990719161232.014f70fc mail.eden.com>
References: <v04011700b3b8e4a3af92 [207.8.127.61]>
 <3.0.5.32.19990718090142.00938aa0 mail.eden.com>
 <3790D6A2.650D7E21 ix.netcom.com> <v04011703b3b40407cf7a@[207.8.127.67]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:53:05 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Latest on Russ George Cell from spf]
Resent-Message-ID: <"thJCo3.0.U_5.E9Ebt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29188
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 10:09 7/19/99 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>***{The average position of the electron is at the center of the nucleus,
>>of course, but that does not mean that's its most likely location...
>
>According to QM, it is.  The PROBABILITY function for the electron's
>location peaks at the nucleus (when the electron is in the ground state).

***{The fragmentary quote, above, implies that I think orbital electrons
are sometimes to be found at the center of the nucleus, and thus totally
changes the meaning of what I said. That state of affairs is not rectified
by the insertion of an ellipsis at the end. I realize that you are trying
to save bandwidth, but sometimes you save too much. Here is the full quote,
to reestablish context:

"The average position of the electron is at the center of the nucleus, of
course, but that does not mean that's its most likely location, or even
that you will *ever* find it there. (The average person has more than one
eye but less than two; but, clearly, no such "person" actually exists. :-)"

Concerning your claim that, according to QM, orbital electrons spend most
of their time in the center of the nucleus, I would merely point out that
(a) our measurements of phenomena in the microcosm produce lots of bad data
points, and (b) that even if the orbital electron spends all of its time
tucked snugly into the Bohr orbit, the average position of the bad data
points will be at the center of the nucleus. Reason, therefore, would seem
to support tossing out such information. If, of course, you think you can
prove that the data points which show the electron spending most of its
time in the center of the nucleus are accurate, then by all means go ahead.
I approach such a discussion with eager anticipation.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>***{The QM folks say a lot of things that demonstrably ain't so.
>
>Maybe so...but only in more exotic areas of physics.  When it comes to
>simple systems like the hydrogen atom, QM is correct...and your intuition
>is likely incorrect.

***{You are entitled to your opinion. The question is, can you prove it?
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>I'm certainly receptive to a new theory which supplants QM...but there is
>one undeniable prerequisite: it will have to align with most of QM's
>predictions.  That's because most of QM's predictions have been proven
>correct by experiment.

***{When lots of bad data points are blindly accepted and mathematical
constructs are curve fitted to those data points, it is not really
surprising that those constructs can be used to "predict"--i.e., to
interpolate between data points on those curves or to perform nearby
extrapolations. After all, the generation of bad data points is a problem
that isn't going away. No matter how accurate our instruments become, our
attempts to measure the positions of orbiting electrons will continue to
produce mostly bad data, and the average of those bad data will continue to
be at the center of the nucleus. Bottom line: whether QM "predicts" is not
the question. The issue is whether, in cases where it clashes with
clear-cut causal logic,  it is predicting real microcosmic events or merely
predicting the responses of our instruments. Since clear-cut causal logic
(i.e.,"classical mechanics") is the only tool we have to identify bad data
points, it is the instrument of choice for those who seek to understand
what is going on in this realm. --Mitchell Jones}***

    Why else would something as uncomfortable as QM be
>accepted!?

***{It's a byproduct of government control of "education." The construction
of clear-cut causal logic requires the laborious construction of
visualizable mental models--i.e., imaginary pictures that explain what is
going on. The construction of such models requires mental work, and mental
work requires time. Because of that, it is possible to push material at
students at such a rate that they do not have time to grasp it causally.
When that is done, an advantage is given to a class of people whom I call
*memory retards*--that is, people who are severely deficient in visual
intelligence, often to the point of being unable, when they close their
eyes, to see what they were looking at one second before. Such people
cannot access visual material, and so their memories are given over to the
storage of words and formulae. This sort of compensation is a logical
outcome of the paucity of their mental imagery. They cannot transfer images
to their memory plate, or, if they can, they cannot pull them back into
consciousness once there, so their scholastic endeavors are limited to rote
recall. Hence they are beloved by their teachers, with whom they do
not--indeed, cannot--disagree, and whose words they spew back like parrots,
in conversations and on exams alike. Result: they tend to be straight A
students, so long as they do not make the mistake of enrolling in "thought
courses" where the focus is on causal understanding and, thus, on the
visualizable models which causal understanding requires. (The norm in
thought courses is open book exams--which means: you can use any reference
material you want, because all questions are "thought questions," and the
answers are not subject to being "looked up" and cannot be obtained by the
mechanical transformation of formulae that are in the book. To get the
right answer, you have to figure it out, and to do that, you must have
visualizable models of causation stored in your brain, and you must be able
to access them in your thinking processes.) Because teachers tend to feel
comfortable with students who always agree with them and to feel
uncomfortable with students who frequently disagree, they tend to give "top
honors" to memory retards. And, for the same reason, when it comes time to
hire a new professor, the memory retard is more likely to be picked than
the applicant who is good at creative problem solving. Result: over time,
due to this selection process, academia has become infested with people who
are literal mental defectives--people who quite literally cannot imagine
what they were looking at one second before they closed their eyes--and who
cannot function intellectually in any capacity that requires such
abilities. Needless to say, once in positions of power in academia, memory
retards are going to launch attacks on the visualization abilities which
they lack, and make the resulting theories required material in their
courses. The result is, first, a proliferation of gibberish in all fields
of intellectual endeavor, and, finally, the collapse of this civilization.
"Quantum mechanics" is merely one of the ways in which this assault on
visual intelligence--i.e., upon intelligence itself--has manifested itself
in physics, that's all. --Mitchell Jones}***

>And don't feel bad if you find QM confusing. I believe Feynman said that
>anybody who claims to really understand QM doesn't.

***{I don't worry about the word salads and gibberish put forth by memory
retards. The mathematics has no philosophy. The core of "quantum mechanics"
lies in the Copenhagen interpretation, with its assaults on the principle
of continuity, causation, and visualization. Since I do not accept those
assaults, anything I do falls under the heading of classical mechanics,
even when I use mathematical tools that the retards prefer to claim as
their own. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>
>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 Jul 20 14:29:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA00597;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:24:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:24:08 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b3ba94eca83c [207.8.127.137]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:20:51 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Contaminant Calculation in Russ George Cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"_Fmh61.0.F9.uZEbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29189
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{The following is an excerpt from a much longer article that I posted to
sci.physics.fusion the other day. I am placing it here because there has
been no discussion of this topic in this group. --Mitchell Jones}***

[megasnip]

>
> This is as pointless as arguing for evolution against a creationist.
> Just make up what ever necessary assumptions and cast them out on
> the table as if they were facts. Sure, you can construct complicated,
> unlikely "what if" explanations, assuming yet unknown properties
> for various materials, and no matter what the results you can find
> SOME way to explain it away. Even if this experiment is a replication
> of Cases (I guess they just got unlucky...). Even Schultz's error
> theory isn't impossible however incredibly unlikely it is.

***{As I have repeatedly pointed out and you have repeatedly ignored, we
are trying to choose between two interpretations *both* of which are
surprising. It is not merely unlikely that this result is due to
contamination; it is also unlikely that it is due to CF. Contamination
requires that a material entraining lots of helium find its way into the
experimental cell but not the control cell. "Cold fusion" at 3.4 atm and
200 deg C requires that the deuterium nuclei get together despite not
having enough kinetic energy to do so, and that they do so in an
environment with a higher gamma absorption cross section than has ever been
measured. While the former interpretation is unlikely, the latter one is
even more unlikely. Thus you cannot support the CF interpretation by merely
continuing to hammer away at the low likelihood of contamination. You have
to either flatly prove that contamination did not happen, or else give a
theoretical explanation for how the Coulomb barrier was circumvented and
the gamma cross section was raised. Continuing on your present path is
merely a waste of time. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
> > Anyway, before closing this post, I would like to briefly discuss another
> > point about the Russ George paper that I found to be disturbing: the fact
> > that he said nothing about the amount of He-3 that he measured.
>
> So what. As I pointed out many times before, the depth of
> the potential well after tunneling affects the probability of tunneling.
> It's one of those weird quantum mechanics things. In this case,
> we have D + D that can fuse to form 4He and give off some 23.8 MeV
> or something  like 3He and about 1 to 3 MeV.

***{Are you talking about 1H2 + 1H2 --> 2He3 + n? Frankly, I have never
heard of it, and I doubt that it happens. But if it does, then we have
neutrons afoot in the cell, which is guaranteed to trigger all sorts of
secondary transmutations, producing a Mulligan's stew of radioactive
isotopes, which should have showed up on the mass spec. If they did, then
you can bet your bottom dollar Russ George's eyes would have popped out of
his head when he saw them, and they would definitely have been mentioned in
the paper. Since they weren't, you can bet your bottom dollar that they
were not present. That means any He3 was due to contamination, as I said,
and, thus, it means that the decontamination calculation which I suggested
would work precisely as I said it would. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
> If whatever the probability of tunneling at 23.8 MeV, it is lower at
> 3 MeV. We're not talking solar like fusion probabilities here.
>
> It doesn't bother me because it COULD be that deuterium fusion
> into 3He is just too unlikely given he barrier characteristics.
>
> Comparing He4 concentrations to He3 concentrations is meaningless
> unless, UNLESS, He3 is WAY above the natural abundance level, in
> which case it would further PROVE cold fusion. If he got 3He, it's
> probably in the grass level of his MS, or he just didn't feel like
> reporting it.
>
> In short, we don't know what the ratios for 4He to 3He for this
> type of fusion, and it would probably vary according to the conditions.
> Ratios, as a tool for disproving fusion, are useless. (Even if
> the 4He:3He ratio was exactly similar to the atmospheric levels,
> it may just be a duplication of a cold fusion process that produces
> the atmospheric He...).

***{This is wrong for the reasons given above. If the He3 were due to
fusion, lots of bizarre radioactive isotopes would show up on the mass
spec, and Russ George would have mentioned them. Since he didn't, the He3
is due to contamination. Period. --MJ}***

However, a very LARGE 3He level would
> be a strong indicator that it's not a contamination problem.

***{True. And since that would have supported his fusion claims, he would
have mentioned it. Since he didn't, the conclusion is inescapable: the
measured level of He3 was consistent with contamination, and, if the
appropriate number of He4 atoms were subtracted, the result would be a
lower--and perhaps zero--number of He4 atoms produced. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
> > This
> > disturbs me because the SRI mass spec undoubtedly showed a peak for He-3,
> > and, since He-3 exists in a known percentage abundance vis-a-vis He-4, it
> > would have been a simple matter to *calculate* the amount of He-4 that was
> > due to contamination, thereby laying that possibility to rest. Yet he
> > didn't do it, and that leaves me scratching my head, wondering why not.
> >
> > Let me explain.
> >
> > Consider the standard decontamination calculations that are employed for
> > the potassium-argon dating of geological strata. The problem is that when
> > a piece of volcanic ejecta is to be vaporized prior to sampling by the
> > mass spec, there is always a thin, invisible skim of atmospheric
> > constituents, including atmospheric argon-40, that adheres to the surface
> > of the material prior to heating. Since the amount of argon-40 that will
> > be present inside the sample due to the decay of K-40 is the quantity of
> > interest, and since the number of atoms involved is likely to be tiny and
> > subject to large perturbation by the atoms from atmospheric sources that
> > cling to the outside, it is necessary to calculate the number of Ar-40
> > atoms that are due to atmospheric contamination, and subtract them from
> > the total number of Ar-40 atoms measured, in order for the dating
> > technique to work. Such a calculation is possible because the decay of
> > K-40 produces only Ar-40, and does not produce Ar-36. Since there are
> > 295.5 atoms of Ar-40 for every atom of Ar-36 in the atmosphere, one simply
> > takes the measured number of Ar-36 atoms, multiplies it by 295.5, and
> > subtracts the result from the total number of Ar-40 atoms detected, to
> > determine the number of Ar-40 atoms that resulted from the decay of K-40.
> >
> > Exactly the same procedure can be applied to the Russ George experiment
> > because it is extremely likely that any nuclear reaction which may be
> > taking place in the George cell produces only He-4, not He-3.
>
> I don't see why you make that assumption

***{I make it because I have never heard of the reaction 1H2 + 1H2 --> 2He3
+ n, and because even if it is possible, Russ George reported no
radionuclides in his mass spec readouts. --Mitchell Jones}***

, or what difference it
> makes. All 4He, all 3He or in between, it's a side issue.

***{Nope. In the absence of radionuclides, the He3 *must* be due to
contamination. Since for each atom of He3 we can expect 769234 atoms of
He4, we cannot know whether we have *any* atoms of excess He4 until we have
multiplified the number of He3 atoms by 769234 and deducted the result from
the total number of He4 atoms found in the cell. Bottom line: given the
present form of the Russ George paper, we have no basis for believing that
any excess He4 was detected, and thus we have no evidence that there is
anything anomalous about the result. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
> > With He-3
> > having a percentage abundance of .00013, and He-4 coming in at 99.99987,
> > we can conclude that there should be *at least* 99.99987/.00013 = 769,230
> > atoms of He-4 for every atom of He-3. (I say "at least" because the
> > proportion of He-3 should be lower beneath the surface.) Thus we should be
> > able to multiply the number of atoms of He-3 detected by 769,230 to
> > determine the number of contaminant atoms of He-4 present, and subtract
> > those from the total number of He-4 atoms detected, to determine the total
> > number of He-4 atoms due to nuclear reactions in the cell.
>
> Absurd and contradictory.
>
> 1) There is no way to tell what the proportions of 3He ash to 4He ash
> should be in the fusion reaction without observing it.

***{Yes there is: in the *extremely unlikely* event that the fusion
reaction produces some He3, the resultant neutrons would generate an
unmistakeable signature on the mass spec, and Russ George would have
trumpeted that signature to the rooftops. Since he didn't, you can bet your
bottom dollar that it isn't there. Conclusion: all of the He3 is due to
contamination, exactly as I said. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 2) You assume that there should be some 3He ash, then turn around and
> say that all 3He ash is due to contamination.

***{No, I assume that there will be some He3 because there is no way to
scrub away the thin skim of atmosphere that clings to everything. That's
why it is routine, when extreme sensitivity is desired in mass spec
readings--as here--to monitor some variable that isn't active in the
process, and use it as a basis for calculating contamination. Since there
were apparently no radionuclides produced, it is clear that He3 was not
active in the process, and so it can be used to calculate, and subtract,
contamination. But that was not done. Result: we have no way of knowing
whether this experiment produced an anomalous result. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
> If you are going to take the position that ALL He is evidence
> of contamination, there is no point in going on. All that is
> necessary is to show that there was NO helium of any kind in
> the vessel at the start and that He was produced. That's solid
> evidence of fusion.
>
> George did that. There was no helium at the beginning, no helium in
> the sample, and helium was produced in the vessel in a way inconsistent
> with any kind of diffusion. The Helium concentration curve is consistent
> with fusion, as it is with the amount of heat produced in Case's cell.

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

>
> > Unfortunately,
> > the number of He-3 atoms detected was not given in the Russ George paper.
> > All we have is the tantalizing hint, in the lower left portion of Fig. 1,
> > of a substantial He-3 peak on the mass spectroscope--a peak which has
> > already risen to about 2000 parts per 10 billion before being cut off,
> > and, thus, has a relative abundance of *at least* .2/(1.7 + .2) = 10.51%.
> > (This assumes, perhaps incorrectly, that the vertical axis of Fig. 1 gives
> > proportionate amounts. The chart is very unclear.)
> >
> > Bottom line: I find it disturbing that I am having to wrestle with the
> > contamination possibility at all, given that it is a simple and very
> > standard procedure to simply calculate the number of contaminant atoms and
> > eliminate them from consideration. I wonder why Russ George didn't do
> > that.
>
> I just don't see what you're on about. For one, he considered
> the effects of atmospheric contamination. We can quibble about
> where that actual amount should be, but it's clear that the
> atmosphere isn't the source of contamination.

***{On that point, we agree. --MJ}***

>
> For another, he did show 1) No contamination in the sample material
> (Arata).

***{Meaningless. He plucked out a chunk that amounted to 1/1000th of the
material in a batch of unused catalyst. Thus even if that batch contained a
contaminant granule, the odds are slim that it would have been part of the
sample which he tested. --MJ}***

 2) No initial contamination (should be high initially if
> it was a diffusion leak).

***{If you refer to diffusion out of one or more granules of contaminant
material, that is false, for the reasons that I detailed above. --MJ}***

3) No helium at all in the control.
> 4) Helium was produced in a way completely inconsistent with a
> diffusion leak.

***{Again, if you refer to diffusion out of contaminant granules, your
statement is false. --MJ}***

 5) Helium that was produced in a way that was
> consistent with the heat produced in Case's cell if it was fusion.

***{Since a number of He4 contaminant atoms consistent with the measured
He3 in the cell was not debited, we have no way of knowing whether this
result was anomalous or not. Worse, since it was apparently an attempt to
replicate the Case result, there is a good chance that Case made the same
error. If he did, then we have no basis for thinking his results are
anomalous, either. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
> Geeze. It's clear that these people are doing SIGNIFICANT and
> Historic work.

***{Not to me. --MJ}***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 14:48:52 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA07846;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:44:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:44:23 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990720171353.0079f6d0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:13:53 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Report on visit to Mizuno and Ohmori
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"IFOB42.0.Ww1.tsEbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29190
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little writes:

	I look forward to details.  "Clean everything" covers a universe
	of possibilities.

Actually, I already described most of the procedures here previously. I
should gather together all relevant e-mail messages.


	>3. It is best to score (scratch) the surface of the cathode.

	I've never done this (yet).

You probably cannot do it once the tungsten lead wire is attached. It will
break off.


	Please clarify.  The term "quartz glass" is like saying "alcohol
	wine" . . .

Dunno. That's what they call it in Japanese. High temperature resistant,
pure material.


	>Watch your fingers when you use it, to avoid cuts and to avoid touching
	>the cathode with the part of the glass your fingers touch.

	Does this mean you hold the broken pieces with your bare fingers
	and rub them over the W cathode?

Well, you might want to wear gloves, but that is the basic idea. You take a
long shard and rub 50 times one way, 50 times the other, flip over, and
scratch the other side. Then wash in pure water. Tungsten is hard, but you
can see the scratches on the surface with the naked eye.


	>5. Age the cathode for at least an hour with ordinary
	electrolysis

	I've done this once or twice, but not usually.

It seems to have a good effect. Ohmori always does it, and his results are
more consistent and better than Mizuno's.



	Jed, when the large excess heat appeared at the end of the run, did it
manifest itself mainly as an increase in the dT/dt (rate
	of temp rise)...or mainly as a decrease in the input power?  Do
	you have the actual data?  If so, please post.

Well . . . its sorta both. The input is gradually declining, as usual, but
the output jumps up steeply. I mailed the data to you. That is file
W90708#5.001. Here it is again. The large events start around 16:11, and
peak with about two 150 watt excess heat bursts, about 4 minutes total.

"LOG_DATE","LOG_TIME","LOG_NO","PC-T-1","PC-T-2","CEL-VT","CEL-WT","ROOM-T",
"HEAT-V","HEAT-I","CHRG-V","CHRG-I","PRESS.","PC-V"
"99/07/08","16:01:43",1,30.7,27.8,26.6,27.6,25.5,.392418,.0003,0,0,0,-.018
"99/07/08","16:01:53",2,30.6,27.8,26.6,27.6,25.3,10.1727,.0805,0,0,0,-.009
"99/07/08","16:02:03",3,30.5,27.7,27.3,27.4,25.3,107.472,.5105,0,0,0,-.034
"99/07/08","16:02:13",4,30.5,27.7,29.2,27.5,25.4,109.656,.6478,0,0,0,-.05
"99/07/08","16:02:23",5,30.5,27.7,30.9,27.5,25.4,109.666,.5367,0,0,0,-.075
"99/07/08","16:02:33",6,30.5,27.7,32.5,27.5,25.5,109.625,.4825,0,0,0,-.064
"99/07/08","16:02:43",7,30.4,27.7,33.9,27.4,25.5,122.877,.292,0,0,0,-.08
"99/07/08","16:02:53",8,30.4,27.7,34.5,27.3,25.5,136.823,.2226,0,0,0,-.075
"99/07/08","16:03:03",9,30.4,27.7,35.7,27.4,25.6,136.873,.3724,0,0,0,-.084
"99/07/08","16:03:13",10,30.2,27.5,36.6,27.1,25.3,153.546,.242,-.01,0,0,-.084
"99/07/08","16:03:23",11,29.5,26.7,37.4,26.4,24.5,164.866,.1861,-.02,0,0,-.105
"99/07/08","16:03:33",12,29.5,26.8,38.4,26.4,24.4,164.363,.2529,0,.1,0,-.121
"99/07/08","16:03:43",13,29.2,26.5,39.1,26.2,24.5,164.272,.257,-.01,.1,0,-.111
"99/07/08","16:03:53",14,29.2,26.5,40.1,26.2,24.5,164.262,.2393,-.02,0,0,-.107
"99/07/08","16:04:03",15,28.7,26.2,40.8,25.9,24.4,170.209,.1647,-.01,.2,.1,-
.112
"99/07/08","16:04:13",16,28.6,26,41.3,25.6,23.9,172.402,.1534,-.01,.2,.1,-.143
"99/07/08","16:04:23",17,28.8,26.2,42.6,25.9,24.4,172.604,.265,0,.2,0,-.112
"99/07/08","16:04:33",18,27.3,24.6,42.5,25.2,23.7,172.261,.1568,-.01,.1,0,-.
091
"99/07/08","16:04:43",19,28.5,25.9,44,25.4,23.7,172.372,.1564,-.03,.1,-.2,-.
099
"99/07/08","16:04:53",20,28.3,25,44.6,25.6,23.9,172.422,.1949,-.01,.1,.1,-.109
"99/07/08","16:05:03",21,29.2,26.5,46.4,26.2,24.5,172.765,.1665,-.02,.1,.1,-
.11
"99/07/08","16:05:13",22,28.9,26.3,46.8,26,24.2,172.543,.1524,-.01,.2,.1,-.112
"99/07/08","16:05:23",23,28,25.7,46.9,25.7,23.6,172.443,.2146,-.01,.1,.1,-.12
"99/07/08","16:05:33",24,28.3,25.9,48.3,25.7,24.1,172.382,.1749,-.03,.1,0,-.
104
"99/07/08","16:05:43",25,28.1,25.3,48.7,25.2,23.7,172.141,.2589,-.01,.2,.1,-.1
"99/07/08","16:05:53",26,28.6,25.9,49.9,25.7,24.2,172.422,.2212,-.01,.2,.1,-
.134
"99/07/08","16:06:03",27,28.1,25.3,50.4,25.6,24.1,172.412,.1719,-.01,.2,0,-.
127
"99/07/08","16:06:13",28,28.7,26,51.8,25.8,24.1,172.422,.1615,-.02,.1,0,-.101
"99/07/08","16:06:23",29,28.2,25.5,52.1,25.6,23.9,172.332,.1899,-.03,0,0,-.103
"99/07/08","16:06:33",30,27.9,25.4,52.9,25.6,23.8,172.463,.1735,-.01,.1,0,-.
093
"99/07/08","16:06:43",31,28,24.6,53.3,25.3,23.4,172.292,.1438,-.02,.1,-.1,-.
116
"99/07/08","16:06:53",32,28.3,25.5,54.1,25.2,23.7,172.342,.1611,-.01,.1,-.1,
-.137
"99/07/08","16:07:03",33,28.6,25.8,55.2,25.4,23.8,172.362,.144,-.03,0,0,-.123
"99/07/08","16:07:13",34,27.3,25.5,55.7,25.4,23.7,172.342,.1708,-.02,.1,.1,-
.104
"99/07/08","16:07:23",35,28.4,25.8,56.2,25.8,24.1,172.453,.1484,-.03,0,-.1,-
.105
"99/07/08","16:07:33",36,27.3,25.5,56.8,25,23.1,172.121,.1168,-.03,0,0,-.125
"99/07/08","16:07:43",37,28.2,25.2,57.4,25.3,23.3,172.302,.0915,-.02,.1,.1,-
.109
"99/07/08","16:07:53",38,27.6,24.7,57.9,25.2,23.1,181.196,.0877,-.03,-.1,.1,
-.127
"99/07/08","16:08:03",39,26.5,24.6,57.9,24.5,22.9,180.804,.1449,-.03,.1,0,-.14
"99/07/08","16:08:13",40,26.9,23.9,58.1,24.5,22.4,180.985,.1441,-.02,0,0,-.1
"99/07/08","16:08:23",41,25.9,24,59.5,24.6,23.1,181.025,.1285,-.03,.1,-.1,-.
119
"99/07/08","16:08:33",42,26.6,24,59.8,25.1,22.6,181.186,.0782,-.03,-.2,-.2,-
.103
"99/07/08","16:08:43",43,26.2,23.5,59.5,24.2,22.7,180.794,.1544,-.03,-.1,-.2
,-.118
"99/07/08","16:08:53",44,25.8,23.4,60.5,24.6,22.5,180.834,.1208,-.04,.1,-.1,
-.131
"99/07/08","16:09:03",45,26.7,22.9,61.1,24.3,21.9,180.854,.0985,-.02,-.2,0,-
.138
"99/07/08","16:09:13",46,26.8,23.7,61.7,24.5,23,180.985,.1406,-.02,-.1,-.1,-
.127
"99/07/08","16:09:23",47,27.3,24.4,63.2,24.9,22.5,181.076,.1026,-.02,-.3,-.1
,-.141
"99/07/08","16:09:33",48,26.8,24.9,63.5,24.3,22.4,180.895,.1055,-.02,-.1,-.5
,-.151
"99/07/08","16:09:43",49,26.5,24.9,64.6,25.2,22.6,181.247,.1708,-.01,0,-.3,-
.116
"99/07/08","16:09:53",50,26.4,24.3,63.8,24.9,22.3,181.025,.0896,-.03,-.1,.1,
-.092
"99/07/08","16:10:03",51,26.9,24.8,63.7,24.3,22.1,180.864,.1402,-.03,-.2,-.4
,-.125
"99/07/08","16:10:13",52,26.8,24,65.2,24.3,22.7,180.834,.1063,-.01,0,-.2,-.136
"99/07/08","16:10:23",53,27,24,66.5,24.5,22.9,180.995,.0949,-.03,0,0,-.134
"99/07/08","16:10:33",54,25.8,24.1,66.6,24.7,22.9,180.995,.0922,-.03,-.1,-.1
,-.124
"99/07/08","16:10:43",55,26.7,24.4,67.2,25.1,22.9,181.227,.0641,-.02,0,-.1,-
.109
"99/07/08","16:10:53",56,26.2,24.2,67,23.8,21,180.462,.072,-.01,0,.1,-.115
"99/07/08","16:11:03",57,24.9,24.4,67.5,24.4,22.1,180.915,.1243,-.01,-.1,0,-
.134
"99/07/08","16:11:13",58,26.6,24.5,68.5,24.3,22.9,180.905,.1383,-.03,0,0,-.108
"99/07/08","16:11:23",59,26.4,24,68.7,24.6,22.8,181.106,.0628,-.03,-.1,0,-.114
"99/07/08","16:11:33",60,27.9,25.6,71.2,25.6,23.6,181.468,.0097,-.01,.1,0,-.
109
"99/07/08","16:11:43",61,28.6,26.4,71.9,26.1,23.9,181.72,.0595,-.01,0,0,-.109
"99/07/08","16:11:53",62,27.9,26.1,72.4,26.1,24.2,181.69,.0224,-.01,-.1,-.1,
-.117
"99/07/08","16:12:03",63,27.9,25.5,71.7,25.6,23.5,181.408,.0707,-.01,.1,0,-.
111
"99/07/08","16:12:13",64,27.3,26,72.2,25.7,24,181.529,.0049,0,.1,0,-.115
"99/07/08","16:12:23",65,28,26,72.9,26.1,24.2,181.69,.0525,.01,.2,.1,-.118
"99/07/08","16:12:33",66,28.3,26.3,72.9,26.2,24.4,181.79,.0437,0,.2,.1,-.116
"99/07/08","16:12:43",67,27.2,25.7,72.1,25.4,23.6,181.196,.0568,-.01,0,-.1,-
.107
"99/07/08","16:12:53",68,27.9,26.3,73.2,25.9,23.8,181.8,.0341,-.02,0,0,-.124
"99/07/08","16:13:03",69,28.2,26.8,74,26.4,24.4,181.941,.036,-.01,.1,-.1,-.12
"99/07/08","16:13:13",70,27.6,26.6,73.8,26.2,24,181.82,.0533,-.01,0,0,-.121
"99/07/08","16:13:23",71,28.5,26.5,74.2,26.2,24.3,181.941,.0386,-.01,0,0,-.107
"99/07/08","16:13:33",72,27,25.2,73.2,25.8,23.9,181.619,.036,-.01,-.1,-.1,-.
116
"99/07/08","16:13:43",73,27,25.9,73.3,25.4,23.7,181.468,.0913,-.03,-.1,-.1,-
.127
the"99/07/08","16:13:53",74,26.5,25.6,74,25.6,23.5,181.549,.0196,0,-.2,-.1,-
.111
"99/07/08","16:14:03",75,27.8,25.9,73.8,25.7,23.8,181.549,.0705,-.03,-.1,-.2
,-.126
"99/07/08","16:14:13",76,27.6,25.3,74.2,25.4,23.6,181.378,.0724,-.02,-.2,0,-
.107
"99/07/08","16:14:23",77,30.1,28.2,77.1,27.5,25.8,57.0515,.0241,0,0,0,-.031
"99/07/08","16:14:33",78,30.2,28.2,77.1,27.5,25.7,.020124,-.0007,0,0,0,-.033
"99/07/08","16:14:43",79,30.1,28.2,77,27.5,25.6,.583596,.0009,0,0,0,-.032
"99/07/08","16:14:53",80,30.2,28.2,77,27.5,25.6,.573534,.0006,0,0,0,-.025
"99/07/08","16:15:03",81,30.3,28.2,77,27.5,25.6,.563472,.0007,0,0,0,-.019
"99/07/08","16:15:13",82,30.3,28.3,77,27.5,25.5,.55341,.0005,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","16:15:23",83,30.3,28.3,76.9,27.5,25.5,.55341,.0005,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","16:15:33",84,30.3,28.3,76.9,27.5,25.4,.55341,.0004,0,0,0,.035
"99/07/08","16:15:43",85,30.3,28.3,76.9,27.5,25.4,.543348,.0009,0,0,0,.04
"99/07/08","16:15:53",86,30.4,28.3,76.8,27.5,25.4,.543348,.0005,0,0,0,.036
"99/07/08","16:16:03",87,30.4,28.3,76.8,27.5,25.4,.543348,.001,0,0,0,.023
"99/07/08","16:16:13",88,30.4,28.3,76.8,27.5,25.3,.543348,.0003,0,0,0,.032
"99/07/08","16:16:23",89,30.4,28.4,76.8,27.6,25.4,.533286,.0005,0,0,0,.041
"99/07/08","16:16:33",90,30.4,28.3,76.8,27.5,25.4,.533286,.0005,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","16:16:43",91,30.4,28.3,76.7,27.5,25.5,.533286,.0005,0,0,0,.024
"99/07/08","16:16:53",92,30.4,28.4,76.7,27.5,25.5,.533286,.0005,0,0,0,-.01
"99/07/08","16:17:03",93,30.4,28.3,76.7,27.5,25.5,.533286,.0006,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","16:17:13",94,30.4,28.3,76.6,27.5,25.6,.533286,.0003,0,0,0,.02
"99/07/08","16:17:23",95,30.5,28.4,76.6,27.6,25.5,.533286,.0005,0,0,0,.017
"99/07/08","16:17:33",96,30.5,28.4,76.6,27.5,25.5,.523224,.0008,0,0,0,.015
"99/07/08","16:17:43",97,30.5,28.4,76.6,27.6,25.5,.523224,.0003,0,0,0,.005
"99/07/08","16:17:53",98,30.5,28.4,76.5,27.5,25.5,.523224,.0003,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","16:18:03",99,30.5,28.4,76.5,27.5,25.6,.523224,.0008,0,0,0,-.005
"99/07/08","16:18:13",100,30.6,28.4,76.5,27.6,25.6,.523224,.0008,0,0,0,-.009
"99/07/08","16:18:23",101,30.6,28.4,76.4,27.6,25.6,.523224,.0004,0,0,0,.032
"99/07/08","16:18:33",102,30.5,28.5,76.4,27.6,25.6,.523224,.0009,0,0,0,.024
"99/07/08","16:18:43",103,30.5,28.4,76.4,27.5,25.6,.523224,.0007,0,0,0,.005
"99/07/08","16:18:53",104,30.5,28.4,76.4,27.5,25.5,.523224,.0003,0,0,0,.043
"99/07/08","16:19:03",105,30.5,28.4,76.3,27.5,25.4,.523224,.0004,0,0,0,.011
"99/07/08","16:19:13",106,30.5,28.4,76.3,27.5,25.4,.523224,.0007,0,0,0,.008
"99/07/08","16:19:23",107,30.5,28.4,76.3,27.5,25.5,.523224,.0004,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","16:19:33",108,30.6,28.5,76.3,27.6,25.5,.523224,.0009,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","16:19:43",109,30.5,28.5,76.2,27.5,25.6,.523224,.0004,0,0,0,.016
"99/07/08","16:19:53",110,30.5,28.5,76.2,27.6,25.6,.523224,.0004,0,0,0,.032
"99/07/08","16:20:03",111,30.6,28.5,76.2,27.6,25.6,.523224,.0004,0,0,0,.035
"99/07/08","16:20:13",112,30.5,28.5,76.2,27.6,25.5,.523224,.0004,0,0,0,.036
"99/07/08","16:20:23",113,30.5,28.5,76.1,27.5,25.4,.523224,.0006,0,0,0,.018
"99/07/08","16:20:33",114,30.6,28.5,76.2,27.6,25.4,.523224,.0005,0,0,0,.018
"99/07/08","16:20:43",115,30.6,28.5,76.1,27.6,25.4,.523224,.0007,0,0,0,.008
"99/07/08","16:20:53",116,30.5,28.5,76.1,27.6,25.4,.523224,.0004,0,0,0,-.009
"99/07/08","16:21:03",117,30.6,28.5,76.1,27.6,25.4,.523224,.0006,0,0,0,-.01
"99/07/08","16:21:13",118,30.6,28.5,76,27.6,25.3,.523224,.0003,0,0,0,.039
"99/07/08","16:21:23",119,30.6,28.5,76,27.6,25.3,.513162,.0002,0,0,0,.034
"99/07/08","16:21:33",120,30.6,28.5,76,27.6,25.5,.513162,.0005,0,0,0,.004
"99/07/08","16:21:43",121,30.7,28.6,76,27.6,25.7,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.039
"99/07/08","16:21:53",122,30.6,28.5,75.9,27.6,25.7,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","16:22:03",123,30.6,28.6,75.9,27.6,25.7,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.006
"99/07/08","16:22:13",124,30.6,28.5,75.9,27.5,25.7,.513162,.0001,0,0,0,.046
"99/07/08","16:22:23",125,30.6,28.6,75.9,27.6,25.7,.523224,.0006,0,0,0,.045
"99/07/08","16:22:33",126,30.6,28.6,75.9,27.6,25.6,.513162,.0002,0,0,0,0
"99/07/08","16:22:43",127,30.6,28.6,75.8,27.6,25.5,.513162,.0005,0,0,0,.016
"99/07/08","16:22:53",128,30.6,28.6,75.8,27.6,25.5,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,.026
"99/07/08","16:23:03",129,30.6,28.6,75.8,27.6,25.6,.513162,.0008,0,0,0,.013
"99/07/08","16:23:13",130,30.6,28.6,75.8,27.6,25.5,.513162,.0002,0,0,0,.005
"99/07/08","16:23:23",131,30.6,28.6,75.7,27.6,25.4,.513162,.0005,0,0,0,-.002
"99/07/08","16:23:33",132,30.6,28.6,75.7,27.6,25.3,.513162,.0005,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","16:23:43",133,30.7,28.7,75.7,27.6,25.4,.513162,.0008,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","16:23:53",134,30.6,28.6,75.7,27.6,25.4,.513162,.0006,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","16:24:03",135,30.6,28.6,75.7,27.6,25.3,.513162,.0007,0,0,0,.035
"99/07/08","16:24:13",136,30.6,28.6,75.6,27.6,25.3,.513162,.0002,0,0,0,.007
"99/07/08","16:24:23",137,30.6,28.7,75.6,27.6,25.4,.513162,.0007,0,0,0,.034
"99/07/08","16:24:33",138,30.6,28.7,75.6,27.6,25.3,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","16:24:43",139,30.6,28.7,75.6,27.6,25.4,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,.017
"99/07/08","16:24:53",140,30.6,28.6,75.6,27.6,25.5,.513162,.0007,0,0,0,.01
"99/07/08","16:25:03",141,30.6,28.7,75.6,27.6,25.3,.513162,.0007,0,0,0,.032
"99/07/08","16:25:13",142,30.7,28.7,75.5,27.6,25.3,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.013


	Thanks for all the data/info.  It is wonderful to have a native
	English eyewitness.

Not so useful when the information falls into an electronic hole. The next
time I will write it down, video or no video.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 16:37:06 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA03058;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:33:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:33:42 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011705b3baad4963ba [207.8.127.137]>
In-Reply-To: <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub>
 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com> <379125ac.610868574@mail-hub>
 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com> <37948236.2777839@mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com> <379bdffc.92344680@mail-hub>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:09:42 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
Resent-Message-ID: <"cGL_d2.0.Zl.LTGbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29191
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:15:05 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Unless all of these questions can be answered, the theory is incomplete
>>and essentially
>> >useless.  I suggest you think in terms of these questions.
>>
>> I disagree that incomplete theories are useless. In fact all of current
>> science is based upon incomplete theories. If it weren't, then we could
>> all pack up and go home, as science would be finished.
>> [snip]
>
>Of course all theories are incomplete and I did not say that incomplete
>theories are useless.
>I said that a CANR theory was incomplete and useless if it can not answer
>each of the listed
>questions.  This also means that the same mechanism must do each job.  It
>is unlikely that
>more than one mechanism is involved because all would have to occur
>simultaneously in a
>lattice thereby giving a lower probability the more independent mechanisms
>had to operate.
>Thus, you can not invoke tunneling or neutron formation without also using
>the same mechanism
>to carry away the energy.  Saying an electron did it is not sufficient.
>You need to show
>exactly how the process works so that quantitative predictions can be made.

***{Four years ago, based on the protoneutron theory, I predicted that the
presence of nearby radiative sources would speed up the CF reaction. Two
years later, that prediction was fulfilled in an experiment conducted by E.
Lewis in George Miley's lab. [See http://207.225.33.111/radiation.html for
details.] Does that qualify as a "quantitative prediction"? --Mitchell
Jones}***

A theory is only
>useful when it shows why a phenomenon happens and how the phenomenon can
>be controlled, i.e.
>how the conditions can be modified to alter the phenomenon in predictable
>ways.

***{If a theory tells you to bombard a CF cell with radiation, and it
works, does that count? If not, why not? --Mitchell Jones}***

 None of the
>proposed theories have met this criteria.

***{Does this mean that the protoneutron theory is not one of the proposed
theories? (And, by the way, "Criteria" is plural. "Criterion" is the
singular form. Thus "this criteria" is bad usage. :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

 Until they do, they are only useful to people who
>like to speculate, not to the rest of the world. Besides, such  primitive
>models will not
>convert skeptics, a very necessary event if the field is to grow.

***{What are the "primitive models" to which you refer, and who are these
"people who like to speculate"? It wouldn't be anybody I know, would it?
:-) --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Regards,
>Ed Storms
>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 16:39:55 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA03322;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:33:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:33:50 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011704b3baa1d4b153 [207.8.127.137]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:19:45 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Objections to Protoneutron Theory
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id QAA03003
Resent-Message-ID: <"hZppN1.0.mp.TTGbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29192
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

***{I have been having an e-mail conversation with a fellow who has raised
several objections to the protoneutron theory. Here are some numbered
excerpts, each beginning with my paraphrase of his objection, followed by
my response. --Mitchell Jones}***


(1) He claimed that neutral hydrogen atoms can move freely from the
electrolyte into the palladium lattice. My response:

***{They are too big. To prove it, let's run the numbers.

To begin, the Pd lattice is face centered cubic. To understand what that
means, imagine laying out a sheet of ping-pong balls on a flat floor in a
square array, so that adjacent balls touch. Next, you put a identical to
the first one on top of it, with each ball in the second sheet resting at
the center of a four-ball square on the first sheet. Next, lay a third
sheet identical to the second one on top of it, in the same manner. And so
on. The result is what is termed a face-centered cubic array.

In such an array, the bonds are covalent between adjacent atoms, and we
need to determine B, the bond length. Let Le represent the distance from
center-to-center between two balls comprising the edge of one of the cubes,
and let Ds represent the center-to-center length down the diagonal of a
side containing that edge. Result: Ds^2 = Le^2 + Le^2, or Ds =
sqrt||2Le^2||, or Ds = ||sqrt2||Le. From that, we see that the diagonal of
the cube itself, Dc, is such that Dc = ||sqrt(Le^2 + Ds^2|| = ||sqrt(Le^2 +
2Le^2)|| = ||sqrt3||Le. Since the bonds are between the Pd at the center
and the ones at the corners of the cube, the bond length, B, is such that B
= Dc/2 = ||sqrt3||Le/2 = .866Le.

Clearly, we need to know the value of Le, in order to calculate B. Since
the atomic weight of Pd is 106.4, then by Avogadro's number, 106.4 gms of
Pd would contain 6.02x10^23 atoms. However, we are interested in the value
Le, which is the length of the edge of one of the cubes, and so we will
consider an identical spatial array from which the even numbered sheets
have been deleted. Such an array will weigh 53.2 gm and will contain
3.01x10^23 atoms. Since it will have a density of 6.08 gm/cc, it will have
a volume of 53.2/6.08 = 8.75 cc. Thus one cc of this fictive half-density
Pd will contain 3.01x10^23/8.75 = 3.44x10^22 atoms. Thus one edge of such a
cube will contain  ||cubrt(3.44x10^22)|| = 3.25x10^7 atoms, and Le =
1/(3.25x10^7) = 3.07x10^-8 cm. Thus we have B = ||sqrt3||Le/2 =
||sqrt3||(3.07x10^-8)/2 = 2.66x10^-8 cm = 2.66 Å. [Note: Horace Heffner
used this elegant method of bond length calculation on spf several years
ago, and it stuck in my mind. (I love this kind of stuff! :-)]

While this array is generally described as body-centered cubic, the cells
that are loaded with H atoms consist of two four-sided pyramids (e.g., like
the Egyptian pyramids) joined base-to-base. The faces of each pyramid are
equilateral triangles with side lengths equal to the bond lengths of about
2.66 Å. Thus it is the double-pyramid cells that have H atoms placed in
their centers when loading occurs, and it is through the centers of one of
the equilateral triangles that an object must pass, if it is to get inside.
Result: we have a simple geometry problem. Draw an equilateral triangle
with a circle centered on each vertex, just large enough so that the
circles touch each other at the midpoints of the sides. Each side is 2.66 Å
in length, so each circle has a radius of 2.66/2 = 1.33 Å. The problem is
to find the radius of a circle centered at the midpoint of the triangle,
which just touches the three circles centered on the vertices. Therefore
draw a line from one vertex to the center of the triangle and call it h.
Next, drop a perpendicular from the center of the triangle to one of the
sides closest to h, and call it p. Result: the triangle of which h and p
are sides is a 30-60-90 right triangle such that cos 30 = 1.33/h, and the
radius of the inner circle is r = h - 1.33. Combining expressions and
solving, we get r = 1.33/cos 30 - 1.33 = .206 Å.

This means the radius of the largest sphere that can fit through the hole
in the face of the double-pyramid unit cell is .206 Å. Since the Bohr
radius of the hydrogen atom is .53 Å, there is *no way*, practically
speaking, that a neutral H atom can make its way inside. The way loading
works, therefore, is as I said previously: H+ ions drift into the lattice
through regions that are depleted of excess electrons, and form neutral H
atoms by meeting up with an electron after they are inside. There is simply
no other practical mechanism by which loading could occur, given the
conditions.

Bottom line: entry is permitted only to H+ (protons) or D+ (deuterons). A
neutral hydrogen atom is too large to pass through the pyramid face and
into the unit cell. Once inside the cell, a simple calculation reveals that
there is room in the center of the double-pyramid for a sphere of radius r'
= ||sqrt(2)(2.66)^2||/2 - 1.33 = .55 Å, which will accomodate one neutral H
atom with its electron orbiting at the innermost Bohr radius of .53 Å. To
get there, however, its parts must enter as separate charged
particles--i.e., as a proton and an electron---and combine after they are
inside. The reason: a sphere of radius .53 Å cannot fit through a hole that
will accomodate a sphere no larger than .206 Å.

--Mitchell Jones}***


(2) He claimed that H+ ions would be blocked from entering a palladium
cathode, because they would be handed an electron as soon as they came
near. My response:

***{If you were correct, then loading would be a practical impossibility,
because as demonstrated above the largest sphere that can pass into a
double-pyramid Pd cell has a radius of .206 Å, and the H atom is about 2.6
times that large. Since loading is, in fact, possible, it follows that H+
ions can, and do, enter the Pd lattice. And, clearly, there is only one way
that can happen: they must enter through regions of the lattice where
excess electrons have been depleted. How can that happen? Simple: they
enter through regions where the potential difference across the
cathode/electrolyte interface is very low. In the case of the old style
Pons-Fleischmann cells, relatively low supply voltage combines with wetting
of the cathode to bring about the necessary state of depletion. In the case
of the Mizuno cell, localized depletion of excess electrons comes about due
to the presence of nearby arcs. --Mitchell Jones}***


(3) When I suggested that H+ ions enter the Mizuno cathode in regions where
excess electrons have been depleted due to the presence of nearby arcs, he
cited palladium cathodes where there is a delay of several minutes before
hydrogen bubbles begin to form on the cathode. My response:

***{Assuming that the H+ ions move from the anode (where the water
molecules are split) to the cathode in t = 5 minutes = 300 sec, and that
the separation between anode and cathode is d = 5 cm = .05 m, the drift
velocity  would be v = d/t = .05/300 = 1.67x10^-4 m/sec, which is plausibly
close to the values typically calculated for drift velocities. Thus my
guess is that the lack of bubbles for the first several minutes simply
means that the H+ ions haven gotten to the cathode yet.

Let's compare the drift velocity estimated above to a typical electron
drift velocity in copper wire, and see if we do in fact obtain rough
agreement.

Let L represent the average distance traveled by an electron in the time t;
let A represent the cross sectional area of the copper wire; let N
represent the number of charge carriers per unit volume of conductive
material; and let e represent the absolute value of the charge moved by
each individual charge carrier. Since I = Q/t and Q = LANe, it follows that
I = LANe/t. If v is the average drift velocity of a charge carrier, v =
L/t, so we have I = vANe, or v = I/ANe, where I is the average current
(coul/sec), A is the cross sectional area (m^2) of the conductor
perpendicular to the direction of current flow, N is the number of charge
carriers per unit volume (m^3) within the conductive material, and e is the
absolute charge (coul) on each such charge carrier.

In the case of copper wire, N is simply the number of outer shell electrons
per cubic meter, which may be easily calculated. To begin, a gram atomic
weight of copper (63.54 grams) will contain 6.02x10^23 atoms, and, with one
outer electron per atom, it will contain the same number of outer
electrons. The density of Cu is about 8.9 gm/ml, so a gram atomic weight of
Cu will occupy a volume of 63.54/8.9 = 7.14 ml = .00714 liters = 7.14x10^-6
m^3. Thus 1 cubic meter of copper will contain [1/(7.14x10^-6)](6.02x10^23)
= 8.43x10^28 outer electrons. Thus N = 8.43x10^28 electrons/m^3, and, for a
free electron, e = 1.6x10^-19 coul. To match the operating current of your
cell, let's assume we have a current of 1 amp, giving I = 1 coul/sec. As
for the wire size, let's assume we are using 17 gage wire. Thus A = 2048.2
circular mills = 2048.2[pi(.001/2)^2][2.54^2/10,000] = 1.03x10^-6 m^2.
Plugging in these various values, we obtain v = I/NAe =
(1)/8.43x10^28x1.03x10^-6x1.6x10^-19 = .72x10^4 m/sec, which is the average
drift velocity of the electrons in the copper wire.

Comparing back to my calculated drift velocity of the H+ ions in [the
palladium cell], which was 1.67x10^-4 m/sec, we see pretty good
agreement--well within an order of magnitude, despite my guessing at the
separation between [the] anode and cathode, and also at what you meant by
"several minutes."

Bottom line: my guess is that the delay to which you refer is due to the
time required for the H+ ions to make their way from the anode to the
cathode, and does *not* indicate that the H+ ions are plunging deep into
the cathode prior to the beginning of H2 bubble formation.

--Mitchell Jones}***


(4)  In reply to the above, he claimed that the cathode begins bubbling
without delay if it is made of a metal that does not absorb hydrogen--e.g.,
platinum. My response:

***{In the cases  where the cathode begins bubbling immediately, I would
wonder about the pH of the electrolyte. If it was acidic, for example, then
there would be H+ ions all over the solution even before the current was
turned on. Result: the cathode would start bubbling immediately despite the
H+ ions not having time to make it across the gap from anode to cathode.
Also, the separation between anode and cathode would matter. And, likewise,
the applied current would matter.

Regardless of the proper explanation for the delays [when the cathode is
platinum], one thing seems clear: once the H+ ions reach the cathode under
conditions of wetting and low supply voltage, the low potential difference
between cathode and electrolyte--effectively zero--would imply very low
numbers of excess electrons distributed over the cathode surface. Result:
the odds would be slim that an H+ ion would encounter an excess electron at
the surface of the cathode, and, thus, in the vast majority of cases it
would not meet one until it had moved inside. Result: the neutral H atoms
would form inside the cathode rather than at the surface, thereby not
contributing to bubble formation. In other words, regardless of whether
there is an initial delay of several minutes due to the time required for
the H+ ions to make their way to the cathode, there will surely be a delay
after they get there, if the cathode surface is sparsely populated by
excess electrons. Bottom line: both the Pd and the W cells operate by the
same mechanism. In both cases, the H+ must reach the cathode in a region
that has been depleted of excess electrons, if it is to get inside before
it is handed an electron. At that point, if there is room, it expands into
a neutral H atom. If not, it collapses into a protoneutron.

--Mitchell Jones}***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 16:40:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA06534;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:38:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:38:43 -0700
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <e63284c4.24c66278 aol.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 19:38:32 EDT
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54
Resent-Message-ID: <"RnOHX2.0.0c1.3YGbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29193
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message on Monday, July 19, 1999, Jean Delagarde referred to a new 
Business Summary on the BLP website.  The Business Summary that I saw there 
on Monday night said "Last Updated 1/14/99 ."  That's not exactly breaking 
news.  Did I miss something?

The Business Summary dated 1/14/99 may not have been very new, but it was an 
interesting document nonetheless.  I was astonished to see William Clarke on 
the Board of Directors.  Clarke is a big-leaguer indeed.  Clarke is in good 
company on the board, so I agree with Mike Carrell that Mills has a strong 
board of directors.

Jean asked why the scientific and general media aren't full of stories about 
Mills and his discoveries.  Good question.  I think that future historians 
will be astonished by how long it took for reporters and editors to discover 
this.  

I see Mills continuing to stride forward on solid ground, as he has ever 
since he first surfaced in 1991.  He's come a long way since then.
	
Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 16:58:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA11579;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:54:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:54:44 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990720194820.00dd5730 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 19:48:20 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
Cc: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>,
        Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>, BriggsRO@aol.com,
        Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>,
        Michael T Huffman <knuke LCIA.COM>, Mitchell Jones <mjones@jump.net>,
        "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>,
        little mail.eden.com, "E.F. Mallove" <editor@infinite-energy.com>,
        Ed Wall <ewall infinite-energy.com>,
        Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>, Tstolper@aol.com,
        ATP <ATP worldnet.att.net>, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net,
        Dieter Britz <db kemi.aau.dk>, "George H. Miley" <g-miley@uiuc.edu>,
        "Frank, Alex MD" <FrankAl uhpcc.medserv.net>,
        el <melmiles ridgecrest.ca.us>, Edmund Storms <storms2@ix.netcom.com>,
        Dieter Britz <db kemi.aau.dk>
In-Reply-To: <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"o69V_1.0.mq2.4nGbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29194
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:57 AM 7/18/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:58:38 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >Yes, under ideal conditions, this would be a useful approach.  Indeed,
several
>> >people have seen the heat pulse using IR imaging.  In addition, the
resulting melted
>> >spots were analyzed for transmutation products which were detected.
However, the
>> >lattice in the active region is destroyed and any information about
precondition is
>> >lost.  It appears to be impossible to stop the process fast enough.  On
the
>>
>> Now this is important information. If I interpret it correctly, then it
>> says that highly localised heat bursts are of very short duration.
>> The implication is that either some form of complex chain reaction is
>> responsible, or the conditions are suddenly met, to collapse a BEC,
>> according to Horace's hypothesis. Either of which processes eventually
>> uses up all the fuel in the local active region and dies out.
>
>I do not believe the fuel is used up but that the necessary environment is
destroyed.
>This change in environment might include the physical loss of fuel caused
by the high
>temperature.

  Physical loss of fuel might also be what Robin was posting about.

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

>  An apparent steady production of heat is caused by many such local spots
>going critical.  The measured production rate would depend on the
number/sec lighting
>up.  Good Pd would have a high value and poor Pd would have a low value
with most
>activity located in a small region.  Thus, a measurement of average
properties is
>diluted by a lot of inactive conditions. My measurements show that the
surface
>composition of an inactive sample is above PdD1.5, while the average
composition is near
>PdD0.85, This observation suggests the active regions could be as high as
PdD2.0. 

   If you are not driving the sample at the optimal operating point (OOP) then
1) how can you compare samples effectively?

   and 2) could the "inactive" sample actually be not driven at the OOP, 
or driven with a suboptimal peak (eg. insufficient loading).

   The OOP analysis give a different parallax point of view.

   Have a good day.

   Mitchell Swartz

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 17:42:50 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA26097;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:41:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:41:12 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19990720173736.009d0100 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:40:57 -0700
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: Report on visit to Mizuno and Ohmori
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990720171353.0079f6d0 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"x9kyA.0.hN6.eSHbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29195
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



>	Please clarify.  The term "quartz glass" is like saying "alcohol
>	wine" . . .
>
>Dunno. That's what they call it in Japanese. High temperature resistant,
>pure material.
>

Any glass beaker manufacturer will know the term, "quartz glass".  It is
made of quartz, and it is NOT, pyrex.  Go to a chemistry supplier, ie
probably Aldrich, CMS, etc.

rt


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 17:49:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA28453;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:48:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:48:10 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: BLP versus Mizuno
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:47:34 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37971587.171609245 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.6.32.19990720132853.00797bd0 pop.mindspring.com> <3794CF5C.4089CA9D@bellsouth.net>
In-Reply-To: <3794CF5C.4089CA9D bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 RAA28229
Resent-Message-ID: <"IMtA22.0.Ky6.AZHbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29196
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:34:52 -0400, Terry Blanton wrote:
[snip]
>Well, does Scott score and "age" his cathode?  I don't recall either
>of these in his procedure.  From your post:
>
>> 3. It is best to score (scratch) the surface of the cathode. Post
>> experiment micro-photos and spectroscopic analyses show melted tungsten and
>> apparent transmutations at reaction sites where the surface is uneven.
>
>> 5. Age the cathode for at least an hour with ordinary electrolysis, at
>> fairly high power levels, below glow discharge. Details are on the tape.
>
>The rough surface area could be very critical.  Also, Dr. Storms
>discussed the importance of having an oxide layer on the cathode in
>earlier posts.  Maybe "aging" the cathode creates just such a layer.
>
>Terry
Another possibility is that scoring produces approximately V shaped
channels in the surface that then become plated over (with Pt) during
the aging process. This would result in V shaped Pt intrusions in the
cathode. Because Pt absorbs H or D better than W, the H or D would tend
to accumulate at the bottom of the V shaped interface between the Pt and
the W, reaching a high concentration, as it is drawn into the cathode
from the surface, but unable to progress further into the cathode than
the W interface. The V shape itself also tends to increase the
concentration at the bottom. 
If this is a valid representation of what is happening, then a "good"
cathode (for a normal electrolysis CF experiment), might be explicitly
manufactured in a similar manner. I.e.:
Multiply score (preferably with V shaped grooves) e.g. a thin Ni plate,
then electroplate it with a layer of Pd, just thick enough to fill the
grooves.
The resultant plate then to be used as the cathode in a CF experiment.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 20 22:15:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA18879;
	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:13:07 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:13:07 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3baff7dab09 [207.8.127.137]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990720171353.0079f6d0 pop.mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 23:58:25 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Report on visit to Mizuno and Ohmori
Resent-Message-ID: <"jZCFB2.0.uc4.YRLbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29197
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Scott Little writes:
>
>	I look forward to details.  "Clean everything" covers a universe
>	of possibilities.
>
>Actually, I already described most of the procedures here previously. I
>should gather together all relevant e-mail messages.
>
>
>	>3. It is best to score (scratch) the surface of the cathode.
>
>	I've never done this (yet).
>
>You probably cannot do it once the tungsten lead wire is attached. It will
>break off.
>
>
>	Please clarify.  The term "quartz glass" is like saying "alcohol
>	wine" . . .
>
>Dunno. That's what they call it in Japanese. High temperature resistant,
>pure material.
>
>
>	>Watch your fingers when you use it, to avoid cuts and to avoid
>touching
>	>the cathode with the part of the glass your fingers touch.
>
>	Does this mean you hold the broken pieces with your bare fingers
>	and rub them over the W cathode?
>
>Well, you might want to wear gloves, but that is the basic idea. You take a
>long shard and rub 50 times one way, 50 times the other, flip over, and
>scratch the other side. Then wash in pure water. Tungsten is hard, but you
>can see the scratches on the surface with the naked eye.
>
>
>	>5. Age the cathode for at least an hour with ordinary
>	electrolysis
>
>	I've done this once or twice, but not usually.
>
>It seems to have a good effect. Ohmori always does it, and his results are
>more consistent and better than Mizuno's.

***{This fits with what I posted earlier about the way H+ atoms enter the
cathodes of Mizuno type cells. That is, they enter in areas where the
number of excess electrons has been depleted by nearby arcs. Cutting groves
in the surface would cause the bases of the arcs to be placed consistently
on the high spots. Result: the bottoms of the valleys would become depleted
of excess electrons, and entry of H+ ions would be facilitated there. A
cathode covered with short spicules should exhibit this effect even more
strongly. And, of course, once an H+ ion meets an electron inside the
cathode, a protoneutron can be formed--provided that the lattice cell is
too small for the electron to orbit at the Bohr radius. --Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

>
>- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 04:09:50 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA05369;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 04:03:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 04:03:28 -0700
Message-ID: <003401bed369$33b24320$394eccd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: BLP versus Mizuno: Scratching Cathodes
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 06:47:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"nnS7Y2.0.lJ1.-ZQbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29198
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

A footnote to 'why scratch a cathode?'

For one thing, using a fractured quartz -- pure silicon oxide --  virtually
guarantees that the cleaning edge is free of contaminants, and you scrape
away anything tenaciously adhering to the cathode surface.

For another, you disrupt the atomic ordering of the surface in an
unpredictable way. Note that the Case and A&Z cells -- both strong
contenders -- have disrupted Pd surfaces. This is at lease consistent with
the notion that the LENR effects are related to unspecified local conditions
producing *active sites*.

Mike Carrell

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 06:41:22 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA05620;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 06:40:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 06:40:30 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990721093308.01111720 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:33:08 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Report on visit to Mizuno and Ohmori
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990720171353.0079f6d0 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NF-CF1.0.iN1.DtSbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29199
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 05:13 PM 7/20/99 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Scott Little writes:
>"LOG_DATE","LOG_TIME","LOG_NO","PC-T-1","PC-T-2","CEL-VT","CEL-WT","ROOM-T",
>"HEAT-V","HEAT-I","CHRG-V","CHRG-I","PRESS.","PC-V"

 Could you please state what these mean, if possible, and/or
which are measured and derived, so that the data might be 
better understood?  Thanks. 



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 06:53:45 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA09515;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 06:52:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 06:52:10 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990721095236.00798100 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:52:36 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Mizuno raw data key
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"hkVjQ1.0.bK2.A2Tbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29200
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

When I posted raw data from Mizuno yesterday, I forgot to include the
column headings from my spreadsheet "July 12 run 5.wks" which explains
what's what. I think Scott Little already has this, but for other who wish
to mush the data:

Mizuno's
Heading	Meaning
--------	-------
LOG_DATE	Date
LOG_TIME	T.O.D.
LOG_NO		Record serial number
PC-T-1		Room temperature
PC-T-2		Incubator temperature
CEL-VT		Cell temperature (electrolyte temperature)
CEL-WT		Incubator temp 2
ROOM-T		Room temp 2 (cooler spot, I think)
HEAT-V		Voltage. Multiply by 1.1 to get electrolysis voltage
HEAT-I		Current. Multiply by 11 to get electrolysis current
CHRG-V		Not in use
CHRG-I		Not in use
PRESS.		Not in use
PC-V		Not in use

To compute instantaneous power, multiply HEAT-V*1.1 * HEAT-I*11.

By the way, Mizuno e-mailed me late yesterday that the tapes arrived and he
can read them fine. I should have them in VCR format soon.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 07:00:00 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA11245;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 06:58:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 06:58:51 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990721095926.007a05b0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:59:26 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Mizuno raw data key, addendum
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Hx59x1.0.dl2.R8Tbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29201
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wrote:

	LOG_TIME	T.O.D.

That's Time Of Day in computerese.


	PC-T-2		Incubator temperature

I should mention that the incubator was turned off when we did these runs,
so the temperature inside it drifts up. Also, the main outside door was
left open, only the plastic inner door was closed. (An incubator looks like
a small refrigerator with two doors.) It was turned off because the fans
and compressors make a racket and we wanted to talk and videotape the
experiment without the noise. When it is turned on, the temperature is
remarkably stable, to within 0.1 deg C, I believe.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 08:02:45 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA27025;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:59:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:59:46 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990721104845.0079dc80 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:48:45 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Mizuno - other raw data, 1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_hmtZ2.0.wb6.X1Ubt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29202
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

As long as I am posting raw data, here are the other four data sets for
July 8, 1999 for the 1-liter heat-up method. I summarized them earlier as
follows:


				Volts		Duration	Average Energy Balance
Date		Cathode	Maximum	Seconds	Input/Output ratio
1999/7/8	W plate	100 V		1200		1.008
1999/7/8	W plate	120 V		1200		1.024
1999/7/8	W plate	160 V		1200		1.028
1999/7/8	W plate	180 V		1200		1.028
1999/7/8	W plate	200 V		800		1.103


Data set 1, others to follow in next e-mail messages:

"LOG_DATE","LOG_TIME","LOG_NO","PC-T-1","PC-T-2","CEL-VT","CEL-WT","ROOM-T",
"HEAT-V","HEAT-I","CHRG-V","CHRG-I","PRESS.","PC-V"
"99/07/08","11:19:48",1,26.3,26.1,25.9,25.8,25.4,0,-.0001,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","11:19:58",2,26.3,26.1,26,25.8,25.5,44.3231,.4507,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","11:20:08",3,26.3,26.1,27.3,25.8,25.5,74.5997,.7634,0,0,0,-.016
"99/07/08","11:20:18",4,26.3,26.1,29.4,25.8,25.5,91.3328,.8004,0,0,0,-.029
"99/07/08","11:20:28",5,26.3,26.1,31.4,25.8,25.5,91.363,.8073,0,0,0,-.039
"99/07/08","11:20:38",6,26.3,26.1,33.2,25.8,25.5,91.3529,.7754,0,0,0,-.041
"99/07/08","11:20:48",7,26.3,26.1,34.9,25.8,25.4,91.3428,.7373,0,0,0,-.051
"99/07/08","11:20:58",8,26.3,26.1,36.6,25.8,25.4,91.3328,.6965,0,0,0,-.049
"99/07/08","11:21:08",9,26.3,26.1,38.1,25.8,25.4,91.3328,.6818,0,0,0,-.036
"99/07/08","11:21:18",10,26.3,26.1,39.7,25.8,25.3,91.3529,.6346,0,0,0,-.071
"99/07/08","11:21:28",11,26.3,26.1,41.2,25.8,25.3,91.3529,.5677,0,0,0,-.051
"99/07/08","11:21:38",12,26.3,26.1,42.7,25.8,25.2,91.3227,.6525,0,0,0,-.048
"99/07/08","11:21:48",13,26.3,26.1,44.2,25.8,25.3,91.3227,.5921,0,0,0,-.046
"99/07/08","11:21:58",14,26.3,26.1,45.5,25.7,25.2,91.3428,.5985,0,0,0,-.047
"99/07/08","11:22:08",15,26.2,26.1,47,25.7,25.1,91.3227,.617,0,0,0,-.046
"99/07/08","11:22:18",16,26.2,26.1,48.3,25.8,25.1,91.3328,.4387,0,0,0,-.051
"99/07/08","11:22:28",17,26.2,26.1,49.5,25.8,25.2,91.3127,.6781,0,0,0,-.053
"99/07/08","11:22:38",18,26.3,26.3,50.9,25.9,25.4,91.3127,.5099,0,0,0,-.06
"99/07/08","11:22:48",19,26.2,26.2,52,25.8,25.4,91.3127,.4567,0,0,0,-.04
"99/07/08","11:22:58",20,26.2,26.2,53.1,25.8,25.4,91.363,.5251,0,0,0,-.045
"99/07/08","11:23:08",21,26.3,26.2,54.1,25.8,25.3,91.2825,.4287,0,0,0,-.054
"99/07/08","11:23:18",22,26.3,26.2,55,25.8,25.3,91.3227,.4505,0,0,0,-.047
"99/07/08","11:23:28",23,26.3,26.2,56,25.8,25.3,91.3328,.4285,0,0,0,-.049
"99/07/08","11:23:38",24,26.3,26.2,56.9,25.8,25.4,91.2925,.3564,0,0,0,-.035
"99/07/08","11:23:48",25,26.3,26.2,57.8,25.8,25.4,91.3227,.4373,0,0,0,-.038
"99/07/08","11:23:58",26,26.3,26.3,58.6,25.8,25.4,91.3026,.3621,0,0,0,-.036
"99/07/08","11:24:08",27,26.3,26.3,59.5,25.8,25.4,91.3227,.3373,0,0,0,-.035
"99/07/08","11:24:18",28,26.3,26.3,60.3,25.8,25.4,91.3328,.3722,0,0,0,-.061
"99/07/08","11:24:28",29,26.3,26.3,61.1,25.8,25.4,91.3227,.306,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","11:24:38",30,26.3,26.3,61.9,25.8,25.4,91.3428,.2709,0,0,0,-.036
"99/07/08","11:24:48",31,26.3,26.3,62.7,25.8,25.5,91.3428,.3701,0,0,0,-.044
"99/07/08","11:24:58",32,26.3,26.3,63.4,25.8,25.5,91.3328,.3158,0,0,0,-.037
"99/07/08","11:25:08",33,26.3,26.2,64.1,25.8,25.5,91.3328,.2442,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","11:25:18",34,26.3,26.3,64.8,25.8,25.4,91.3328,.2575,0,0,0,-.034
"99/07/08","11:25:28",35,26.4,26.3,65.4,25.8,25.5,91.3227,.2624,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","11:25:38",36,26.3,26.3,66,25.7,25.4,91.3127,.2668,0,0,0,-.051
"99/07/08","11:25:48",37,26.4,26.4,66.7,25.9,25.5,91.3328,.2433,0,0,0,-.033
"99/07/08","11:25:58",38,26.5,26.3,67.3,25.8,25.6,91.3227,.293,0,0,0,-.036
"99/07/08","11:26:08",39,26.4,26.4,67.8,25.9,25.5,91.3127,.2412,0,0,0,-.05
"99/07/08","11:26:18",40,26.4,26.4,68.4,25.8,25.5,91.3227,.2568,0,0,0,-.044
"99/07/08","11:26:28",41,26.4,26.3,68.9,25.8,25.5,91.3127,.2409,0,0,0,-.035
"99/07/08","11:26:38",42,26.4,26.4,69.5,25.8,25.5,91.3227,.229,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","11:26:48",43,26.4,26.4,70,25.8,25.5,91.3227,.213,0,0,0,-.038
"99/07/08","11:26:58",44,26.4,26.4,70.5,25.8,25.5,91.3127,.2137,0,0,0,-.052
"99/07/08","11:27:08",45,26.4,26.4,71,25.9,25.5,91.3127,.2113,0,0,0,-.052
"99/07/08","11:27:18",46,26.4,26.4,71.5,25.8,25.4,91.3026,.241,0,0,0,-.045
"99/07/08","11:27:28",47,26.3,26.4,71.9,25.8,25.4,91.3328,.2157,0,0,0,-.045
"99/07/08","11:27:38",48,26.3,26.4,72.4,25.8,25.4,91.3026,.2211,0,0,0,-.044
"99/07/08","11:27:48",49,26.3,26.4,72.9,25.8,25.5,91.3127,.2213,0,0,0,-.05
"99/07/08","11:27:58",50,26.3,26.4,73.3,25.8,25.5,91.3026,.2013,0,0,0,-.048
"99/07/08","11:28:08",51,26.3,26.4,73.8,25.8,25.5,91.3127,.1988,0,0,0,-.041
"99/07/08","11:28:18",52,26.3,26.4,74.2,25.8,25.5,91.3127,.197,0,0,0,-.049
"99/07/08","11:28:28",53,26.3,26.5,74.7,25.9,25.5,91.3227,.1763,0,0,0,-.053
"99/07/08","11:28:38",54,26.4,26.5,75.2,25.9,25.5,91.3227,.1546,0,0,0,-.034
"99/07/08","11:28:48",55,26.4,26.5,75.6,25.9,25.5,91.3127,.1642,0,0,0,-.043
"99/07/08","11:28:58",56,26.4,26.5,76,25.9,25.5,91.3328,.1595,0,0,0,-.056
"99/07/08","11:29:08",57,26.4,26.5,76.4,25.9,25.5,91.3127,.2109,0,0,0,-.042
"99/07/08","11:29:18",58,26.4,26.6,76.8,25.9,25.5,91.3227,.1924,0,0,0,-.058
"99/07/08","11:29:28",59,26.4,26.6,77.2,25.9,25.4,91.3127,.187,0,0,0,-.055
"99/07/08","11:29:38",60,26.3,26.6,77.6,25.9,25.4,91.3127,.1741,0,0,0,-.039
"99/07/08","11:29:48",61,26.3,26.5,78,25.9,25.4,91.3227,.1573,0,0,0,-.037
"99/07/08","11:29:58",62,26.3,26.6,78.4,25.8,25.5,91.3227,.1748,0,0,0,-.033
"99/07/08","11:30:08",63,26.4,26.5,78.8,25.9,25.5,91.3227,.1795,0,0,0,-.037
"99/07/08","11:30:18",64,26.3,26.6,79.1,25.9,25.4,91.3127,.1584,0,0,0,-.038
"99/07/08","11:30:28",65,26.3,26.6,79.4,25.9,25.3,91.3127,.15,0,0,0,-.058
"99/07/08","11:30:38",66,26.2,26.5,79.8,25.8,25.3,91.3328,.1639,0,0,0,-.035
"99/07/08","11:30:48",67,26.4,26.7,80.3,26,25.4,91.3227,.176,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","11:30:58",68,26.3,26.7,80.6,26,25.5,91.3227,.1587,0,0,0,-.041
"99/07/08","11:31:08",69,26.3,26.7,81,25.9,25.5,91.3227,.1639,0,0,0,-.038
"99/07/08","11:31:18",70,26.3,26.7,81.3,25.9,25.5,91.3127,.1458,0,0,0,-.034
"99/07/08","11:31:28",71,26.3,26.7,81.6,25.9,25.5,91.3428,.136,0,0,0,-.056
"99/07/08","11:31:38",72,26.3,26.7,82,25.9,25.5,91.3127,.156,0,0,0,-.038
"99/07/08","11:31:48",73,26.4,26.7,82.3,26,25.5,91.3227,.1532,0,0,0,-.05
"99/07/08","11:31:58",74,26.3,26.7,82.6,25.9,25.4,91.3127,.1651,0,0,0,-.043
"99/07/08","11:32:08",75,26.4,26.7,82.9,25.9,25.4,91.3127,.1504,0,0,0,-.051
"99/07/08","11:32:18",76,26.4,26.7,83.2,25.9,25.4,91.3127,.1412,0,0,0,-.047
"99/07/08","11:32:28",77,26.4,26.7,83.6,25.9,25.4,91.3227,.145,0,0,0,-.042
"99/07/08","11:32:38",78,26.4,26.7,83.9,25.9,25.4,91.3127,.1397,0,0,0,-.046
"99/07/08","11:32:48",79,26.4,26.7,84.1,25.9,25.3,91.3127,.1464,0,0,0,-.044
"99/07/08","11:32:58",80,26.5,26.7,84.4,25.9,25.3,91.3127,.1501,0,0,0,-.06
"99/07/08","11:33:08",81,26.5,26.8,84.9,26,25.3,91.3227,.1409,0,0,0,-.036
"99/07/08","11:33:18",82,26.5,26.9,85.1,26,25.3,91.3227,.1387,0,0,0,-.035
"99/07/08","11:33:28",83,26.5,26.8,85.4,26,25.3,91.3127,.1395,0,0,0,-.041
"99/07/08","11:33:38",84,26.5,26.8,85.8,26,25.3,91.3227,.1469,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","11:33:48",85,26.5,26.8,86,26,25.5,91.3127,.1262,0,0,0,-.04
"99/07/08","11:33:58",86,26.6,26.9,86.3,26,25.5,91.3127,.144,0,0,0,-.051
"99/07/08","11:34:08",87,26.6,26.9,86.6,26,25.5,91.3227,.1418,0,0,0,-.047
"99/07/08","11:34:18",88,26.6,26.9,86.8,26,25.6,91.3127,.1358,0,0,0,-.038
"99/07/08","11:34:28",89,26.6,26.9,87.1,26,25.5,91.3127,.1453,0,0,0,-.043
"99/07/08","11:34:38",90,26.6,26.9,87.3,26,25.5,91.3227,.1236,0,0,0,-.037
"99/07/08","11:34:48",91,26.5,26.9,87.7,26,25.5,91.3127,.1363,0,0,0,-.053
"99/07/08","11:34:58",92,26.5,26.9,87.9,25.9,25.4,91.3227,.1209,0,0,0,-.053
"99/07/08","11:35:08",93,26.5,26.9,88.2,25.9,25.3,91.3127,.1417,0,0,0,-.041
"99/07/08","11:35:18",94,26.7,27,88.5,26.1,25.4,91.3328,.1223,0,0,0,-.053
"99/07/08","11:35:28",95,26.7,27,88.8,26.1,25.5,91.3227,.1271,0,0,0,-.048
"99/07/08","11:35:38",96,26.7,27,89,26.1,25.5,91.3227,.1245,0,0,0,-.051
"99/07/08","11:35:48",97,26.7,27,89.2,26.1,25.5,91.3227,.1233,0,0,0,-.038
"99/07/08","11:35:58",98,26.7,27,89.5,26.1,25.5,91.3227,.132,0,0,0,-.043
"99/07/08","11:36:08",99,26.7,27,89.7,26,25.6,91.3328,.1213,0,0,0,-.036
"99/07/08","11:36:18",100,26.7,27,90,26,25.6,91.3227,.1196,0,0,0,-.04
"99/07/08","11:36:28",101,26.7,27,90.2,26,25.7,91.3127,.1047,0,0,0,-.043
"99/07/08","11:36:38",102,26.7,27,90.4,26,25.7,91.3227,.1193,0,0,0,-.038
"99/07/08","11:36:48",103,26.7,27.1,90.7,26,25.7,91.3328,.1081,0,0,0,-.037
"99/07/08","11:36:58",104,26.7,27,90.9,26,25.6,91.3127,.1116,0,0,0,-.047
"99/07/08","11:37:08",105,26.8,27.1,91.2,26,25.5,91.3227,.1129,0,0,0,-.04
"99/07/08","11:37:18",106,26.8,27.1,91.3,26,25.5,91.3127,.1165,0,0,0,-.034
"99/07/08","11:37:28",107,26.9,27.2,91.7,26.1,25.6,91.3328,.1259,0,0,0,-.036
"99/07/08","11:37:38",108,26.8,27.2,91.9,26.1,25.6,91.3328,.1102,0,0,0,-.048
"99/07/08","11:37:48",109,26.9,27.2,92.1,26.1,25.6,91.3328,.1022,0,0,0,-.053
"99/07/08","11:37:58",110,26.8,27.2,92.3,26.1,25.7,91.3227,.1069,0,0,0,-.056
"99/07/08","11:38:08",111,26.8,27.2,92.5,26.1,25.6,91.3328,.113,0,0,0,-.054
"99/07/08","11:38:18",112,26.8,27.2,92.7,26.1,25.6,91.3227,.1142,0,0,0,-.054
"99/07/08","11:38:28",113,26.8,27.2,92.9,26.1,25.6,91.3428,.0988,0,0,0,-.038
"99/07/08","11:38:38",114,26.9,27.2,93.1,26.1,25.6,91.3227,.0887,0,0,0,-.048
"99/07/08","11:38:48",115,26.9,27.2,93.3,26.1,25.6,91.3227,.1128,0,0,0,-.05
"99/07/08","11:38:58",116,26.9,27.2,93.5,26.1,25.6,91.3127,.0827,0,0,0,-.058
"99/07/08","11:39:08",117,26.9,27.2,93.7,26.1,25.5,91.3127,.1038,0,0,0,-.039
"99/07/08","11:39:18",118,26.9,27.2,93.9,26,25.5,91.3227,.0937,0,0,0,-.045
"99/07/08","11:39:28",119,27,27.2,94.1,26.1,25.5,91.3127,.1115,0,0,0,-.039
"99/07/08","11:39:38",120,26.9,27.3,94.3,26.1,25.6,91.3227,.1062,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","11:39:48",121,27.1,27.3,94.5,26.2,25.8,91.3328,.1071,0,0,0,-.06
"99/07/08","11:39:58",122,27.1,27.3,94.8,26.2,25.7,45.4601,.1428,0,0,0,-.035
"99/07/08","11:40:08",123,27.1,27.3,94.7,26.1,25.7,.030186,-.0017,0,0,0,-.007
"99/07/08","11:40:18",124,27.1,27.4,94.6,26.2,25.9,.432666,.0005,0,0,0,.003
"99/07/08","11:40:28",125,27.2,27.4,94.6,26.2,26,.442728,.0006,0,0,0,-.019
"99/07/08","11:40:38",126,27.1,27.4,94.5,26.2,25.8,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,-.01
"99/07/08","11:40:48",127,27.1,27.4,94.4,26.2,25.7,.442728,.0007,0,0,0,-.009
"99/07/08","11:40:58",128,27.2,27.3,94.4,26.1,25.7,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","11:41:08",129,27.2,27.3,94.3,26.1,25.7,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,-.008
"99/07/08","11:41:18",130,27.2,27.4,94.3,26.1,25.6,.442728,.0007,0,0,0,0
"99/07/08","11:41:28",131,27.3,27.5,94.4,26.3,25.7,.442728,.0007,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","11:41:38",132,27.3,27.5,94.3,26.2,25.7,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","11:41:48",133,27.3,27.5,94.2,26.2,25.8,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.014
"99/07/08","11:41:58",134,27.3,27.5,94.2,26.3,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.018
"99/07/08","11:42:08",135,27.2,27.5,94.1,26.2,25.8,.442728,.0002,0,0,0,.028
"99/07/08","11:42:18",136,27.3,27.5,94,26.2,25.8,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,.034
"99/07/08","11:42:28",137,27.3,27.5,94,26.2,25.7,.442728,.0006,0,0,0,.005
"99/07/08","11:42:38",138,27.3,27.5,93.9,26.2,25.7,.45279,.0007,0,0,0,.031
"99/07/08","11:42:48",139,27.3,27.5,93.9,26.3,25.8,.45279,.0005,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","11:42:58",140,27.3,27.5,93.8,26.2,25.7,.45279,.0007,0,0,0,.017
"99/07/08","11:43:08",141,27.3,27.5,93.8,26.2,25.7,.45279,.0004,0,0,0,.002
"99/07/08","11:43:18",142,27.3,27.5,93.7,26.2,25.7,.442728,.0003,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","11:43:28",143,27.3,27.6,93.7,26.2,25.7,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,.039
"99/07/08","11:43:38",144,27.4,27.7,93.8,26.4,25.8,.45279,.0008,0,0,0,-.013
"99/07/08","11:43:48",145,27.4,27.7,93.7,26.3,25.8,.45279,.0007,0,0,0,-.023
"99/07/08","11:43:58",146,27.4,27.6,93.6,26.3,25.7,.442728,.0005,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","11:44:08",147,27.3,27.6,93.6,26.3,25.8,.442728,.0006,0,0,0,-.018
"99/07/08","11:44:18",148,27.4,27.7,93.5,26.3,25.7,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.016
"99/07/08","11:44:28",149,27.4,27.7,93.5,26.3,25.7,.442728,.0003,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","11:44:38",150,27.4,27.6,93.4,26.3,25.7,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.008
"99/07/08","11:44:48",151,27.4,27.7,93.4,26.3,25.7,.45279,.0007,0,0,0,.011
"99/07/08","11:44:58",152,27.4,27.7,93.4,26.3,25.7,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","11:45:08",153,27.4,27.7,93.3,26.3,25.7,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.007
"99/07/08","11:45:18",154,27.4,27.7,93.2,26.3,25.7,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.009
"99/07/08","11:45:28",155,27.4,27.7,93.2,26.3,25.7,.442728,.0003,0,0,0,.024
"99/07/08","11:45:38",156,27.4,27.7,93.1,26.3,25.7,.442728,.0007,0,0,0,-.004
"99/07/08","11:45:48",157,27.4,27.7,93.1,26.3,25.7,.442728,.0007,0,0,0,.017
"99/07/08","11:45:58",158,27.5,27.8,93.1,26.4,25.8,.442728,.0007,0,0,0,.037
"99/07/08","11:46:08",159,27.5,27.8,93.1,26.4,25.8,.442728,.0006,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","11:46:18",160,27.5,27.8,93,26.4,25.8,.442728,.0003,0,0,0,.023
"99/07/08","11:46:28",161,27.5,27.8,93,26.4,25.8,.442728,.0003,0,0,0,.04
"99/07/08","11:46:38",162,27.5,27.8,92.9,26.4,25.8,.442728,.0007,0,0,0,.019
"99/07/08","11:46:48",163,27.5,27.8,92.9,26.4,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","11:46:58",164,27.5,27.8,92.9,26.4,25.8,.442728,.0008,0,0,0,-.01
"99/07/08","11:47:08",165,27.5,27.8,92.8,26.4,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.014
"99/07/08","11:47:18",166,27.5,27.8,92.8,26.4,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","11:47:28",167,27.5,27.8,92.7,26.4,25.8,.45279,.0004,0,0,0,.005
"99/07/08","11:47:38",168,27.5,27.8,92.7,26.4,25.7,.442728,.0002,0,0,0,.04
"99/07/08","11:47:48",169,27.5,27.8,92.6,26.4,25.7,.45279,.0007,0,0,0,-.016
"99/07/08","11:47:58",170,27.5,27.8,92.6,26.4,25.7,.442728,.0002,0,0,0,.031
"99/07/08","11:48:08",171,27.6,28,92.6,26.5,25.9,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,0
"99/07/08","11:48:18",172,27.6,27.9,92.6,26.5,25.9,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,-.013
"99/07/08","11:48:28",173,27.6,28,92.5,26.5,25.9,.45279,.0007,0,0,0,-.01
"99/07/08","11:48:38",174,27.6,28,92.5,26.5,25.9,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,.026
"99/07/08","11:48:48",175,27.6,27.9,92.4,26.5,25.8,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.012
"99/07/08","11:48:58",176,27.6,28,92.4,26.5,25.8,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","11:49:08",177,27.6,28,92.4,26.5,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.019
"99/07/08","11:49:18",178,27.6,28,92.3,26.5,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.016
"99/07/08","11:49:28",179,27.6,28,92.3,26.5,25.8,.45279,.0008,0,0,0,.015
"99/07/08","11:49:38",180,27.6,28,92.3,26.5,25.9,.45279,.0004,0,0,0,-.005
"99/07/08","11:49:48",181,27.6,28,92.2,26.5,25.8,.442728,.0002,0,0,0,.012
"99/07/08","11:49:58",182,27.6,28,92.1,26.5,25.8,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","11:50:08",183,27.6,28,92.1,26.5,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","11:50:18",184,27.7,28,92.1,26.5,25.8,.45279,.0005,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","11:50:28",185,27.7,28.1,92.1,26.6,25.9,.45279,.0004,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","11:50:38",186,27.7,28.1,92,26.6,25.9,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,-.007
"99/07/08","11:50:48",187,27.7,28.1,92,26.6,25.9,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","11:50:58",188,27.7,28.1,92,26.6,25.9,.442728,.0003,0,0,0,-.018
"99/07/08","11:51:08",189,27.7,28.1,91.9,26.6,25.9,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,.036
"99/07/08","11:51:18",190,27.7,28.1,91.8,26.6,25.9,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.023
"99/07/08","11:51:28",191,27.7,28.1,91.8,26.6,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","11:51:38",192,27.8,28.1,91.8,26.6,25.9,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.006
"99/07/08","11:51:48",193,27.7,28.1,91.7,26.6,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","11:51:58",194,27.7,28.1,91.7,26.6,25.8,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,-.018
"99/07/08","11:52:08",195,27.7,28.1,91.7,26.6,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","11:52:18",196,27.7,28.1,91.6,26.6,25.9,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","11:52:28",197,27.7,28.1,91.6,26.6,25.8,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,-.008
"99/07/08","11:52:38",198,27.7,28.1,91.5,26.6,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","11:52:48",199,27.8,28.2,91.6,26.7,25.9,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.011
"99/07/08","11:52:58",200,27.8,28.2,91.5,26.7,25.9,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.016
"99/07/08","11:53:08",201,27.8,28.2,91.5,26.7,25.9,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.036
"99/07/08","11:53:18",202,27.8,28.2,91.4,26.7,25.9,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","11:53:28",203,27.8,28.3,91.4,26.7,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.008
"99/07/08","11:53:38",204,27.8,28.2,91.4,26.7,25.8,.45279,.0007,0,0,0,.014
"99/07/08","11:53:48",205,27.8,28.2,91.3,26.7,25.8,.45279,.0007,0,0,0,.021
"99/07/08","11:53:58",206,27.9,28.3,91.3,26.7,25.9,.45279,.0007,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","11:54:08",207,27.8,28.2,91.2,26.7,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","11:54:18",208,27.8,28.3,91.2,26.7,25.8,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,0
"99/07/08","11:54:28",209,27.8,28.2,91.1,26.6,25.7,.45279,.0005,0,0,0,-.002
"99/07/08","11:54:38",210,27.8,28.2,91.1,26.7,25.8,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,-.008
"99/07/08","11:54:48",211,27.8,28.2,91.1,26.7,25.8,.45279,.0004,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","11:54:58",212,27.8,28.3,91,26.7,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.023
"99/07/08","11:55:08",213,27.9,28.4,91.1,26.8,25.9,.45279,.0004,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","11:55:18",214,27.9,28.4,91,26.8,25.9,.442728,.0002,0,0,0,-.024
"99/07/08","11:55:28",215,27.9,28.3,91,26.8,25.9,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","11:55:38",216,27.9,28.4,91,26.8,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","11:55:48",217,27.9,28.4,90.9,26.8,25.9,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,.011
"99/07/08","11:55:58",218,27.9,28.4,90.9,26.8,25.9,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.004
"99/07/08","11:56:08",219,27.9,28.4,90.8,26.8,25.8,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","11:56:18",220,27.9,28.4,90.8,26.8,25.8,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,-.01
"99/07/08","11:56:28",221,27.9,28.4,90.8,26.8,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.026
"99/07/08","11:56:38",222,28,28.5,90.8,26.8,25.8,.45279,.0005,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","11:56:48",223,27.9,28.4,90.7,26.8,25.8,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,-.008
"99/07/08","11:56:58",224,27.9,28.4,90.7,26.8,25.8,.45279,.0006,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","11:57:08",225,27.9,28.4,90.6,26.8,25.8,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.038
"99/07/08","11:57:18",226,28,28.5,90.7,26.9,25.9,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","11:57:28",227,28,28.5,90.6,26.9,26,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.008
"99/07/08","11:57:38",228,27.9,28.5,90.6,26.8,25.9,.45279,.0001,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","11:57:48",229,27.9,28.4,90.5,26.8,25.9,.45279,.0001,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","11:57:58",230,28,28.5,90.5,26.9,26,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,-.024
"99/07/08","11:58:08",231,28,28.5,90.5,26.9,26,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.035
"99/07/08","11:58:18",232,28,28.5,90.4,26.9,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","11:58:28",233,28,28.5,90.4,26.9,26,.462852,.0004,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","11:58:38",234,28,28.5,90.3,26.9,26,.462852,.0006,0,0,0,.012
"99/07/08","11:58:48",235,28,28.5,90.3,26.9,25.9,.462852,.0001,0,0,0,.009
"99/07/08","11:58:58",236,28,28.6,90.3,26.9,25.9,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.001
"99/07/08","11:59:08",237,28,28.5,90.2,26.8,25.9,.45279,.0001,0,0,0,.01
"99/07/08","11:59:18",238,28,28.5,90.2,26.8,25.9,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.023
"99/07/08","11:59:28",239,28,28.5,90.1,26.8,25.9,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.016
"99/07/08","11:59:38",240,28,28.5,90.1,26.9,25.9,.462852,.0006,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","11:59:48",241,28.1,28.6,90.2,26.9,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.018
"99/07/08","11:59:58",242,28.1,28.6,90.1,26.9,26,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","12:00:08",243,28.1,28.6,90.1,26.9,26,.45279,.0005,0,0,0,.019
"99/07/08","12:00:18",244,28.1,28.6,90,26.9,25.9,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","12:00:28",245,28.1,28.6,90,26.9,25.9,.462852,.0006,0,0,0,.035
"99/07/08","12:00:38",246,28.1,28.6,90,26.9,25.9,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.011
"99/07/08","12:00:48",247,28.1,28.6,89.9,27,25.9,.462852,.0006,0,0,0,.017
"99/07/08","12:00:58",248,28.1,28.6,89.9,26.9,25.8,.462852,.0006,0,0,0,-.019
"99/07/08","12:01:08",249,28.1,28.6,89.9,27,25.8,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,-.021
"99/07/08","12:01:18",250,28.2,28.7,89.9,27,25.8,.45279,.0005,0,0,0,.002
"99/07/08","12:01:28",251,28.1,28.6,89.8,26.9,25.8,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.002
"99/07/08","12:01:38",252,28.1,28.6,89.8,26.9,25.8,.45279,.0004,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","12:01:48",253,28.1,28.6,89.7,26.9,25.8,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.042
"99/07/08","12:01:58",254,28.1,28.6,89.7,26.9,25.8,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,-.025
"99/07/08","12:02:08",255,28.2,28.7,89.8,27,26,.462852,.0007,0,0,0,.008
"99/07/08","12:02:18",256,28.2,28.7,89.7,27,25.9,.45279,.0007,0,0,0,.021
"99/07/08","12:02:28",257,28.2,28.7,89.7,27,26,.462852,.0004,0,0,0,-.018
"99/07/08","12:02:38",258,28.2,28.7,89.6,27,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,0
"99/07/08","12:02:48",259,28.2,28.7,89.6,27,26,.462852,.0005,0,0,0,.01
"99/07/08","12:02:58",260,28.2,28.7,89.5,27,25.9,.462852,.0004,0,0,0,-.021
"99/07/08","12:03:08",261,28.2,28.7,89.5,27.1,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","12:03:18",262,28.2,28.7,89.5,27,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.001
"99/07/08","12:03:28",263,28.2,28.7,89.4,27,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.028
"99/07/08","12:03:38",264,28.2,28.7,89.4,27,25.9,.462852,.0005,0,0,0,.035
"99/07/08","12:03:48",265,28.2,28.7,89.4,27,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.013
"99/07/08","12:03:58",266,28.2,28.7,89.3,27,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.023
"99/07/08","12:04:08",267,28.2,28.7,89.3,27,25.9,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","12:04:18",268,28.3,28.7,89.3,27,25.9,.462852,.0005,0,0,0,-.006
"99/07/08","12:04:28",269,28.4,28.8,89.4,27.1,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.004
"99/07/08","12:04:38",270,28.3,28.8,89.3,27.1,26,.462852,.0001,0,0,0,-.025
"99/07/08","12:04:48",271,28.4,28.9,89.2,27.1,26,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,.026
"99/07/08","12:04:58",272,28.4,28.8,89.2,27.1,26,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,.025
"99/07/08","12:05:08",273,28.4,28.8,89.2,27.1,26,.462852,.0006,0,0,0,-.005
"99/07/08","12:05:18",274,28.3,28.9,89.2,27.1,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","12:05:28",275,28.3,28.8,89.1,27.1,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","12:05:38",276,28.4,28.9,89.1,27.1,26,.462852,.0005,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","12:05:48",277,28.3,28.8,89,27.1,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.023
"99/07/08","12:05:58",278,28.3,28.8,89,27.1,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.017
"99/07/08","12:06:08",279,28.4,28.9,89,27.1,25.9,.462852,.0004,0,0,0,.026
"99/07/08","12:06:18",280,28.4,28.8,88.9,27.1,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","12:06:28",281,28.3,28.8,88.9,27.1,26.1,.472914,.0002,0,0,0,-.013
"99/07/08","12:06:38",282,28.3,28.8,88.9,27.1,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","12:06:48",283,28.3,28.8,88.8,27.1,25.8,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","12:06:58",284,28.3,28.8,88.8,27.1,25.8,.462852,.0004,0,0,0,.001
"99/07/08","12:07:08",285,28.4,28.9,88.8,27.2,25.9,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.013
"99/07/08","12:07:18",286,28.4,28.9,88.8,27.2,26,.462852,.0004,0,0,0,.032
"99/07/08","12:07:28",287,28.4,28.9,88.8,27.2,25.9,.462852,.0001,0,0,0,-.022
"99/07/08","12:07:38",288,28.4,29,88.7,27.2,25.9,.462852,.0001,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","12:07:48",289,28.4,29,88.7,27.2,25.9,.462852,.0001,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","12:07:58",290,28.4,28.9,88.6,27.2,25.9,.472914,.0005,0,0,0,.003
"99/07/08","12:08:08",291,28.4,28.9,88.6,27.2,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.042
"99/07/08","12:08:18",292,28.4,28.9,88.6,27.2,26.1,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.024
"99/07/08","12:08:28",293,28.4,29,88.6,27.2,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","12:08:38",294,28.3,28.9,88.5,27.2,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.026
"99/07/08","12:08:48",295,28.4,28.9,88.5,27.2,26.1,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.009
"99/07/08","12:08:58",296,28.4,28.9,88.5,27.2,26,.462852,.0007,0,0,0,.008
"99/07/08","12:09:08",297,28.4,28.9,88.4,27.2,26.2,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","12:09:18",298,28.4,28.9,88.4,27.2,26.3,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.001
"99/07/08","12:09:28",299,28.4,29,88.3,27.2,26.2,.462852,.0007,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","12:09:38",300,28.5,29,88.4,27.3,26.2,.45279,.0003,0,0,0,-.019
"99/07/08","12:09:48",301,28.5,29.2,88.5,27.3,26.2,.45279,.0007,0,0,0,.005
"99/07/08","12:09:58",302,28.5,29,88.4,27.3,26,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.026
"99/07/08","12:10:08",303,28.5,29.1,88.3,27.3,26,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,-.021
"99/07/08","12:10:18",304,28.6,29.1,88.3,27.3,26.2,.472914,.0002,0,0,0,-.013
"99/07/08","12:10:28",305,28.5,29,88.2,27.3,26,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","12:10:38",306,28.5,29.1,88.2,27.4,26.2,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.004
"99/07/08","12:10:48",307,28.5,29.1,88.2,27.3,26.2,.462852,.0006,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","12:10:58",308,28.5,29.1,88.1,27.3,26.2,.462852,.0006,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","12:11:08",309,28.5,29.1,88.1,27.3,26.3,.462852,.0007,0,0,0,.024
"99/07/08","12:11:18",310,28.4,29,88.1,27.3,26.1,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","12:11:28",311,28.4,29.1,88,27.3,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","12:11:38",312,28.4,29,88,27.3,25.9,.462852,.0005,0,0,0,-.019
"99/07/08","12:11:48",313,28.4,29.1,88,27.3,25.8,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,-.003
"99/07/08","12:11:58",314,28.4,29.1,87.9,27.3,25.8,.462852,.0007,0,0,0,.008
"99/07/08","12:12:08",315,28.5,29.1,88,27.4,26,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,-.004
"99/07/08","12:12:18",316,28.5,29.2,88,27.4,26.1,.462852,.0008,0,0,0,.012
"99/07/08","12:12:28",317,28.5,29.2,87.9,27.4,26.3,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.004
"99/07/08","12:12:38",318,28.5,29.1,87.9,27.3,26.3,.462852,.0001,0,0,0,-.019
"99/07/08","12:12:48",319,28.5,29.1,87.8,27.4,26.2,.462852,.0001,0,0,0,-.024
"99/07/08","12:12:58",320,28.5,29.2,87.8,27.4,26.1,.462852,.0006,0,0,0,.019
"99/07/08","12:13:08",321,28.5,29.1,87.8,27.4,26.1,.45279,.0002,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","12:13:18",322,28.5,29.1,87.8,27.4,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,-.002
"99/07/08","12:13:28",323,28.5,29.2,87.7,27.4,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","12:13:38",324,28.5,29.1,87.7,27.4,25.9,.462852,.0006,0,0,0,.005
"99/07/08","12:13:48",325,28.5,29.2,87.7,27.4,25.8,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","12:13:58",326,28.5,29.1,87.6,27.4,25.8,.462852,.0007,0,0,0,-.009
"99/07/08","12:14:08",327,28.5,29.2,87.6,27.4,25.8,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.02
"99/07/08","12:14:18",328,28.5,29.2,87.6,27.4,25.8,.462852,.0004,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","12:14:28",329,28.5,29.1,87.5,27.4,25.8,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.014
"99/07/08","12:14:38",330,28.6,29.3,87.6,27.5,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","12:14:48",331,28.6,29.3,87.6,27.5,26.1,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.013
"99/07/08","12:14:58",332,28.6,29.2,87.5,27.4,26.1,.462852,.0004,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","12:15:08",333,28.6,29.3,87.5,27.5,26.1,.462852,.0007,0,0,0,.004
"99/07/08","12:15:18",334,28.6,29.3,87.4,27.5,26.1,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.021
"99/07/08","12:15:28",335,28.5,29.2,87.4,27.4,26,.462852,.0005,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","12:15:38",336,28.6,29.2,87.4,27.4,26,.462852,.0005,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","12:15:48",337,28.6,29.2,87.4,27.4,26,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,.002
"99/07/08","12:15:58",338,28.6,29.2,87.3,27.4,25.9,.462852,.0006,0,0,0,.012
"99/07/08","12:16:08",339,28.6,29.2,87.2,27.4,26,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.036
"99/07/08","12:16:18",340,28.6,29.3,87.3,27.5,25.9,.462852,.0004,0,0,0,.013
"99/07/08","12:16:28",341,28.6,29.3,87.2,27.4,25.7,.462852,.0001,0,0,0,.032
"99/07/08","12:16:38",342,28.6,29.3,87.1,27.4,25.7,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,-.019
"99/07/08","12:16:48",343,28.6,29.3,87.2,27.5,25.9,.462852,.0004,0,0,0,-.007
"99/07/08","12:16:58",344,28.6,29.2,87.1,27.4,25.8,.472914,.0007,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","12:17:08",345,28.6,29.2,87.1,27.5,25.8,.462852,.0003,0,0,0,.016
"99/07/08","12:17:18",346,28.7,29.3,87.1,27.5,25.9,.462852,.0002,0,0,0,-.012

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 08:02:51 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA27363;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:00:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:00:02 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990721105113.0079e210 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:51:13 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Mizuno - other raw data, 4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"1yaX-3.0.Rh6.n1Ubt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29205
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

"LOG_DATE","LOG_TIME","LOG_NO","PC-T-1","PC-T-2","CEL-VT","CEL-WT","ROOM-T",
"HEAT-V","HEAT-I","CHRG-V","CHRG-I","PRESS.","PC-V"
"99/07/08","14:57:45",1,30.3,27.9,24.2,27.5,25.7,0,.0006,0,0,0,.04
"99/07/08","14:57:55",2,30.2,27.9,24.2,27.5,25.8,21.2711,.1965,0,0,0,.031
"99/07/08","14:58:05",3,30.2,27.9,25.2,27.5,25.9,77.9,.7768,0,0,0,-.025
"99/07/08","14:58:15",4,30.1,27.9,27,27.5,25.9,110.923,.8399,0,0,0,-.048
"99/07/08","14:58:25",5,30.2,27.9,29.3,27.5,25.9,117.494,.8143,0,0,0,-.062
"99/07/08","14:58:35",6,30.1,27.9,32.1,27.5,25.9,121.197,.7625,0,0,0,-.085
"99/07/08","14:58:45",7,30.1,27.8,34.6,27.5,25.9,123.37,.7889,0,0,0,-.077
"99/07/08","14:58:55",8,30.1,27.9,37.1,27.5,25.9,123.3,.8393,0,0,0,-.074
"99/07/08","14:59:05",9,30.1,27.9,39.5,27.5,25.9,123.39,.6752,0,0,0,-.071
"99/07/08","14:59:15",10,30.1,27.9,41.4,27.5,25.9,127.757,.5102,0,0,0,-.1
"99/07/08","14:59:25",11,30,27.8,42.8,27.4,25.8,132.506,.4242,0,0,0,-.091
"99/07/08","14:59:35",12,29.8,27.6,43.4,27.2,25.6,140.969,.2195,0,0,0,-.096
"99/07/08","14:59:45",13,30,27.7,45.1,27.3,25.6,146.02,.2793,0,0,0,-.077
"99/07/08","14:59:55",14,30,27.7,46.6,27.3,25.6,145.969,.3374,0,0,0,-.08
"99/07/08","15:00:05",15,29.4,27.1,47.4,26.7,25,158.235,.1677,-.01,.1,0,-.084
"99/07/08","15:00:15",16,29.3,27,48.5,26.7,24.9,163.749,.2454,0,.1,0,-.126
"99/07/08","15:00:25",17,29.4,27.1,49.9,26.7,25,163.769,.3004,-.01,.1,0,-.119
"99/07/08","15:00:35",18,29.2,26.8,51,26.4,24.9,163.648,.3966,0,.1,0,-.119
"99/07/08","15:00:45",19,29.2,26.9,52.5,26.4,24.8,163.668,.2673,-.01,.1,0,-.
094
"99/07/08","15:00:55",20,29.3,27,53.7,26.5,24.9,163.719,.2783,-.02,0,0,-.089
"99/07/08","15:01:05",21,29,26.8,54.7,26.4,24.8,163.578,.3666,-.02,0,-.1,-.113
"99/07/08","15:01:15",22,29.3,27.2,56.2,26.8,25.2,163.749,.3196,-.01,.1,0,-.
091
"99/07/08","15:01:25",23,29,26.8,57,26.4,24.9,163.608,.2907,-.01,.1,0,-.091
"99/07/08","15:01:35",24,29.2,27,58.3,26.6,25.2,163.699,.3275,-.01,.1,.1,-.09
"99/07/08","15:01:45",25,29.3,27,59.3,26.6,25.2,163.679,.217,-.01,.1,0,-.148
"99/07/08","15:01:55",26,29.1,26.8,60.1,26.4,24.9,163.568,.2481,0,.1,0,-.11
"99/07/08","15:02:05",27,29.1,26.9,61.1,26.4,25,163.638,.278,-.01,.1,0,-.11
"99/07/08","15:02:15",28,29,27,62,26.4,25,163.628,.2567,-.01,.1,.1,-.114
"99/07/08","15:02:25",29,28.9,26.7,62.6,26.3,24.8,163.608,.2157,0,.1,0,-.101
"99/07/08","15:02:35",30,29,26.9,63.7,26.4,25,163.638,.1235,-.01,.1,0,-.084
"99/07/08","15:02:45",31,29.2,27.1,64.7,26.7,25.2,163.739,.2068,0,.1,0,-.104
"99/07/08","15:02:55",32,29,27,65.4,26.5,25.2,163.638,.2122,0,.1,0,-.096
"99/07/08","15:03:05",33,28.9,26.9,66.1,26.4,25.1,163.679,.2049,0,.1,.1,-.112
"99/07/08","15:03:15",34,28.8,26.9,66.8,26.4,25.1,163.658,.157,-.01,.1,0,-.112
"99/07/08","15:03:25",35,29.1,27.1,67.7,26.5,25.1,163.668,.2141,0,.1,0,-.09
"99/07/08","15:03:35",36,29,27,68.3,26.5,24.9,163.628,.1654,-.01,.1,0,-.099
"99/07/08","15:03:45",37,29,27.1,69.1,26.5,24.8,163.689,.1837,-.01,.1,0,-.113
"99/07/08","15:03:55",38,29.1,27.1,69.8,26.6,24.9,163.689,.1832,0,.1,0,-.117
"99/07/08","15:04:05",39,28.8,26.9,70.3,26.4,24.6,163.658,.1145,-.01,.1,0,-.
092
"99/07/08","15:04:15",40,29,27,71,26.6,24.9,163.658,.0999,0,.1,0,-.087
"99/07/08","15:04:25",41,28.9,27,71.5,26.4,24.8,163.638,.1937,-.01,.1,0,-.093
"99/07/08","15:04:35",42,28.8,27,72,26.5,24.9,163.689,.0944,-.02,0,0,-.097
"99/07/08","15:04:45",43,28.7,27,72.6,26.4,24.8,163.658,.1439,-.01,0,0,-.108
"99/07/08","15:04:55",44,28.8,27,73.1,26.5,24.9,163.648,.134,0,.1,0,-.089
"99/07/08","15:05:05",45,28.7,27,73.7,26.4,24.9,163.689,.0898,-.01,.1,0,-.108
"99/07/08","15:05:15",46,28.8,27,74.3,26.5,25,163.709,.1205,-.01,0,0,-.121
"99/07/08","15:05:25",47,28.6,27,74.7,26.5,24.8,163.648,.1051,-.01,0,0,-.097
"99/07/08","15:05:35",48,28.9,27.3,75.4,26.6,25.1,163.739,.0921,-.01,.1,0,-.
107
"99/07/08","15:05:45",49,28.9,27.1,75.8,26.6,24.9,163.709,.1421,-.01,.1,0,-.1
"99/07/08","15:05:55",50,28.7,27.1,76.2,26.6,25,163.658,.1068,-.01,0,0,-.12
"99/07/08","15:06:05",51,28.9,27.1,76.8,26.6,24.9,163.729,.1141,-.01,0,0,-.116
"99/07/08","15:06:15",52,28.7,27.1,77.2,26.5,24.9,163.668,.1049,-.01,0,0,-.102
"99/07/08","15:06:25",53,28.9,27.3,77.8,26.5,25.1,163.759,.095,-.01,0,0,-.096
"99/07/08","15:06:35",54,28.8,27.1,78.1,26.5,25,163.689,.1316,-.01,.1,0,-.103
"99/07/08","15:06:45",55,28.7,27.2,78.5,26.5,24.9,163.679,.1043,-.01,0,0,-.095
"99/07/08","15:06:55",56,29.1,27.4,79.2,26.8,25.1,163.779,.1165,0,0,0,-.101
"99/07/08","15:07:05",57,29,27.2,79.6,26.8,25.2,163.809,.0858,-.01,.1,0,-.099
"99/07/08","15:07:15",58,28.9,27.3,79.8,26.6,24.9,163.739,.0938,0,0,0,-.1
"99/07/08","15:07:25",59,29,27.2,80.3,26.6,24.9,163.749,.0696,-.01,0,0,-.082
"99/07/08","15:07:35",60,29.2,27.5,80.9,26.9,25,163.819,.1184,-.01,0,0,-.094
"99/07/08","15:07:45",61,29.3,27.4,81.2,26.8,24.9,163.84,.0739,-.01,.1,-.1,-
.094
"99/07/08","15:07:55",62,29.1,27.4,81.5,26.7,25.1,163.819,.0913,0,.1,-.1,-.09
"99/07/08","15:08:05",63,29.2,27.5,82,26.9,25.3,163.819,.0729,0,.1,0,-.108
"99/07/08","15:08:15",64,29.2,27.5,82.3,26.9,25.4,163.829,.094,0,.1,0,-.1
"99/07/08","15:08:25",65,29.2,27.3,82.5,26.7,25.2,163.769,.0768,0,.1,0,-.125
"99/07/08","15:08:35",66,29.1,27.5,82.8,26.7,25.1,163.749,.0803,-.01,.1,0,-.
105
"99/07/08","15:08:45",67,29.1,27.4,83.2,26.7,25.1,163.779,.089,0,0,0,-.106
"99/07/08","15:08:55",68,29.1,27.4,83.4,26.7,24.9,163.759,.072,-.01,0,0,-.084
"99/07/08","15:09:05",69,29.3,27.5,83.8,26.8,25,163.779,.1025,-.01,0,0,-.105
"99/07/08","15:09:15",70,29.3,27.5,84.3,26.9,25.2,163.819,.077,0,0,0,-.105
"99/07/08","15:09:25",71,29.3,27.6,84.7,26.8,25.1,163.84,.0685,-.01,.1,-.1,-
.107
"99/07/08","15:09:35",72,29.3,27.5,84.9,26.8,25.1,163.86,.0833,0,0,0,-.1
"99/07/08","15:09:45",73,29.2,27.5,85.3,26.8,25,163.799,.0665,-.01,.1,0,-.099
"99/07/08","15:09:55",74,29.3,27.6,85.7,26.8,25,163.84,.068,0,0,0,-.098
"99/07/08","15:10:05",75,29.3,27.7,86,26.9,25.2,163.829,.0899,0,0,0,-.088
"99/07/08","15:10:15",76,29.1,27.4,86.1,26.8,25,163.84,.0526,-.01,0,0,-.104
"99/07/08","15:10:25",77,29.1,27.5,86.3,26.7,24.9,163.829,.065,-.01,0,0,-.098
"99/07/08","15:10:35",78,29.3,27.6,87,26.9,25.1,163.84,.0872,0,0,-.1,-.118
"99/07/08","15:10:45",79,29.4,27.8,87.3,27,25.1,163.88,.0573,-.01,0,0,-.093
"99/07/08","15:10:55",80,29.5,27.8,87.6,27,24.9,163.89,.0975,0,0,0,-.089
"99/07/08","15:11:05",81,29.4,27.8,87.9,27,24.9,163.9,.0455,-.01,0,0,-.11
"99/07/08","15:11:15",82,29.5,27.8,88.1,26.9,24.9,163.86,.0739,-.01,0,0,-.085
"99/07/08","15:11:25",83,29.5,27.9,88.6,27,24.9,163.91,.0876,0,0,0,-.088
"99/07/08","15:11:35",84,29.6,28,88.9,27.1,24.9,163.93,.0502,-.01,0,0,-.104
"99/07/08","15:11:45",85,29.6,27.9,89.1,27,25,163.92,.0787,0,0,0,-.091
"99/07/08","15:11:55",86,29.3,27.9,89.4,27.1,24.9,163.93,.0913,-.01,0,0,-.089
"99/07/08","15:12:05",87,29.4,28.1,89.8,27.2,25.2,164.071,.0334,0,0,.1,-.103
"99/07/08","15:12:15",88,29.4,27.9,89.8,27.1,25.1,163.95,.0786,-.01,0,-.1,-.
108
"99/07/08","15:12:25",89,29.5,28.1,90.2,27.2,25.3,164.011,.0858,0,0,0,-.095
"99/07/08","15:12:35",90,29.4,28,90.4,27.1,25.2,163.88,.0795,0,0,0,-.113
"99/07/08","15:12:45",91,29.2,27.9,90.5,27,25,163.94,.0642,0,0,0,-.101
"99/07/08","15:12:55",92,29.3,28,90.9,27.1,25.1,163.95,.0959,0,0,0,-.092
"99/07/08","15:13:05",93,29.4,28.1,91.2,27.2,25.3,164.011,.0729,-.01,0,0,-.093
"99/07/08","15:13:15",94,29.5,28.1,91.5,27.2,25.3,163.93,.0582,-.01,0,0,-.085
"99/07/08","15:13:25",95,29.5,28.1,91.7,27.1,25.4,163.97,.0412,0,0,0,-.104
"99/07/08","15:13:35",96,29.3,28,91.8,27,25.1,163.95,.0806,-.01,0,0,-.101
"99/07/08","15:13:45",97,29.5,28.2,92.2,27.2,25.3,163.99,.0463,-.01,0,0,-.113
"99/07/08","15:13:55",98,29.5,28.2,92.4,27.1,25.4,163.95,.0914,0,0,0,-.104
"99/07/08","15:14:05",99,29.4,28.3,92.7,27.2,25.4,163.98,.0491,0,0,0,-.094
"99/07/08","15:14:15",100,29.4,28.2,92.9,27.2,25.4,163.98,.0223,0,0,0,-.102
"99/07/08","15:14:25",101,29.4,28.2,93.1,27.2,25.5,163.95,.0459,0,0,0,-.091
"99/07/08","15:14:35",102,29.4,28.2,93.3,27.1,25.4,164.011,.0571,0,0,0,-.1
"99/07/08","15:14:45",103,29.4,28.3,93.6,27.2,25.5,163.94,.0724,0,0,0,-.106
"99/07/08","15:14:55",104,29.3,28.1,93.7,27.2,25.5,163.94,.0492,-.01,0,0,-.107
"99/07/08","15:15:05",105,29.6,28.3,93.8,27.2,25.5,163.98,.0354,-.01,0,0,-.099
"99/07/08","15:15:15",106,29.5,28.3,94,27.2,25.5,164.001,.0627,0,0,0,-.089
"99/07/08","15:15:25",107,29.5,28.2,94.3,27.2,25.4,164.021,.0528,-.01,0,0,-.12
"99/07/08","15:15:35",108,29.6,28.3,94.7,27.3,25.5,164.101,.0555,0,0,0,-.078
"99/07/08","15:15:45",109,29.5,28.4,94.8,27.2,25.4,164.141,.0369,0,0,0,-.089
"99/07/08","15:15:55",110,29.7,28.4,95.1,27.3,25.7,164.041,.0225,-.01,0,0,-.
084
"99/07/08","15:16:05",111,29.6,28.4,95.3,27.3,25.6,164.021,.0826,-.01,0,0,-.
095
"99/07/08","15:16:15",112,29.6,28.3,95.6,27.3,25.6,164.071,.0915,0,0,0,-.113
"99/07/08","15:16:25",113,29.6,28.3,95.6,27.2,25.4,163.99,.0288,0,0,0,-.105
"99/07/08","15:16:35",114,29.7,28.4,95.9,27.3,25.5,164.021,.0799,0,0,0,-.105
"99/07/08","15:16:45",115,29.6,28.4,96.1,27.3,25.3,164.041,.0877,0,0,0,-.089
"99/07/08","15:16:55",116,29.6,28.5,96.3,27.3,25.6,164.111,.0437,0,0,0,-.118
"99/07/08","15:17:05",117,29.8,28.6,96.7,27.4,25.6,164.141,.0505,0,.1,0,-.096
"99/07/08","15:17:15",118,29.7,28.5,96.8,27.4,25.6,164.061,.0343,0,0,0,-.098
"99/07/08","15:17:25",119,29.8,28.6,97.1,27.4,25.5,164.292,.0549,0,0,0,-.086
"99/07/08","15:17:35",120,29.9,28.5,97.2,27.5,25.5,164.101,.0475,0,0,0,-.079
"99/07/08","15:17:45",121,29.8,28.6,97.3,27.5,25.4,164.051,.0731,0,0,-.1,-.107
"99/07/08","15:17:55",122,29.9,28.6,97.5,27.4,25.5,164.041,.0566,0,0,0,-.1
"99/07/08","15:18:05",123,29.8,28.7,97.8,27.5,25.5,164.121,.0577,0,0,0,-.089
"99/07/08","15:18:15",124,30,28.9,98.1,27.6,25.8,.020124,-.003,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","15:18:25",125,29.9,28.9,98.1,27.7,25.8,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,-.031
"99/07/08","15:18:35",126,30,28.9,98,27.6,25.8,.593658,.0005,0,0,0,-.005
"99/07/08","15:18:45",127,30,28.9,98,27.7,25.8,.573534,.0003,0,0,0,.01
"99/07/08","15:18:55",128,30,28.9,97.9,27.6,25.8,.563472,.0005,0,0,0,-.019
"99/07/08","15:19:05",129,30,28.9,97.8,27.7,25.9,.55341,.0005,0,0,0,-.013
"99/07/08","15:19:15",130,30.1,29,97.8,27.6,25.9,.543348,.0006,0,0,0,.015
"99/07/08","15:19:25",131,30.1,28.9,97.8,27.6,25.9,.543348,.0005,0,0,0,.025
"99/07/08","15:19:35",132,30.1,28.9,97.7,27.6,25.8,.533286,.0007,0,0,0,-.018
"99/07/08","15:19:45",133,30.1,29,97.6,27.7,25.8,.533286,.0005,0,0,0,.009
"99/07/08","15:19:55",134,30.1,29,97.6,27.7,25.8,.533286,.0004,0,0,0,.011
"99/07/08","15:20:05",135,30.1,29,97.5,27.7,25.8,.533286,.0007,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","15:20:15",136,30.1,29,97.5,27.7,25.9,.523224,.0003,0,0,0,.003
"99/07/08","15:20:25",137,30.1,29,97.5,27.7,25.8,.523224,.0006,0,0,0,.045
"99/07/08","15:20:35",138,30.1,29,97.4,27.7,25.6,.523224,.0008,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","15:20:45",139,30.2,29,97.3,27.7,25.5,.523224,.0004,0,0,0,.011
"99/07/08","15:20:55",140,30.2,29,97.2,27.7,25.6,.523224,.0007,0,0,0,.032
"99/07/08","15:21:05",141,30.2,29.1,97.2,27.7,25.4,.523224,.0005,0,0,0,.032
"99/07/08","15:21:15",142,30.2,29,97.2,27.7,25.3,.523224,.0004,0,0,0,.003
"99/07/08","15:21:25",143,30.2,29,97.1,27.7,25.4,.523224,.0002,0,0,0,.035
"99/07/08","15:21:35",144,30.3,29.1,97.1,27.7,25.4,.523224,.0005,0,0,0,-.004
"99/07/08","15:21:45",145,30.3,29,97,27.6,25.4,.523224,.0002,0,0,0,0
"99/07/08","15:21:55",146,30.4,29.1,97,27.8,25.5,.523224,.0008,0,0,0,.005
"99/07/08","15:22:05",147,30.4,29.2,96.9,27.7,25.5,.523224,.0007,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","15:22:15",148,30.4,29.1,96.9,27.7,25.5,.523224,.0006,0,0,0,-.016
"99/07/08","15:22:25",149,30.4,29.1,96.8,27.7,25.5,.513162,.0006,0,0,0,-.019
"99/07/08","15:22:35",150,30.4,29.1,96.7,27.7,25.5,.523224,.0003,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","15:22:45",151,30.4,29.1,96.7,27.7,25.6,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,-.023
"99/07/08","15:22:55",152,30.3,29.1,96.6,27.7,25.5,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,-.019
"99/07/08","15:23:05",153,30.4,29.1,96.6,27.7,25.5,.523224,.0007,0,0,0,-.018
"99/07/08","15:23:15",154,30.4,29.1,96.6,27.7,25.4,.513162,.0007,0,0,0,-.006
"99/07/08","15:23:25",155,30.4,29.1,96.5,27.7,25.4,.513162,.0006,0,0,0,-.002
"99/07/08","15:23:35",156,30.4,29.2,96.4,27.7,25.4,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","15:23:45",157,30.4,29.1,96.4,27.7,25.4,.513162,.0008,0,0,0,-.004
"99/07/08","15:23:55",158,30.4,29.2,96.4,27.7,25.4,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","15:24:05",159,30.4,29.2,96.3,27.7,25.4,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,.046
"99/07/08","15:24:15",160,30.4,29.2,96.2,27.7,25.4,.513162,.0002,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","15:24:25",161,30.4,29.2,96.2,27.8,25.5,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,.012
"99/07/08","15:24:35",162,30.4,29.2,96.1,27.7,25.4,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","15:24:45",163,30.4,29.2,96.1,27.7,25.4,.513162,.0008,0,0,0,-.026
"99/07/08","15:24:55",164,30.4,29.2,96,27.7,25.4,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","15:25:05",165,30.4,29.2,96,27.7,25.5,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.035
"99/07/08","15:25:15",166,30.4,29.2,95.9,27.7,25.5,.513162,.0002,0,0,0,-.024
"99/07/08","15:25:25",167,30.4,29.2,95.9,27.7,25.6,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,.039
"99/07/08","15:25:35",168,30.5,29.4,95.9,27.8,25.8,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,-.024
"99/07/08","15:25:45",169,30.4,29.3,95.7,27.7,25.7,.513162,.0007,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","15:25:55",170,30.4,29.2,95.7,27.8,25.7,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,.005
"99/07/08","15:26:05",171,30.5,29.4,95.8,27.8,25.8,.513162,.0007,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","15:26:15",172,30.4,29.2,95.6,27.8,25.8,.513162,.0005,0,0,0,.024
"99/07/08","15:26:25",173,30.5,29.3,95.6,27.8,25.8,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","15:26:35",174,30.5,29.3,95.5,27.8,25.9,.5031,.0006,0,0,0,.02
"99/07/08","15:26:45",175,30.4,29.3,95.5,27.8,25.9,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.028
"99/07/08","15:26:55",176,30.4,29.3,95.4,27.7,25.8,.5031,.0002,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","15:27:05",177,30.5,29.4,95.5,27.9,25.7,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,.036
"99/07/08","15:27:15",178,30.5,29.4,95.5,27.9,25.8,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","15:27:25",179,30.6,29.4,95.4,27.9,25.7,.5031,.0008,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","15:27:35",180,30.6,29.4,95.4,27.9,25.8,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,.007
"99/07/08","15:27:45",181,30.6,29.5,95.3,27.9,25.9,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,.021
"99/07/08","15:27:55",182,30.5,29.4,95.3,27.9,25.6,.5031,.0002,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","15:28:05",183,30.6,29.4,95.2,27.9,25.6,.5031,.0005,0,0,0,-.024
"99/07/08","15:28:15",184,30.5,29.5,95.1,27.9,25.8,.513162,.0002,0,0,0,.039
"99/07/08","15:28:25",185,30.6,29.5,95.1,27.9,25.8,.5031,.0006,0,0,0,-.027
"99/07/08","15:28:35",186,30.5,29.5,95.1,27.9,25.8,.5031,.0006,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","15:28:45",187,30.5,29.5,95,27.9,25.9,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,-.021
"99/07/08","15:28:55",188,30.5,29.5,95,27.9,25.8,.5031,.0006,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","15:29:05",189,30.5,29.5,95,27.9,25.9,.5031,.0005,0,0,0,0
"99/07/08","15:29:15",190,30.5,29.5,94.9,27.9,25.9,.5031,.0006,0,0,0,.001
"99/07/08","15:29:25",191,30.6,29.4,94.8,27.9,25.9,.5031,.0006,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","15:29:35",192,30.6,29.5,94.8,27.9,26,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,.009
"99/07/08","15:29:45",193,30.6,29.5,94.8,27.9,26.1,.5031,.0005,0,0,0,.018
"99/07/08","15:29:55",194,30.6,29.5,94.8,27.9,26.2,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,.014
"99/07/08","15:30:05",195,30.6,29.5,94.7,27.9,26.3,.5031,.0007,0,0,0,0
"99/07/08","15:30:15",196,30.6,29.5,94.6,27.9,26.2,.5031,.0002,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","15:30:25",197,30.5,29.5,94.6,27.9,26,.493038,.0002,0,0,0,.039
"99/07/08","15:30:35",198,30.5,29.5,94.5,27.9,26,.5031,.0006,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","15:30:45",199,30.5,29.5,94.5,27.9,26,.5031,.0009,0,0,0,.018
"99/07/08","15:30:55",200,30.5,29.6,94.5,27.9,26.1,.5031,.0008,0,0,0,.02
"99/07/08","15:31:05",201,30.5,29.5,94.4,27.9,25.9,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,.032
"99/07/08","15:31:15",202,30.6,29.6,94.4,27.9,25.9,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,-.022
"99/07/08","15:31:25",203,30.6,29.5,94.3,27.9,25.8,.5031,.0002,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","15:31:35",204,30.5,29.6,94.3,28,25.8,.5031,.0007,0,0,0,.026

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 08:02:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA27300;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:59:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:59:54 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990721105030.0079d740 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:50:30 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Mizuno - other raw data, 3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"rMEHh1.0.Cg6.g1Ubt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29204
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

"LOG_DATE","LOG_TIME","LOG_NO","PC-T-1","PC-T-2","CEL-VT","CEL-WT","ROOM-T",
"HEAT-V","HEAT-I","CHRG-V","CHRG-I","PRESS.","PC-V"
"99/07/08","13:52:57",1,30.2,27.8,22.7,27.4,25.5,-.010062,.0004,0,0,0,-.018
"99/07/08","13:53:07",2,30.2,27.7,22.9,27.4,25.6,53.2884,.5522,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","13:53:17",3,30.2,27.8,24.5,27.4,25.4,86.9256,.7494,0,0,0,-.028
"99/07/08","13:53:27",4,30.2,27.8,26.6,27.4,25.5,106.486,.7133,0,0,0,-.067
"99/07/08","13:53:37",5,30.2,27.7,28.8,27.3,25.6,116.105,.7381,0,0,0,-.075
"99/07/08","13:53:47",6,30.2,27.8,31.6,27.4,25.6,120.513,.819,0,0,0,-.058
"99/07/08","13:53:57",7,30.1,27.8,34.1,27.3,25.6,124.064,.8382,0,0,0,-.076
"99/07/08","13:54:07",8,30.1,27.8,37.1,27.4,25.7,127.757,.8628,0,0,0,-.077
"99/07/08","13:54:17",9,30.2,27.8,39.8,27.4,25.7,127.808,.8711,0,0,0,-.072
"99/07/08","13:54:27",10,30.1,27.7,42.1,27.2,25.6,127.797,.7338,0,0,0,-.079
"99/07/08","13:54:37",11,30.1,27.7,44.5,27.2,25.6,128.623,.8332,0,0,0,-.099
"99/07/08","13:54:47",12,30,27.6,47,27.1,25.4,138.906,.2106,-.01,0,0,-.071
"99/07/08","13:54:57",13,30,27.6,47,27.1,25.2,146.11,.2727,0,0,0,-.097
"99/07/08","13:55:07",14,29.9,27.5,47.6,27,25.1,146.01,.2112,0,0,0,-.088
"99/07/08","13:55:17",15,29.9,27.4,48.4,27,25,146.01,.217,0,0,0,-.08
"99/07/08","13:55:27",16,29.8,27.5,49.3,27,25.1,146.02,.2512,-.01,0,0,-.093
"99/07/08","13:55:37",17,29.7,27.5,50.1,27,25.3,145.99,.1592,0,0,0,-.106
"99/07/08","13:55:47",18,29.6,27.4,50.8,26.9,25.2,145.99,.2025,0,0,0,-.105
"99/07/08","13:55:57",19,29.7,27.5,51.7,27,25.3,146.03,.1659,0,0,0,-.102
"99/07/08","13:56:07",20,29.7,27.5,52.5,27,25.3,146.01,.1958,0,0,0,-.105
"99/07/08","13:56:17",21,29.8,27.5,53.3,27.1,25.3,145.959,.1643,0,0,0,-.076
"99/07/08","13:56:27",22,29.6,27.4,53.9,26.9,25.1,145.959,.2006,0,0,0,-.089
"99/07/08","13:56:37",23,29.6,27.4,54.9,27,25.2,145.929,.1933,0,0,0,-.094
"99/07/08","13:56:47",24,29.5,27.4,55.6,26.9,25.2,145.959,.2508,0,0,0,-.095
"99/07/08","13:56:57",25,29.4,27.3,56.3,26.8,25,145.919,.2089,0,0,0,-.105
"99/07/08","13:57:07",26,29.5,27.5,57.3,26.9,25.3,145.959,.2717,0,0,0,-.089
"99/07/08","13:57:17",27,29.5,27.5,58.2,27,25.4,146.01,.1971,-.01,0,0,-.081
"99/07/08","13:57:27",28,29.4,27.4,58.9,26.9,25.3,145.949,.1724,-.01,0,0,-.106
"99/07/08","13:57:37",29,29.3,27.3,59.6,26.8,25.2,145.939,.1417,0,0,0,-.086
"99/07/08","13:57:47",30,29.3,27.4,60.5,26.9,25.4,145.969,.1566,-.01,0,0,-.07
"99/07/08","13:57:57",31,29.3,27.4,61.2,26.9,25.4,145.939,.2354,0,0,0,-.078
"99/07/08","13:58:07",32,29.3,27.5,61.9,26.9,25.2,145.98,.1746,-.01,0,0,-.076
"99/07/08","13:58:17",33,29.3,27.4,62.6,26.8,25,145.909,.2267,-.01,0,0,-.091
"99/07/08","13:58:27",34,29.4,27.5,63.4,26.9,25.1,145.929,.1822,0,0,0,-.084
"99/07/08","13:58:37",35,29.3,27.4,64.2,26.8,25.2,145.909,.2462,0,0,0,-.097
"99/07/08","13:58:47",36,29.3,27.4,64.8,26.8,25,145.919,.1822,0,0,0,-.073
"99/07/08","13:58:57",37,29.4,27.5,65.6,26.9,25.2,145.98,.1623,-.01,0,0,-.095
"99/07/08","13:59:07",38,29.3,27.4,66.1,26.8,25,145.929,.1986,-.01,0,0,-.111
"99/07/08","13:59:17",39,29.3,27.4,66.9,26.8,25.1,145.889,.1866,0,0,0,-.088
"99/07/08","13:59:27",40,29.3,27.5,67.6,26.9,25.2,145.929,.1753,0,0,0,-.076
"99/07/08","13:59:37",41,29.2,27.4,68.1,26.8,25.2,145.919,.1671,0,0,0,-.072
"99/07/08","13:59:47",42,29.2,27.4,68.9,26.8,25.2,145.899,.2432,0,0,0,-.076
"99/07/08","13:59:57",43,29.2,27.4,69.5,26.8,25,145.939,.1545,-.01,0,0,-.088
"99/07/08","14:00:07",44,29.2,27.4,70.1,26.8,25.1,145.919,.1664,-.01,0,0,-.091
"99/07/08","14:00:17",45,29.3,27.5,70.8,26.9,25.1,145.939,.16,-.01,0,0,-.086
"99/07/08","14:00:27",46,29.3,27.4,71.3,26.8,25.1,145.909,.1529,0,.1,0,-.08
"99/07/08","14:00:37",47,29.2,27.5,71.9,26.8,25.2,145.879,.19,0,.1,0,-.086
"99/07/08","14:00:47",48,29.2,27.5,72.6,26.9,25.2,145.959,.1953,0,0,0,-.093
"99/07/08","14:00:57",49,29.2,27.5,73.1,26.8,25.2,145.909,.147,0,.1,0,-.079
"99/07/08","14:01:07",50,29.3,27.6,73.7,26.9,25.3,145.929,.1157,0,0,0,-.084
"99/07/08","14:01:17",51,29.1,27.4,74,26.8,25.1,145.919,.1838,-.01,0,0,-.087
"99/07/08","14:01:27",52,29.1,27.4,74.5,26.7,25,145.869,.1372,0,.1,0,-.099
"99/07/08","14:01:37",53,29.2,27.4,75.2,26.8,25.1,145.919,.1334,0,0,0,-.11
"99/07/08","14:01:47",54,29.2,27.5,75.6,26.8,25,145.939,.0998,0,0,0,-.082
"99/07/08","14:01:57",55,29.2,27.5,76.1,26.8,24.9,145.929,.1233,0,0,0,-.079
"99/07/08","14:02:07",56,29.2,27.5,76.5,26.8,24.9,145.919,.1134,0,0,0,-.103
"99/07/08","14:02:17",57,29.2,27.5,77,26.8,24.7,145.919,.1295,0,0,0,-.085
"99/07/08","14:02:27",58,29.1,27.5,77.5,26.8,24.7,145.919,.1512,0,0,0,-.09
"99/07/08","14:02:37",59,29.1,27.5,77.9,26.8,24.9,145.899,.131,0,0,0,-.085
"99/07/08","14:02:47",60,29.1,27.5,78.3,26.8,25.1,145.939,.1143,0,0,0,-.076
"99/07/08","14:02:57",61,29,27.5,78.7,26.8,25.1,145.959,.1162,-.01,0,0,-.083
"99/07/08","14:03:07",62,29.2,27.6,79.3,26.9,25.3,145.939,.1645,0,0,0,-.089
"99/07/08","14:03:17",63,29.2,27.7,79.7,27,25.2,145.99,.1023,-.01,0,0,-.088
"99/07/08","14:03:27",64,29.1,27.5,79.9,26.8,25,145.929,.0906,0,0,0,-.074
"99/07/08","14:03:37",65,29.2,27.7,80.4,26.9,25,145.929,.0947,0,0,0,-.092
"99/07/08","14:03:47",66,29.2,27.7,80.9,26.9,25.1,145.949,.1116,-.01,0,0,-.097
"99/07/08","14:03:57",67,29.1,27.5,81.1,26.8,25,145.909,.0864,0,0,0,-.082
"99/07/08","14:04:07",68,29.1,27.7,81.6,26.9,25.2,145.949,.0956,-.01,0,0,-.092
"99/07/08","14:04:17",69,29.2,27.8,82,26.9,25.1,145.949,.1089,0,0,0,-.089
"99/07/08","14:04:27",70,29.1,27.7,82.3,26.9,25.2,145.919,.1059,0,.1,0,-.088
"99/07/08","14:04:37",71,29.2,27.8,82.8,27,25.2,145.969,.101,-.01,0,0,-.083
"99/07/08","14:04:47",72,29.2,27.8,83.1,27,25.1,146,.0737,0,0,-.1,-.072
"99/07/08","14:04:57",73,29.2,27.7,83.3,26.9,25.1,145.939,.1301,0,0,0,-.094
"99/07/08","14:05:07",74,29.2,27.7,83.7,26.9,25.1,145.959,.0832,0,.1,0,-.092
"99/07/08","14:05:17",75,29.4,27.9,84.2,27.1,25.2,145.969,.0905,0,.1,0,-.095
"99/07/08","14:05:27",76,29.3,27.8,84.5,27,25.2,146,.0671,0,0,0,-.081
"99/07/08","14:05:37",77,29.2,27.7,84.6,26.9,25.1,145.99,.0659,0,0,0,-.091
"99/07/08","14:05:47",78,29.4,27.9,85.1,27,25.3,146.02,.0808,-.01,0,0,-.093
"99/07/08","14:05:57",79,29.2,27.7,85.3,26.9,25.3,145.949,.0587,0,0,0,-.095
"99/07/08","14:06:07",80,29.4,27.9,85.8,27,25.4,146,.0769,-.01,0,0,-.078
"99/07/08","14:06:17",81,29.4,27.9,86,27.1,25.4,145.969,.0673,-.01,0,0,-.073
"99/07/08","14:06:27",82,29.5,28,86.5,27.1,25.6,146.02,.125,0,0,0,-.09
"99/07/08","14:06:37",83,29.4,28,86.6,27,25.3,146,.0931,0,0,0,-.081
"99/07/08","14:06:47",84,29.5,27.9,86.9,27,25.3,145.98,.0699,0,0,0,-.091
"99/07/08","14:06:57",85,29.5,27.9,87.2,27,25.2,145.969,.0787,0,0,0,-.086
"99/07/08","14:07:07",86,29.5,28,87.6,27,25.4,146,.0657,0,0,0,-.084
"99/07/08","14:07:17",87,29.5,27.9,87.8,27.1,25.4,145.98,.055,0,0,0,-.08
"99/07/08","14:07:27",88,29.6,28.1,88.2,27.2,25.6,146.02,.0577,0,0,0,-.085
"99/07/08","14:07:37",89,29.6,28.1,88.4,27.2,25.5,146.05,.0713,0,0,0,-.088
"99/07/08","14:07:47",90,29.6,28.1,88.7,27.2,25.5,146.03,.0923,0,0,0,-.077
"99/07/08","14:07:57",91,29.6,28.1,89,27.1,25.6,146.06,.0535,0,0,0,-.085
"99/07/08","14:08:07",92,29.5,28,89.1,27,25.4,146.01,.0878,0,0,0,-.08
"99/07/08","14:08:17",93,29.6,28.1,89.5,27.1,25.5,146.05,.0493,0,0,0,-.08
"99/07/08","14:08:27",94,29.6,28.1,89.8,27.2,25.5,146.09,.0805,0,0,0,-.08
"99/07/08","14:08:37",95,29.6,28.1,90,27.2,25.5,146.1,.0627,-.01,0,0,-.085
"99/07/08","14:08:47",96,29.6,28.1,90.2,27.2,25.5,146.03,.0719,0,0,0,-.078
"99/07/08","14:08:57",97,29.6,28.2,90.6,27.2,25.5,146.06,.0896,0,0,0,-.083
"99/07/08","14:09:07",98,29.6,28.2,90.8,27.1,25.3,146.07,.0643,-.01,0,0,-.068
"99/07/08","14:09:17",99,29.6,28.1,91.1,27.2,25.4,146.09,.0504,0,0,0,-.077
"99/07/08","14:09:27",100,29.6,28.1,91.3,27.2,25.4,146.05,.0939,0,0,0,-.087
"99/07/08","14:09:37",101,29.6,28.2,91.6,27.2,25.4,146.06,.0681,0,0,0,-.083
"99/07/08","14:09:47",102,29.6,28.3,91.9,27.2,25.5,146.07,.077,0,0,0,-.085
"99/07/08","14:09:57",103,29.7,28.3,92.2,27.2,25.4,146.07,.047,0,0,0,-.079
"99/07/08","14:10:07",104,29.5,28.2,92.2,27.2,25.3,146.03,.0992,0,0,0,-.079
"99/07/08","14:10:17",105,29.6,28.2,92.5,27.2,25.2,146.07,.0387,0,0,0,-.068
"99/07/08","14:10:27",106,29.5,28.2,92.8,27.2,25.2,146.04,.0545,0,0,0,-.078
"99/07/08","14:10:37",107,29.7,28.4,93.2,27.4,25.5,146.171,.0597,0,0,0,-.076
"99/07/08","14:10:47",108,29.6,28.3,93.3,27.3,25.4,146.04,.0712,0,0,0,-.071
"99/07/08","14:10:57",109,29.7,28.4,93.6,27.3,25.4,146.05,.0725,0,0,0,-.078
"99/07/08","14:11:07",110,29.7,28.3,93.8,27.3,25.5,146.06,.1074,0,0,0,-.1
"99/07/08","14:11:17",111,29.7,28.3,94,27.3,25.7,146.05,.1037,0,0,0,-.086
"99/07/08","14:11:27",112,29.7,28.3,94.2,27.3,25.6,146.08,.0444,0,0,0,-.078
"99/07/08","14:11:37",113,29.7,28.3,94.4,27.3,25.5,146.151,.0857,0,0,0,-.088
"99/07/08","14:11:47",114,29.8,28.4,94.7,27.4,25.5,146.161,.0635,0,0,0,-.078
"99/07/08","14:11:57",115,29.8,28.5,94.9,27.3,25.5,146.13,.0461,0,0,0,-.082
"99/07/08","14:12:07",116,29.8,28.4,95,27.3,25.3,146.08,.098,0,0,0,-.074
"99/07/08","14:12:17",117,29.9,28.4,95.2,27.3,25.2,146.09,.0741,0,0,0,-.088
"99/07/08","14:12:27",118,29.8,28.5,95.5,27.3,25.2,146.08,.0958,0,0,0,-.083
"99/07/08","14:12:37",119,29.9,28.5,95.7,27.4,25.4,146.09,.0896,0,0,0,-.085
"99/07/08","14:12:47",120,29.8,28.4,95.9,27.3,25.3,146.151,.0975,0,0,0,-.092
"99/07/08","14:12:57",121,29.8,28.5,96.1,27.3,25.3,146.09,.0259,0,0,0,-.095
"99/07/08","14:13:07",122,29.8,28.4,96.3,27.3,25.4,146,.0666,0,0,0,-.082
"99/07/08","14:13:17",123,29.7,28.5,96.5,27.3,25.3,146.12,.0194,0,0,0,-.09
"99/07/08","14:13:27",124,30,28.7,96.9,27.5,25.6,.05031,-.0035,0,0,0,-.025
"99/07/08","14:13:37",125,29.9,28.7,96.9,27.5,25.5,.55341,.0007,0,0,0,-.031
"99/07/08","14:13:47",126,29.9,28.7,96.8,27.5,25.4,.573534,.0002,0,0,0,-.018
"99/07/08","14:13:57",127,30,28.7,96.7,27.5,25.6,.55341,.0004,0,0,0,.024
"99/07/08","14:14:07",128,30,28.7,96.7,27.5,25.6,.543348,.0008,0,0,0,.007
"99/07/08","14:14:17",129,30.1,28.7,96.7,27.5,25.6,.533286,.0007,0,0,0,.037
"99/07/08","14:14:27",130,30.1,28.7,96.6,27.5,25.5,.523224,.0002,0,0,0,.019
"99/07/08","14:14:37",131,30,28.7,96.6,27.5,25.6,.523224,.0002,0,0,0,.036
"99/07/08","14:14:47",132,30.1,28.7,96.5,27.5,25.6,.523224,.0003,0,0,0,.013
"99/07/08","14:14:57",133,30.1,28.7,96.5,27.5,25.6,.523224,.0002,0,0,0,.044
"99/07/08","14:15:07",134,30.1,28.7,96.4,27.5,25.6,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.023
"99/07/08","14:15:17",135,30.1,28.7,96.3,27.5,25.4,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,.038
"99/07/08","14:15:27",136,30.1,28.8,96.3,27.5,25.3,.513162,.0008,0,0,0,.015
"99/07/08","14:15:37",137,30.1,28.8,96.2,27.5,25.3,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","14:15:47",138,30.2,28.8,96.2,27.5,25.4,.513162,.0007,0,0,0,.01
"99/07/08","14:15:57",139,30.2,28.9,96.2,27.6,25.5,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","14:16:07",140,30.1,28.8,96.1,27.5,25.5,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,-.008
"99/07/08","14:16:17",141,30.1,28.8,96.1,27.5,25.5,.513162,.0002,0,0,0,.034
"99/07/08","14:16:27",142,30.2,28.8,96,27.5,25.5,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.004
"99/07/08","14:16:37",143,30.1,28.8,95.9,27.5,25.5,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.035
"99/07/08","14:16:47",144,30.2,28.9,96,27.6,25.6,.5031,.0006,0,0,0,.021
"99/07/08","14:16:57",145,30.2,28.9,95.8,27.6,25.5,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,.038
"99/07/08","14:17:07",146,30.2,28.9,95.8,27.5,25.4,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,.044
"99/07/08","14:17:17",147,30.2,28.8,95.7,27.5,25.4,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,.004
"99/07/08","14:17:27",148,30.2,28.9,95.7,27.6,25.5,.5031,.0005,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","14:17:37",149,30.2,28.9,95.6,27.5,25.3,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","14:17:47",150,30.2,28.9,95.6,27.5,25.2,.5031,.0007,0,0,0,.014
"99/07/08","14:17:57",151,30.2,28.9,95.5,27.6,25.2,.5031,.0006,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","14:18:07",152,30.2,28.9,95.5,27.5,25.2,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,.016
"99/07/08","14:18:17",153,30.2,29,95.5,27.5,25.2,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,.039
"99/07/08","14:18:27",154,30.2,29,95.4,27.6,25.1,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,.031
"99/07/08","14:18:37",155,30.2,29,95.4,27.6,25.2,.5031,.0005,0,0,0,.002
"99/07/08","14:18:47",156,30.2,29,95.3,27.6,25.1,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","14:18:57",157,30.3,29,95.3,27.6,25.1,.5031,.0008,0,0,0,-.01
"99/07/08","14:19:07",158,30.2,29,95.2,27.6,25.2,.5031,.0002,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","14:19:17",159,30.2,28.9,95.2,27.6,25.4,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,.025
"99/07/08","14:19:27",160,30.2,29,95.1,27.6,25.3,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","14:19:37",161,30.3,29,95.1,27.6,25.4,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,.002
"99/07/08","14:19:47",162,30.3,29,95,27.6,25.4,.5031,.0002,0,0,0,.044
"99/07/08","14:19:57",163,30.3,29,95,27.6,25.6,.493038,.0008,0,0,0,.019
"99/07/08","14:20:07",164,30.3,29,94.9,27.6,25.7,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.028
"99/07/08","14:20:17",165,30.3,29.1,94.9,27.6,25.7,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.028
"99/07/08","14:20:27",166,30.3,29.1,94.9,27.6,25.3,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,.003
"99/07/08","14:20:37",167,30.3,29.1,94.8,27.6,25.3,.493038,.0005,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","14:20:47",168,30.3,29.1,94.8,27.6,25.5,.5031,.0008,0,0,0,.019
"99/07/08","14:20:57",169,30.3,29.1,94.7,27.6,25.6,.493038,.0005,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","14:21:07",170,30.3,29.1,94.7,27.6,25.6,.493038,.0003,0,0,0,-.009
"99/07/08","14:21:17",171,30.3,29.1,94.6,27.6,25.6,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.042
"99/07/08","14:21:27",172,30.3,29.1,94.6,27.6,25.5,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","14:21:37",173,30.3,29.1,94.5,27.6,25.5,.493038,.0003,0,0,0,-.022
"99/07/08","14:21:47",174,30.3,29.1,94.5,27.6,25.5,.493038,.0007,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","14:21:57",175,30.3,29.1,94.5,27.6,25.5,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","14:22:07",176,30.3,29.1,94.4,27.6,25.5,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.037
"99/07/08","14:22:17",177,30.3,29.1,94.3,27.6,25.4,.493038,.0008,0,0,0,-.016
"99/07/08","14:22:27",178,30.3,29.2,94.3,27.6,25.5,.493038,.0003,0,0,0,.004
"99/07/08","14:22:37",179,30.3,29.2,94.3,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.042
"99/07/08","14:22:47",180,30.3,29.2,94.3,27.6,25.5,.493038,.0005,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","14:22:57",181,30.3,29.2,94.2,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,-.007
"99/07/08","14:23:07",182,30.3,29.2,94.2,27.6,25.6,.493038,.0006,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","14:23:17",183,30.3,29.1,94.1,27.6,25.6,.493038,.0002,0,0,0,.028
"99/07/08","14:23:27",184,30.3,29.3,94.1,27.7,25.5,.493038,.0007,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","14:23:37",185,30.3,29.2,94,27.7,25.5,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","14:23:47",186,30.3,29.2,94,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0003,0,0,0,.006
"99/07/08","14:23:57",187,30.3,29.2,93.9,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0006,0,0,0,-.007
"99/07/08","14:24:07",188,30.4,29.3,93.9,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0007,0,0,0,.038
"99/07/08","14:24:17",189,30.3,29.2,93.9,27.7,25.5,.493038,.0003,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","14:24:27",190,30.3,29.2,93.8,27.7,25.4,.493038,.0008,0,0,0,0
"99/07/08","14:24:37",191,30.3,29.2,93.8,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0009,0,0,0,.014
"99/07/08","14:24:47",192,30.3,29.3,93.7,27.7,25.5,.493038,.0002,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","14:24:57",193,30.3,29.3,93.7,27.7,25.5,.493038,.0007,0,0,0,.036
"99/07/08","14:25:07",194,30.4,29.3,93.7,27.7,25.5,.493038,.0005,0,0,0,0
"99/07/08","14:25:17",195,30.3,29.3,93.6,27.7,25.6,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,.009
"99/07/08","14:25:27",196,30.3,29.3,93.6,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0005,0,0,0,-.008
"99/07/08","14:25:37",197,30.3,29.3,93.5,27.7,25.5,.493038,.0007,0,0,0,-.004
"99/07/08","14:25:47",198,30.3,29.3,93.5,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0008,0,0,0,-.023
"99/07/08","14:25:57",199,30.3,29.3,93.5,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0007,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","14:26:07",200,30.3,29.3,93.4,27.7,25.7,.493038,.0009,0,0,0,.011
"99/07/08","14:26:17",201,30.3,29.3,93.4,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.02
"99/07/08","14:26:27",202,30.3,29.3,93.3,27.7,25.7,.493038,.0006,0,0,0,-.024
"99/07/08","14:26:37",203,30.3,29.3,93.3,27.7,25.7,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.042
"99/07/08","14:26:47",204,30.4,29.4,93.3,27.8,25.7,.493038,.0007,0,0,0,.016
"99/07/08","14:26:57",205,30.3,29.4,93.2,27.8,25.6,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","14:27:07",206,30.3,29.4,93.1,27.7,25.7,.493038,.0006,0,0,0,.043
"99/07/08","14:27:17",207,30.3,29.3,93.1,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0006,0,0,0,.034
"99/07/08","14:27:27",208,30.3,29.4,93.1,27.7,25.5,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,-.008
"99/07/08","14:27:37",209,30.3,29.4,93,27.7,25.5,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.028
"99/07/08","14:27:47",210,30.3,29.4,93,27.7,25.6,.493038,.0002,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","14:27:57",211,30.3,29.4,93,27.7,25.7,.493038,.0002,0,0,0,-.008
"99/07/08","14:28:07",212,30.3,29.4,92.9,27.8,25.5,.493038,.0003,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","14:28:17",213,30.3,29.4,92.9,27.8,25.4,.493038,.0006,0,0,0,-.004
"99/07/08","14:28:27",214,30.3,29.4,92.9,27.8,25.4,.493038,.0002,0,0,0,.044
"99/07/08","14:28:37",215,30.3,29.4,92.8,27.7,25.5,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","14:28:47",216,30.3,29.4,92.8,27.8,25.5,.482976,.0002,0,0,0,.003
"99/07/08","14:28:57",217,30.3,29.4,92.7,27.8,25.5,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.025
"99/07/08","14:29:07",218,30.3,29.4,92.7,27.8,25.5,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,-.01
"99/07/08","14:29:17",219,30.3,29.4,92.6,27.7,25.5,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.014
"99/07/08","14:29:27",220,30.3,29.4,92.6,27.8,25.6,.482976,.0007,0,0,0,.031
"99/07/08","14:29:37",221,30.3,29.4,92.6,27.8,25.6,.482976,.0002,0,0,0,.041
"99/07/08","14:29:47",222,30.3,29.4,92.5,27.7,25.6,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,.011

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 08:05:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA27189;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:59:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:59:49 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990721104940.0079a4c0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:49:40 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Mizuno - other raw data, 2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"sEIyg.0.de6.a1Ubt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29203
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

"LOG_DATE","LOG_TIME","LOG_NO","PC-T-1","PC-T-2","CEL-VT","CEL-WT","ROOM-T",
"HEAT-V","HEAT-I","CHRG-V","CHRG-I","PRESS.","PC-V"
"99/07/08","12:49:26",1,29.6,27.9,28.4,27.3,25.8,.311922,.0007,0,0,0,.002
"99/07/08","12:49:36",2,29.6,28,28.4,27.3,25.5,0,.0003,0,0,0,-.023
"99/07/08","12:49:46",3,29.6,28,29.4,27.3,25.5,99.3623,.6807,0,0,0,-.01
"99/07/08","12:49:56",4,29.6,28,32.3,27.3,25.4,109.615,.8157,0,0,0,-.038
"99/07/08","12:50:06",5,29.6,27.9,34.3,27.3,25.4,109.565,.5905,0,0,0,-.051
"99/07/08","12:50:16",6,29.6,27.9,36.2,27.2,25.5,109.585,.713,0,0,0,-.076
"99/07/08","12:50:26",7,29.6,28,38,27.3,25.4,109.676,.6997,0,0,0,-.069
"99/07/08","12:50:36",8,29.6,27.9,39.8,27.3,25.4,109.575,.6535,0,0,0,-.066
"99/07/08","12:50:46",9,29.6,27.9,41.4,27.2,25.4,109.686,.4558,0,0,0,-.086
"99/07/08","12:50:56",10,29.6,27.9,43,27.3,25.6,109.625,.5822,0,0,0,-.084
"99/07/08","12:51:06",11,29.6,28,44.5,27.3,25.8,109.595,.6623,0,0,0,-.076
"99/07/08","12:51:16",12,29.5,27.9,45.9,27.3,25.6,109.615,.4586,0,0,0,-.06
"99/07/08","12:51:26",13,29.5,27.9,47.1,27.3,25.8,109.605,.4552,0,0,0,-.069
"99/07/08","12:51:36",14,29.4,27.9,48.3,27.3,25.7,109.605,.452,0,0,0,-.064
"99/07/08","12:51:46",15,29.4,27.9,49.6,27.3,25.8,109.605,.3921,0,0,0,-.07
"99/07/08","12:51:56",16,29.4,28,50.8,27.3,25.8,109.625,.2715,0,0,0,-.066
"99/07/08","12:52:06",17,29.3,27.9,51.8,27.2,25.8,109.605,.4763,0,0,0,-.072
"99/07/08","12:52:16",18,29.3,27.9,52.9,27.2,25.9,109.595,.3856,0,0,0,-.075
"99/07/08","12:52:26",19,29.3,28,53.9,27.2,25.8,109.636,.2859,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","12:52:36",20,29.2,28,54.9,27.3,25.8,109.605,.3528,0,0,0,-.074
"99/07/08","12:52:46",21,29.2,28,55.7,27.2,25.7,109.605,.3354,0,0,0,-.059
"99/07/08","12:52:56",22,29.2,28,56.6,27.2,25.6,109.595,.359,0,0,0,-.058
"99/07/08","12:53:06",23,29.3,28.1,57.2,27.3,25.9,109.625,.1423,0,0,0,-.07
"99/07/08","12:53:16",24,29.2,28.2,57.6,27.3,25.9,109.615,.1299,0,0,0,-.078
"99/07/08","12:53:26",25,29.2,28.1,58.1,27.4,25.8,109.595,.1884,0,0,0,-.069
"99/07/08","12:53:36",26,29.2,28.1,58.7,27.3,25.8,109.615,.2513,0,0,0,-.081
"99/07/08","12:53:46",27,29.2,28.1,59.1,27.3,25.8,109.595,.1451,0,0,0,-.07
"99/07/08","12:53:56",28,29.2,28.1,59.6,27.3,25.8,109.625,.1704,0,0,0,-.06
"99/07/08","12:54:06",29,29.2,28.1,60.1,27.3,25.7,109.615,.2434,0,0,0,-.075
"99/07/08","12:54:16",30,29.3,28.1,60.6,27.3,25.8,109.615,.1518,0,0,0,-.059
"99/07/08","12:54:26",31,29.2,28.1,61.1,27.3,25.8,109.625,.1407,0,0,0,-.069
"99/07/08","12:54:36",32,29.3,28.1,61.6,27.3,25.8,109.615,.1469,0,0,0,-.058
"99/07/08","12:54:46",33,29.3,28.1,62.1,27.3,25.5,109.595,.1792,0,0,0,-.062
"99/07/08","12:54:56",34,29.3,28.1,62.6,27.3,25.5,109.625,.157,0,0,0,-.06
"99/07/08","12:55:06",35,29.3,28.1,63.1,27.3,25.3,109.605,.2112,0,0,0,-.062
"99/07/08","12:55:16",36,29.3,28.2,63.5,27.3,25.2,109.625,.1619,0,0,0,-.061
"99/07/08","12:55:26",37,29.3,28.1,64,27.3,25.2,109.615,.2456,0,0,0,-.055
"99/07/08","12:55:36",38,29.3,28.1,64.5,27.3,25.3,109.625,.1267,0,0,0,-.062
"99/07/08","12:55:46",39,29.3,28.2,65,27.3,25.6,109.615,.1264,0,0,0,-.066
"99/07/08","12:55:56",40,29.3,28.2,65.5,27.3,25.7,109.625,.167,0,0,0,-.072
"99/07/08","12:56:06",41,29.2,28.2,65.9,27.3,25.9,109.605,.2337,0,0,0,-.059
"99/07/08","12:56:16",42,29.2,28.1,66.3,27.3,25.8,109.605,.2382,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","12:56:26",43,29.3,28.2,66.8,27.3,26,109.605,.2349,0,0,0,-.072
"99/07/08","12:56:36",44,29.2,28.1,67.2,27.3,25.9,109.625,.1781,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","12:56:46",45,29.3,28.2,67.7,27.3,25.8,109.625,.1488,0,0,0,-.061
"99/07/08","12:56:56",46,29.2,28.1,68.1,27.3,25.9,109.615,.1291,0,0,0,-.064
"99/07/08","12:57:06",47,29.3,28.2,68.6,27.3,25.8,109.615,.1386,0,0,0,-.052
"99/07/08","12:57:16",48,29.3,28.2,69,27.3,25.7,109.625,.1596,0,0,0,-.081
"99/07/08","12:57:26",49,29.2,28.1,69.4,27.3,25.7,109.625,.1225,0,0,0,-.076
"99/07/08","12:57:36",50,29.2,28.2,69.8,27.3,25.7,109.615,.1893,0,0,0,-.086
"99/07/08","12:57:46",51,29.2,28.2,70.2,27.3,25.7,109.636,.1275,0,0,0,-.058
"99/07/08","12:57:56",52,29.2,28.2,70.6,27.3,25.7,109.625,.1335,0,0,0,-.083
"99/07/08","12:58:06",53,29.2,28.2,71,27.3,25.5,109.625,.1343,0,0,0,-.075
"99/07/08","12:58:16",54,29.3,28.2,71.4,27.3,25.4,109.605,.1701,0,0,0,-.082
"99/07/08","12:58:26",55,29.3,28.2,71.8,27.3,25.3,109.615,.1148,0,0,0,-.068
"99/07/08","12:58:36",56,29.4,28.2,72.2,27.3,25.3,109.615,.1329,0,0,0,-.056
"99/07/08","12:58:46",57,29.4,28.3,72.6,27.3,25.4,109.615,.219,0,0,0,-.075
"99/07/08","12:58:56",58,29.5,28.3,73,27.4,25.5,109.625,.118,0,0,0,-.059
"99/07/08","12:59:06",59,29.5,28.4,73.4,27.4,25.5,109.625,.1336,0,0,0,-.082
"99/07/08","12:59:16",60,29.5,28.3,73.8,27.3,25.5,109.615,.1064,0,0,0,-.06
"99/07/08","12:59:26",61,29.4,28.3,74.1,27.4,25.7,109.625,.1226,0,0,0,-.054
"99/07/08","12:59:36",62,29.4,28.3,74.5,27.4,25.8,109.636,.1077,0,0,0,-.067
"99/07/08","12:59:46",63,29.4,28.3,74.9,27.3,25.9,109.605,.1582,0,0,0,-.068
"99/07/08","12:59:56",64,29.4,28.3,75.2,27.4,26.1,109.605,.165,0,0,0,-.064
"99/07/08","13:00:06",65,29.4,28.3,75.6,27.4,26.1,109.625,.1054,0,0,0,-.068
"99/07/08","13:00:16",66,29.5,28.4,75.9,27.4,26.1,109.625,.1141,0,0,0,-.091
"99/07/08","13:00:26",67,29.4,28.3,76.3,27.4,26,109.615,.0923,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","13:00:36",68,29.4,28.3,76.6,27.4,25.8,109.625,.0944,0,0,0,-.057
"99/07/08","13:00:46",69,29.4,28.3,76.9,27.4,25.7,109.605,.1809,0,0,0,-.059
"99/07/08","13:00:56",70,29.4,28.4,77.3,27.4,25.6,109.605,.1816,0,0,0,-.058
"99/07/08","13:01:06",71,29.5,28.3,77.6,27.4,25.5,109.615,.1223,0,0,0,-.062
"99/07/08","13:01:16",72,29.5,28.4,77.9,27.4,25.6,109.595,.1817,0,0,0,-.06
"99/07/08","13:01:26",73,29.5,28.4,78.2,27.3,25.6,109.615,.1613,0,0,0,-.055
"99/07/08","13:01:36",74,29.5,28.4,78.6,27.4,25.5,109.615,.1399,0,0,0,-.074
"99/07/08","13:01:46",75,29.5,28.4,78.9,27.4,25.6,109.636,.0969,0,0,0,-.062
"99/07/08","13:01:56",76,29.6,28.4,79.2,27.4,25.6,109.615,.1728,0,0,0,-.075
"99/07/08","13:02:06",77,29.6,28.5,79.5,27.4,25.7,109.605,.0877,0,0,0,-.068
"99/07/08","13:02:16",78,29.6,28.4,79.9,27.4,25.7,109.605,.1562,0,0,0,-.056
"99/07/08","13:02:26",79,29.7,28.5,80.1,27.4,25.8,109.625,.0935,0,0,0,-.056
"99/07/08","13:02:36",80,29.6,28.4,80.4,27.3,25.9,109.605,.1067,0,0,0,-.062
"99/07/08","13:02:46",81,29.7,28.5,80.7,27.4,25.9,109.615,.1122,0,0,0,-.085
"99/07/08","13:02:56",82,29.6,28.5,81,27.4,25.8,109.615,.0958,0,0,0,-.059
"99/07/08","13:03:06",83,29.5,28.5,81.3,27.3,25.8,109.625,.1063,0,0,0,-.073
"99/07/08","13:03:16",84,29.5,28.5,81.6,27.3,25.9,109.615,.0999,0,0,0,-.064
"99/07/08","13:03:26",85,29.5,28.4,81.8,27.4,25.8,109.615,.0985,0,0,0,-.07
"99/07/08","13:03:36",86,29.5,28.4,82.2,27.3,25.9,109.615,.1363,0,0,0,-.061
"99/07/08","13:03:46",87,29.5,28.5,82.4,27.4,25.9,109.636,.0879,0,0,0,-.052
"99/07/08","13:03:56",88,29.5,28.5,82.7,27.3,26.1,109.615,.1012,0,0,0,-.06
"99/07/08","13:04:06",89,29.4,28.5,83,27.4,26.2,109.615,.1003,0,0,0,-.078
"99/07/08","13:04:16",90,29.4,28.5,83.3,27.4,26,109.615,.0825,0,0,0,-.061
"99/07/08","13:04:26",91,29.4,28.5,83.5,27.4,25.8,109.625,.0948,0,0,0,-.074
"99/07/08","13:04:36",92,29.4,28.5,83.8,27.4,25.9,109.615,.1276,0,0,0,-.067
"99/07/08","13:04:46",93,29.4,28.5,84,27.4,25.9,109.615,.1024,0,0,0,-.056
"99/07/08","13:04:56",94,29.3,28.5,84.3,27.3,25.8,109.636,.0914,0,0,0,-.071
"99/07/08","13:05:06",95,29.3,28.5,84.6,27.3,25.7,109.595,.0829,0,0,0,-.071
"99/07/08","13:05:16",96,29.4,28.6,84.8,27.4,25.7,109.605,.0788,0,0,0,-.06
"99/07/08","13:05:26",97,29.4,28.5,85.1,27.4,25.7,109.605,.0981,0,0,0,-.08
"99/07/08","13:05:36",98,29.4,28.5,85.3,27.3,25.7,109.625,.0856,0,0,0,-.052
"99/07/08","13:05:46",99,29.3,28.6,85.5,27.4,25.6,109.646,.0712,0,0,0,-.072
"99/07/08","13:05:56",100,29.3,28.6,85.8,27.4,25.6,109.636,.0783,0,0,0,-.072
"99/07/08","13:06:06",101,29.3,28.5,86,27.3,25.7,109.595,.1114,0,0,0,-.072
"99/07/08","13:06:16",102,29.4,28.6,86.4,27.5,25.9,109.636,.0732,0,0,0,-.054
"99/07/08","13:06:26",103,29.4,28.7,86.6,27.5,26,109.605,.0675,0,0,0,-.058
"99/07/08","13:06:36",104,29.4,28.7,86.8,27.5,26,109.625,.0804,0,0,0,-.064
"99/07/08","13:06:46",105,29.4,28.7,87.1,27.5,26.1,109.605,.0932,0,0,0,-.066
"99/07/08","13:06:56",106,29.4,28.7,87.3,27.5,26.1,109.666,.075,0,0,0,-.06
"99/07/08","13:07:06",107,29.3,28.7,87.5,27.5,26,109.615,.1003,0,0,0,-.08
"99/07/08","13:07:16",108,29.3,28.7,87.7,27.4,26.1,109.595,.1066,0,0,0,-.062
"99/07/08","13:07:26",109,29.3,28.7,87.9,27.5,26.1,109.636,.067,0,0,0,-.079
"99/07/08","13:07:36",110,29.3,28.7,88.2,27.5,26,109.615,.1324,0,0,0,-.053
"99/07/08","13:07:46",111,29.3,28.7,88.4,27.5,26.1,109.595,.0649,0,0,0,-.072
"99/07/08","13:07:56",112,29.3,28.7,88.6,27.4,26.1,109.615,.0552,0,0,0,-.056
"99/07/08","13:08:06",113,29.3,28.7,88.8,27.5,26,109.615,.0767,0,0,0,-.055
"99/07/08","13:08:16",114,29.4,28.8,89,27.5,26.1,109.605,.0557,0,0,0,-.065
"99/07/08","13:08:26",115,29.3,28.7,89.2,27.5,26,109.605,.0972,0,0,0,-.061
"99/07/08","13:08:36",116,29.4,28.8,89.4,27.5,26,109.605,.0973,0,0,0,-.071
"99/07/08","13:08:46",117,29.3,28.7,89.6,27.4,25.9,109.605,.0866,0,0,0,-.051
"99/07/08","13:08:56",118,29.3,28.8,89.8,27.5,25.9,109.605,.0873,0,0,0,-.065
"99/07/08","13:09:06",119,29.3,28.7,90,27.4,26,109.615,.0722,0,0,0,-.059
"99/07/08","13:09:16",120,29.3,28.8,90.2,27.5,25.9,109.636,.0836,0,0,0,-.07
"99/07/08","13:09:26",121,29.3,28.8,90.4,27.5,26,109.595,.1127,0,0,0,-.066
"99/07/08","13:09:36",122,29.3,28.8,90.6,27.4,26,109.605,.1174,0,0,0,-.052
"99/07/08","13:09:46",123,29.3,28.8,90.7,27.5,26,109.646,.0547,0,0,0,-.077
"99/07/08","13:09:56",124,29.3,28.8,90.9,27.5,26,109.666,.0481,0,0,0,-.058
"99/07/08","13:10:06",125,29.3,28.8,91.1,27.5,25.9,3.04879,.0112,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","13:10:16",126,29.3,28.8,91,27.4,25.8,.030186,-.0019,0,0,0,-.021
"99/07/08","13:10:26",127,29.5,28.8,90.9,27.4,25.8,.482976,.0005,0,0,0,0
"99/07/08","13:10:36",128,29.5,28.8,90.9,27.5,25.9,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,-.002
"99/07/08","13:10:46",129,29.5,28.8,90.8,27.5,26,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,-.002
"99/07/08","13:10:56",130,29.5,28.9,90.8,27.4,25.8,.523224,.0004,0,0,0,.009
"99/07/08","13:11:06",131,29.6,28.9,90.7,27.5,25.7,.513162,.0003,0,0,0,.008
"99/07/08","13:11:16",132,29.6,28.9,90.7,27.5,25.6,.513162,.0005,0,0,0,.017
"99/07/08","13:11:26",133,29.6,28.9,90.7,27.5,25.7,.513162,.0007,0,0,0,.017
"99/07/08","13:11:36",134,29.6,28.9,90.6,27.5,25.6,.513162,.0004,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","13:11:46",135,29.6,28.8,90.6,27.5,25.6,.513162,.0001,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","13:11:56",136,29.6,28.9,90.6,27.5,25.7,.513162,.0007,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","13:12:06",137,29.7,28.9,90.5,27.5,25.7,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,-.006
"99/07/08","13:12:16",138,29.7,28.9,90.4,27.5,25.6,.5031,.0005,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","13:12:26",139,29.7,28.9,90.4,27.4,25.4,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","13:12:36",140,29.7,28.9,90.4,27.5,25.4,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,.003
"99/07/08","13:12:46",141,29.7,28.9,90.3,27.5,25.4,.5031,.0007,0,0,0,-.003
"99/07/08","13:12:56",142,29.8,28.9,90.3,27.5,25.4,.5031,.0005,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","13:13:06",143,29.8,28.9,90.2,27.5,25.3,.5031,.0005,0,0,0,-.013
"99/07/08","13:13:16",144,29.8,29,90.2,27.5,25.3,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","13:13:26",145,29.8,29,90.2,27.5,25.4,.5031,.0002,0,0,0,.036
"99/07/08","13:13:36",146,30,29.1,90.2,27.6,25.7,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,-.005
"99/07/08","13:13:46",147,29.9,28.9,90.1,27.5,25.8,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,.025
"99/07/08","13:13:56",148,30,29.1,90.1,27.6,26,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,.017
"99/07/08","13:14:06",149,30,29.1,90.1,27.6,25.9,.5031,.0005,0,0,0,.044
"99/07/08","13:14:16",150,30,29.1,90.1,27.6,25.8,.5031,.0003,0,0,0,.014
"99/07/08","13:14:26",151,30,29.1,90,27.6,25.7,.5031,.0004,0,0,0,.032
"99/07/08","13:14:36",152,30,29.1,90,27.6,25.8,.5031,.0002,0,0,0,.012
"99/07/08","13:14:46",153,30,29.1,90,27.6,25.7,.5031,.0008,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","13:14:56",154,30,29.1,89.9,27.6,25.8,.493038,.0003,0,0,0,.006
"99/07/08","13:15:06",155,30,29.1,89.9,27.6,25.9,.493038,.0003,0,0,0,-.005
"99/07/08","13:15:16",156,30,29.1,89.8,27.6,26,.493038,.0003,0,0,0,.016
"99/07/08","13:15:26",157,30,29.1,89.8,27.6,25.9,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.003
"99/07/08","13:15:36",158,30.1,29.1,89.8,27.6,25.9,.493038,.0006,0,0,0,-.004
"99/07/08","13:15:46",159,30.1,29.2,89.8,27.6,25.8,.493038,.0008,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","13:15:56",160,30,29.2,89.7,27.6,25.8,.493038,.0008,0,0,0,.038
"99/07/08","13:16:06",161,30.1,29.1,89.7,27.6,25.5,.493038,.0007,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","13:16:16",162,30,29.1,89.6,27.6,25.4,.493038,.0005,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","13:16:26",163,30.1,29.2,89.7,27.6,25.4,.493038,.0005,0,0,0,.001
"99/07/08","13:16:36",164,30.1,29.1,89.5,27.6,25.3,.493038,.0003,0,0,0,.031
"99/07/08","13:16:46",165,30,29.1,89.5,27.6,25.3,.493038,.0007,0,0,0,.023
"99/07/08","13:16:56",166,30,29.1,89.5,27.6,25.3,.493038,.0008,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","13:17:06",167,30,29.2,89.4,27.6,25.4,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,-.018
"99/07/08","13:17:16",168,30,29.2,89.4,27.6,25.4,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,-.004
"99/07/08","13:17:26",169,30,29.2,89.4,27.6,25.7,.493038,.0003,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","13:17:36",170,30.1,29.2,89.4,27.7,25.8,.493038,.0005,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","13:17:46",171,30.1,29.2,89.3,27.6,25.8,.493038,.0007,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","13:17:56",172,30,29.2,89.3,27.6,25.9,.493038,.0004,0,0,0,.02
"99/07/08","13:18:06",173,30,29.2,89.3,27.6,25.9,.482976,.0005,0,0,0,.006
"99/07/08","13:18:16",174,30,29.2,89.2,27.6,25.8,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","13:18:26",175,30,29.2,89.2,27.6,25.7,.482976,.0007,0,0,0,.014
"99/07/08","13:18:36",176,30,29.2,89.2,27.6,25.5,.482976,.0002,0,0,0,-.02
"99/07/08","13:18:46",177,30,29.3,89.2,27.7,25.4,.482976,.0007,0,0,0,.022
"99/07/08","13:18:56",178,30,29.2,89.1,27.6,25.2,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","13:19:06",179,30,29.3,89,27.6,25.2,.482976,.0005,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","13:19:16",180,30,29.2,89,27.6,25.3,.482976,.0005,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","13:19:26",181,30,29.2,89,27.6,25.3,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,.005
"99/07/08","13:19:36",182,30,29.2,88.9,27.6,25.4,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,-.01
"99/07/08","13:19:46",183,30,29.3,88.9,27.7,25.4,.482976,.0007,0,0,0,-.016
"99/07/08","13:19:56",184,30.1,29.3,89,27.7,25.4,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,-.013
"99/07/08","13:20:06",185,30.1,29.3,88.9,27.7,25.4,.482976,.0006,0,0,0,-.007
"99/07/08","13:20:16",186,30.1,29.2,88.8,27.6,25.5,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,.025
"99/07/08","13:20:26",187,30.1,29.3,88.8,27.7,25.6,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,-.014
"99/07/08","13:20:36",188,30,29.2,88.8,27.6,25.6,.482976,.0005,0,0,0,.026
"99/07/08","13:20:46",189,30.1,29.3,88.7,27.7,25.5,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","13:20:56",190,30.1,29.2,88.7,27.6,25.4,.482976,.0006,0,0,0,.041
"99/07/08","13:21:06",191,30.1,29.3,88.7,27.6,25.3,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,.02
"99/07/08","13:21:16",192,30,29.3,88.6,27.6,25.5,.482976,.0007,0,0,0,-.002
"99/07/08","13:21:26",193,30.1,29.3,88.6,27.6,25.4,.482976,.0007,0,0,0,.043
"99/07/08","13:21:36",194,30,29.3,88.6,27.7,25.4,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,.001
"99/07/08","13:21:46",195,30.1,29.4,88.6,27.7,25.5,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,-.021
"99/07/08","13:21:56",196,30,29.3,88.5,27.7,25.7,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,.018
"99/07/08","13:22:06",197,30.1,29.4,88.5,27.7,25.7,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,.04
"99/07/08","13:22:16",198,30.1,29.3,88.4,27.6,25.6,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,-.009
"99/07/08","13:22:26",199,30.1,29.4,88.4,27.7,25.7,.482976,.0009,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","13:22:36",200,30.1,29.4,88.4,27.7,25.5,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","13:22:46",201,30.1,29.4,88.4,27.7,25.3,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,-.002
"99/07/08","13:22:56",202,30,29.3,88.3,27.7,25.5,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","13:23:06",203,30.1,29.5,88.4,27.8,25.8,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.041
"99/07/08","13:23:16",204,30.1,29.4,88.3,27.8,25.8,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","13:23:26",205,30.1,29.5,88.4,27.8,25.8,.482976,.0005,0,0,0,.007
"99/07/08","13:23:36",206,30.1,29.4,88.2,27.7,25.8,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.026
"99/07/08","13:23:46",207,30.1,29.5,88.2,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","13:23:56",208,30.1,29.4,88.2,27.8,25.8,.482976,.0006,0,0,0,.008
"99/07/08","13:24:06",209,30.1,29.5,88.2,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0005,0,0,0,.012
"99/07/08","13:24:16",210,30.1,29.5,88.2,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0009,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","13:24:26",211,30.1,29.5,88.1,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0005,0,0,0,-.026
"99/07/08","13:24:36",212,30.1,29.5,88.1,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0007,0,0,0,.013
"99/07/08","13:24:46",213,30.1,29.5,88.1,27.8,26,.482976,.0007,0,0,0,.024
"99/07/08","13:24:56",214,30.1,29.5,88,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0006,0,0,0,.037
"99/07/08","13:25:06",215,30.1,29.5,88,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,.008
"99/07/08","13:25:16",216,30.2,29.5,88,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.017
"99/07/08","13:25:26",217,30.1,29.5,87.9,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0007,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","13:25:36",218,30.2,29.5,87.9,27.8,26,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,.009
"99/07/08","13:25:46",219,30.1,29.5,87.9,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.035
"99/07/08","13:25:56",220,30.1,29.5,87.8,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0002,0,0,0,.036
"99/07/08","13:26:06",221,30.1,29.5,87.8,27.8,25.8,.482976,.0005,0,0,0,.008
"99/07/08","13:26:16",222,30.2,29.5,87.8,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0002,0,0,0,-.007
"99/07/08","13:26:26",223,30.2,29.5,87.7,27.8,26,.482976,.0005,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","13:26:36",224,30.2,29.6,87.8,27.9,25.9,.482976,.0009,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","13:26:46",225,30.1,29.5,87.7,27.8,25.7,.472914,.0002,0,0,0,-.025
"99/07/08","13:26:56",226,30.2,29.5,87.6,27.8,25.8,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,-.017
"99/07/08","13:27:06",227,30.2,29.6,87.7,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0007,0,0,0,.03
"99/07/08","13:27:16",228,30.1,29.6,87.6,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0002,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","13:27:26",229,30.1,29.6,87.6,27.8,25.7,.482976,.0002,0,0,0,-.011
"99/07/08","13:27:36",230,30.1,29.5,87.6,27.8,25.9,.482976,.0006,0,0,0,.027
"99/07/08","13:27:46",231,30.1,29.6,87.5,27.9,25.8,.482976,.0005,0,0,0,.032
"99/07/08","13:27:56",232,30.2,29.5,87.5,27.8,25.8,.482976,.0006,0,0,0,.028
"99/07/08","13:28:06",233,30.2,29.6,87.5,27.8,25.7,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,.029
"99/07/08","13:28:16",234,30.1,29.6,87.4,27.9,25.5,.472914,.0002,0,0,0,-.012
"99/07/08","13:28:26",235,30.2,29.5,87.4,27.9,25.3,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,-.005
"99/07/08","13:28:36",236,30.2,29.6,87.4,27.9,25.4,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,-.021
"99/07/08","13:28:46",237,30.1,29.6,87.3,27.8,25.2,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,-.001
"99/07/08","13:28:56",238,30.2,29.6,87.3,27.9,25.2,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.026
"99/07/08","13:29:06",239,30.1,29.5,87.3,27.9,25.3,.472914,.0003,0,0,0,.036
"99/07/08","13:29:16",240,30.1,29.5,87.2,27.8,25.4,.482976,.0002,0,0,0,-.015
"99/07/08","13:29:26",241,30.2,29.6,87.2,27.8,25.4,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.021
"99/07/08","13:29:36",242,30.2,29.6,87.2,27.9,25.7,.482976,.0004,0,0,0,-.021
"99/07/08","13:29:46",243,30.2,29.7,87.2,27.9,25.9,.482976,.0006,0,0,0,.011
"99/07/08","13:29:56",244,30.1,29.7,87.1,27.9,25.8,.482976,.0003,0,0,0,.046
"99/07/08","13:30:06",245,30.2,29.6,87.1,27.8,25.7,.472914,.0007,0,0,0,.033
"99/07/08","13:30:16",246,30.1,29.6,87.1,27.8,25.9,.472914,.0006,0,0,0,.02
"99/07/08","13:30:26",247,30.2,29.6,87,27.9,25.8,.482976,.0001,0,0,0,-.01
"99/07/08","13:30:36",248,30.2,29.6,87,27.9,25.8,.482976,.0008,0,0,0,-.014

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 09:29:07 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA29653;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:27:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:27:01 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990721122736.007987b0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:27:36 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Quartz glass definition
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ihJXm2.0.FF7.KJVbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29206
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

The other day Scott Little asked what is quartz glass. I replied "dunno." I
should have looked it up in the dictionary:

quartz glass noun

A clear vitreous solid, formed by melting pure quartz, that can withstand
high temperatures and is extremely transparent to infrared, visible, and
ultraviolet radiations. Also called fused quartz, fused silica.

- The American Heritage Dictionary


Or Encyclopedia Britannica:

Commercial glasses may be divided into soda-lime-silica glasses and special
glasses, most of the tonnage produced being of the former class. Such
glasses are made from three main materials--sand (silicon dioxide, or
SiO2), limestone (calcium carbonate, or CaCO3), and sodium carbonate
(Na2CO3). Fused silica
itself is an excellent glass, but, as the melting point of sand
(crystalline silica) is above 1,700 deg C (3,092 deg F) and as it is very
expensive to attain such high temperatures, its uses are restricted to
those in which its superior properties--chemical inertness and the ability
to withstand sudden changes of temperature--are so important that the cost
is justified.


As noted, Ohmori used shards of ordinary Pyrex (borosilicate glass) to
score the tungsten surface. Mizuno used a long rod of quartz glass for this
purpose. As you can imagine, the glass crumbles and must be washed off the
metal. After cleaning, glass shards, rods, and unused cathodes are kept in
test tubes covered with plastic wrap.

Pyrex has a low index of thermal expansion, so it resists shattering. It is
resistant to many chemicals.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 09:44:20 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA01536;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:40:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:40:59 -0700
Message-ID: <19990721164036.18764.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [207.56.134.182]
From: "e lewis" <elewis1 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Objections to Protoneutron Theory
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:40:36 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"thzJn1.0.wN.RWVbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29207
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell,

I don't know if you got the last vortex list email I sent responding to your 
last comment about the radioactivity issue.  If not, well here is the 
question again.  Have you looked at Conte's paper and could you analyze that 
the same way you did mine?

actually, could you compare the two?
Ed



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 10:31:17 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA17733;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:29:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:29:00 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990722002739.00e05a40 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:27:39 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Quartz glass definition
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990721122736.007987b0 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"5bAIT.0.xK4.SDWbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29208
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:27 PM 7/21/99 -0400, Jed wrote:

>A clear vitreous solid, formed by melting pure quartz, that can withstand
>high temperatures and is extremely transparent to infrared, visible, and
>ultraviolet radiations. Also called fused quartz, fused silica.

Thanks, Jed.  I stand corrected.



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 Jul 21 10:59:26 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA27368;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:57:04 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:57:04 -0700
Message-ID: <379609F5.13C3B97A ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:57:16 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
	 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub>
	 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com> <379125ac.610868574@mail-hub>
	 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com> <37948236.2777839@mail-hub>
	 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com> <379bdffc.92344680@mail-hub> <v04011705b3baad4963ba@[207.8.127.137]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"OpVqH.0.Xh6.ldWbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29209
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Mitchell Jones,

Mitchell, I like to debate just as much as you do, but a
time comes when progress can no longer be made.  In our
case, The positions have been stated, but the arguments have
no effect. Your position is that CANR, using the Case
method, can not be proven unless all sources of helium are
demonstrated to be absent and/or a theory explaining how
CANR works has been accepted.  My position is that the
hundreds of successful experiments demonstrating CANR in
general and the very improbable presence of the special type
of contamination required to explain the Case experiment in
particular, prove that CANR can occur. I am willing to grant
you that obvious sources of He contamination should be
identified and eliminated, in the D2 gas for example.  I am
not willing to admit that elimination of ALL imagined
sources needs to be done before the He is proven to result
from CANR.  On the other hand, you do not seem to be willing
to grant any of my arguments, no matter how obvious.
Therefore, I think we have come to a dead-end and I will
forgo any more interaction.

I also like to educate.  In your case, I find this to be
impossible.  You use models taught in freshman chemistry
while refusing to believe any model beyond the Classical.
Suggestions that you should read more about the subjects are
dismissed as being elitism.  I do not have time to prove QM
to you nor to correct all of your errors in fact and logic,
especially when my corrections are frequently dismissed.
You apparently have a very clear idea of scientific reality
in your own mind. but one that differs so much from my
concepts that we frequently do not communicate.   Therefore,
my efforts are increasingly a waste of time.  I hope your
discussions with other people will be more fruitful.

Regards,

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 11:59:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17033;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:57:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:57:53 -0700
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:01:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Jones... Storms ..Re: Swartz paper
In-Reply-To: <379609F5.13C3B97A ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990721144342.12957B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"zdN-11.0.3A4.nWXbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29210
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo., ... and MJ and ES....

	Opinion:

	1] An experiment which, repeatably, demonstrates some given effect
should carry some weight. 
	2]  An experiment ... and results from same ... often generate
a theory of what is going on....  The theory does NOT guide or govern the
results... it may guide the experiment... but the theory does NOT guide
the DATA or RESULTS.
	3]  If the theory doe not fit the RESULTS of the experiment ...
then this does not CAUSE the experiment to be an error.

	Open to anyone:   Did I say this wrong?

	See notes....

	Some cuts....

On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Edmund Storms wrote:
> To Mitchell Jones,
> Mitchell, I like to debate just as much as you do, but a
> time comes when progress can no longer be made.  In our
> case, The positions have been stated, but the arguments have
> no effect. Your position is that CANR, using the Case
> method, can not be proven

........ unless all sources of helium are
> demonstrated to be absent and/or a theory explaining how
> CANR works has been accepted.

	Just because one does not come up with an answer they prefer ....
does not make all in error.... one MAY have to alter one's thinking!

  My position is that the
> hundreds of successful experiments demonstrating CANR in
> general.......

 [ helium ] He is proven to result from CANR.

	Opinion:  I am just going to call these reaction UR...Short for
Unusual Reactions....

	No part of reality REQUIRES the generation of a given material...
such as  He ... or not ....  A UR is a UR ... 
	One MAY have to adjust one's thinking .... as opposed to wishing
to "adjust away" results.

....> dismissed as being elitism.  I do not have time to prove QM
> to you nor to correct all of your errors in fact and logic,
> especially when my corrections are frequently dismissed.

> Regards,
> 
> Ed Storms


	Finally....  No given thinking ... including for or against QM... 
as an instance .... is REQUIRED to employ UR....  
	UR may well one day heat water for the house.... and if UR does
make heat.... then GOOD.... and if it does, and houses are being
heated.... then the reduced power bill one may enjoy from a UR water
heater, as opposed to natural gas or electric, is a saving.... and QM, or
not QM or He or not He  does not change this.

	I root for the UR folks..... let us have the heater..... and the
theory can come when it does.

			JHS


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 12:34:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA29877;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:32:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:32:41 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990722023233.00f124a4 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 02:32:33 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Report on visit to Mizuno and Ohmori
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990719180444.00799830 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ud0aQ3.0.lI7.P1Ybt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29211
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 06:04 PM 7/19/99 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>The thermal mass consists of a kilogram of water and 500 grams of Pyrex.

Apparently it is not necessary to use a quartz glass vessel.  Did you
happen to discuss quartz vs Pyrex with Mizuno?



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 Jul 21 12:56:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA08413;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:53:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:53:21 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011703b3bbc13f58b4 [207.8.127.188]>
In-Reply-To: <379609F5.13C3B97A ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>	
 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub>	
 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com> <379125ac.610868574@mail-hub>	
 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com> <37948236.2777839@mail-hub>	
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com> <379bdffc.92344680@mail-hub>
 <v04011705b3baad4963ba [207.8.127.137]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:50:21 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
Resent-Message-ID: <"E8HhR3.0.932.lKYbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29213
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>To Mitchell Jones,
>
>Mitchell, I like to debate just as much as you do, but a
>time comes when progress can no longer be made.  In our
>case, The positions have been stated, but the arguments have
>no effect. Your position is that CANR, using the Case
>method, can not be proven unless all sources of helium are
>demonstrated to be absent and/or a theory explaining how
>CANR works has been accepted.

***{No. There are lots of ways to skin a cat, as I have repeatedly stated.
My point is that the Russ George paper is inadequate, in its present form,
as a demonstration of the CF effect. There are two reasons for this:

(1) The possibility of contamination has not been adequately addressed.
George sent Arata an unused batch of catalyst, from which Arata extracted
1/1000th of the material. Using that sample, Arata failed to find
significant He, and both he and George then apparently concluded that the
contamination issue had been laid to rest. However, my position is that the
only way such a method would be adequate would be if the contaminant were
distributed uniformly throughout the catalyst material. If, on the other
hand, a single .1 gm chunk of a high He contaminant were in the material,
it could easily account for the observed result, and Arata's chance of
plucking it out for testing would be 1 in 200. In my view, that is absurdly
low, and obviously so, and I have no idea why you think otherwise.

(2) Russ George failed, in his paper, to do a simple contamination
calculation which ought to be known by anyone who uses a mass spectroscope.
Since for each atom of contaminant He3 we can expect 769234 atoms of
contaminant He4, we cannot know whether we have *any* atoms of excess He4
until we have multiplified the number of He3 atoms by 769234 and deducted
the result from the total number of He4 atoms found in the cell. Since Russ
George did not do that, we have no basis for believing that any excess He4
was detected, and thus we have no evidence that there is anything anomalous
about the result. Worse, since the Russ George effort was an attempt to
replicate the Case protocol, it is apparent that case didn't do this simple
calculation either. Thus we have a glaring flaw that vitiates both the Case
and the George results in a fell swoop.

Of course, both of these objections can be easily overcome, if there is, in
fact, excess He4 being produced by these methods. Case and George could
simply do more extensive testing of contaminant materials for entrained
helium, or else do the contamination calculation suggested above, and
include the results in the final drafts of their papers.

One thing they definitely cannot do, however, is overcome these perfectly
reasonable objections with hot air, despite your yeoman efforts in that
regard.

--Mitchell Jones}***

My position is that the
>hundreds of successful experiments demonstrating CANR in
>general and the very improbable presence of the special type
>of contamination required to explain the Case experiment in
>particular, prove that CANR can occur. I am willing to grant
>you that obvious sources of He contamination should be
>identified and eliminated, in the D2 gas for example.  I am
>not willing to admit that elimination of ALL imagined
>sources needs to be done before the He is proven to result
>from CANR.

***{If it were possible to provide a theoretical explanation for the CF
effect that fits neatly within the presently accepted physical
paradigm--i.e., within the rat's nest of contradictions known as "quantum
mechanics"--then the existing view that these results violate the laws of
physics would fade away, and you could probably get by without addressing
the question of contamination very closely. However, that is not the
reality. The fact is that the only theories which can explain the CF effect
must go outside the bounds of the existing paradigm. Given that state of
affairs, CF must be treated as *extremely unlikely to be true,* within the
context of any paper that is intended to persuade disbelievers. And, once
it is so treated, you cannot prove it by merely hammering away at the
notion that contamination is unlikely. --Mitchell Jones}***

 On the other hand, you do not seem to be willing
>to grant any of my arguments, no matter how obvious.

***{Actually, I think this could be more properly be said of you. --MJ}***

>Therefore, I think we have come to a dead-end and I will
>forgo any more interaction.

***{That's fine by me. It's your choice. --MJ}***

>
>I also like to educate.  In your case, I find this to be
>impossible.

***{You imply that you are more educated than I, and that your proper role
is that of teacher and mine is that of student. However, based on your
performance in this discussion so far, I have no idea why you would think
that. --MJ}***

You use models taught in freshman chemistry
>while refusing to believe any model beyond the Classical.

***{If you think the arguments I have been using are taught in freshman
chemistry, then I would suggest that you have some planet in mind other
than this one. --MJ}***

>Suggestions that you should read more about the subjects are
>dismissed as being elitism.

***{Not exactly. What I said was that I would hit the books if you
succeeded in putting me in a corner. I also noted that, at that time, you
had failed to do so. And the same is true now. Indeed, the opposite is the
case: it is you who is demonstrably without a leg to stand on, not I. Thus,
by your own standards, I would say it is time for you to hit the books.
(Not that it will do you a damn bit of good, since you are apparently
determined to prove the unprovable.) --Mitchell Jones}***

 I do not have time to prove QM
>to you nor to correct all of your errors in fact and logic,
>especially when my corrections are frequently dismissed.

***{Your "corrections" haven't been "dismissed." When I have disagreed with
you, I have responded with point-by-point rebuttals. Result: you are now
reduced to the claim that you "do not have time" to "correct" my "errors!"
Wow! --MJ}***

>You apparently have a very clear idea of scientific reality
>in your own mind, but one that differs so much from my
>concepts that we frequently do not communicate. Therefore,
>my efforts are increasingly a waste of time.  I hope your
>discussions with other people will be more fruitful.

***{Actually, I have enjoyed my discussions with you very much. Hopefully,
after you lick your (imaginary) wounds for awhile, you will see fit to try
again. (Remember: "Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will
never hurt you." :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 12:56:55 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06167;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:48:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:48:57 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990721154935.007a2870 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:49:35 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Report on visit to Mizuno and Ohmori
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990722023233.00f124a4 mail.eden.com>
References: <3.0.6.32.19990719180444.00799830 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"w72rr1.0.4W1.eGYbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29212
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:

>Apparently it is not necessary to use a quartz glass vessel.  Did you
>happen to discuss quartz vs Pyrex with Mizuno?

Yes, we talked about this. It would probably be a good idea to use one, but
he did not have one handy when he began this series of experiments the week
before I showed up. Large quartz glass containers cost a lot of money.
Also, the 1-liter Pyrex vessel is larger than the quartz glass containers
he has been using, so the anode is farther from glass wall and surrounded
by more water. It is less likely to damage the wall with heat and release
contamination, or crack the container. The cathode is at thousands of
degrees so it can cause a lot of damage in a short time. You have to be
careful to keep the thermocouples and thermometers away from it.

He is using the Pyrex container for now. It will probably introduce more
contamination than quartz glass.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 14:14:07 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09580;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:12:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:12:05 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: swindon.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:11:57 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi swindon
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Kylie McAlister
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990721220807.19161A-100000 swindon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"4NbuL1.0.UL2.bUZbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29214
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Kylie,
Can you contact me off line? I know you're into breaking relativity and
space flight. I am doing some work for someone I respect greatly into a
near reactionless propulsion system. I can't comment much on your ideas
about relativity at this moment but htat will change in time with more
thought. I'd like to also talk about an experience this person had.
Remi. 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 14:17:09 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA10982;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:14:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:14:35 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: swindon.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:14:21 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi swindon
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: John Collins
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990721221231.19161C-100000 swindon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"mY_3Q3.0.Wh2.wWZbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29215
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John,
Can you contact me offline please. It's not about Bessler's wheel which I
still have doubts on but something a friend of mine has done which is
public domain where he has broken the symmetry of the arrangement - we
think. You should get to know him.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 17:25:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA20707;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:23:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:23:49 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3bc0a5fc966 [207.8.127.188]>
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.GSO.3.96.990721144342.12957B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
References: <379609F5.13C3B97A ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 19:22:20 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Jones... Storms ..Re: Swartz paper
Resent-Message-ID: <"LgepG.0.S35.LIcbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29216
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>	Dear Vo., ... and MJ and ES....
>
>	Opinion:
>
>	1] An experiment which, repeatably, demonstrates some given effect
>should carry some weight.

***{Yup. But if you are referring to the Russ George experiment as it now
stands, it doesn't demonstrate squat. As I have noted repeatedly, until
George reveals his He3 numbers and deducts 769234 atoms of He4 for every
atom of He3, *and demonstrates that there are large numbers of He4 atoms
left over*, we have not a scintilla of a reason for thinking he has
observed the CF effect. It is, after all, only the He4's that are left over
that may plausibly be attributed to fusion. And, of course, precisely the
same considerations apply to the Case experiments: until he does these same
calculations, we have no basis for concluding that there is anything
anomalous about his results. Thus, at present, we have neither a
demonstration of the CF effect, nor a repeated demonstration. If, of
course, Case and George do reveal their He3 numbers and do this
calculation, and they *still* have significant numbers of He4 atoms
unaccounted for, then I will be hard pressed to argue that contamination
*from any source whatever* remains a possibility. As things presently
stand, however, we are justified in being intrigued, but nothing more.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>	2]  An experiment ... and results from same ... often generate
>a theory of what is going on....  The theory does NOT guide or govern the
>results... it may guide the experiment... but the theory does NOT guide
>the DATA or RESULTS.

***{I'm not sure what you mean. If the theory is true and is the only way
to produce the desired effect, then an experimenter will have to conform to
its dictates in order to get that effect. It is only if it is false that it
will not determine the results. On the other hand, if you are merely trying
to say that in a collision between a theory and an experiment, the
experiment wins, then of course you are correct. --Mitchell Jones}***

>	3]  If the theory doe not fit the RESULTS of the experiment ...
>then this does not CAUSE the experiment to be an error.

***{Again, it depends on what you mean. For example, you cannot test the
theory that putting a match to gunpower will produce an explosion by
putting a match to a hamburger. The theory, in that case, will not fit the
results; but it will, in fact, be because the experiment is in error. On
the other hand, if you again mean that in a clash between a theory and an
experiment, theory loses, you are right. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>	Open to anyone:   Did I say this wrong?

***{Philosophy of science is a can of worms, but well worth the struggle.
If it gives you a headache, take an aspirin and keep on truckin'! :-)
--Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

>
>	I root for the UR folks..... let us have the heater..... and the
>theory can come when it does.

***{I root for them too, but no good is served by uncritically accepting
their claims. Before I hook up my CF powered home generator and disconnect
from the power grid, I want to be damn sure that my lights are going to
stay on! --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>			JHS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 17:32:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA23010;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:26:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:26:30 -0700
Message-ID: <19990722002624.72912.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [128.174.36.214]
From: "e lewis" <elewis1 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: formation of anomalous states in micrometer size areas on electrodes
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:26:24 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"tXfgr.0.Sd5.rKcbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29217
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



During the last few years, attention in cold fusion research has 
concentrated in understanding why small regions on the surface of electrodes 
form pits, voids, and cones, and why anomalous atomic
transformations happen at these micrometer size spots on bulk electrodes.  
Some people have commented that something new forms in these spots, like 
Edmund Storms wrote on this list

It seems that in order for there to be anomalous atomic changes, the atoms 
should be in an anomalous state.  On the surface of electrodes, just prior 
to explosions, thin surface layers of a liquid-like metal forms.  These 
layers may be very localized in scattered spots, just micrometer or smaller 
regions, and plasma wave phenomena may play on them.  This liquid-like layer 
forms even in non-hydrogen impregnated metal, on electrodes in a vacuum.  
But it seems to be that the addition of hydrogen skews this phenomena to 
give the reaction products people are familiar with.

The layer of liquid is anomalous because it may exist below the melting 
point of the metal.  And the atoms behave anomalously.

They are independently mobile, which is how new crystals and minerals
form when the atoms solidify.

There may be associated anomalous wave phenomena in the liquid.  These may 
contribute to the formation of rimmed craters.

The atoms may convert to electrical surges in the metal as Matsumoto found, 
beams of light like quasars or sparks as people report.

The atoms may change their organization to be other kinds of atoms,
particles, or larger size micrometer plasmoids like I described.  Rimmed 
pits may form in this liquid.   I suspect these liquid-like rimmed pits may 
leave the surface and travel freely as the micrometer plasmoids, or they may 
solidify as the pits people see.  The plasmoids
behave like ball lightning, and material may be transported away as
ball lightning.

This process is similar to volcano formation on the planet.

I think this partly explains how Silver and others are finding tiny areas 
where the metal seems to have become liquid and then resolidified.  This 
happens to metal at anomalously cool temperatures.  For example sometimes 
metal objects with high melting points which are struck by lightning are 
found and the metal is melted into a glob but highly flammable material 
touching the metal is not even scorched.

I think this also partly explains the formation of the pits and the pits 
with underlying voids, though I think that plasmoid phenomena may be 
responsible for craters and pits in other ways such as by impact, and that 
the atoms may convert and drastically change their organization without 
first becoming liquid-like.

Ways to test this idea would be to see if the liquid layer effect can be 
photographed and found.  Matsumoto may have already done this,
since I saw a picture by him of a ring object on a electrode.  Under 
controlled conditions, something like the formation of a volcano cone can be 
caught on video.

Then the various plasmoid phenomena similar to those found by Matsumoto and 
Shoulders can be tested for as they did by setting up targets near 
electrodes.  Plasmoid wave phenomena can be found easily since it manifests 
as a vibration in the electrode, and even in things surrounding the 
electrode.  Even in the air around apparatus.
I think this is why Nassisi's windows kept breaking.  These waves themselves 
are anomalous since they seem to be associated with time changes and effects 
on material that are gravity or magnetic like.
Basically, they are associated with the pace of change of plasmoids, and the 
organization of the plasmoids.  I call time the rate of change of plasmoid 
phenomena.  And gravity is situation and cohesion of plamoids.  These 
plasmoid wave phenomena leave a record in the materials they pass through.  
I suspect that the wave markings found by Matsumoto and published in Fusion 
Technology back in 1991 were due to this effect.



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 17:48:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA01315;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:47:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:47:31 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Jones... Storms ..Re: Swartz paper
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:46:51 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <379768fb.258528737 mail-hub>
References: <379609F5.13C3B97A ix.netcom.com> <v04011700b3bc0a5fc966@[207.8.127.188]>
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3bc0a5fc966 [207.8.127.188]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 RAA01294
Resent-Message-ID: <"FmHtm1.0.PK.Zecbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29218
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 19:22:20 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
[snip]
>stands, it doesn't demonstrate squat. As I have noted repeatedly, until
>George reveals his He3 numbers and deducts 769234 atoms of He4 for every
>atom of He3, *and demonstrates that there are large numbers of He4 atoms
>left over*, we have not a scintilla of a reason for thinking he has
>observed the CF effect. It is, after all, only the He4's that are left over
[snip]
Short quote from Britannica ("helium" Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 
<http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=1721&sctn=1> 
):-

"Helium-4 is by far the most plentiful of the stable isotopes: helium-4
atoms outnumber those of helium-3 about 700,000:1 in atmospheric helium
and about 7,000,000:1 in certain helium-bearing minerals"

It would thus seem Mitchell, that given your conjectured source of He,
the ratio may not necessarily be as you suggest.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 18:11:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA08779;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:10:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:10:33 -0700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:10:25 -1000
Subject: Re: formation of anomalous states in micrometer size areas on
	 electrodes
From: "Rick Monteverde" <rick highsurf.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <199907212110.SM00219 [192.168.0.2]>
Resent-Message-ID: <"PK0MC2.0.592.9-cbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29219
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

e lewis wrote:

<snip>

> The layer of liquid is anomalous because it may exist below the melting
> point of the metal.  And the atoms behave anomalously.

<snip>

> This
> happens to metal at anomalously cool temperatures.  For example sometimes
> metal objects with high melting points which are struck by lightning are
> found and the metal is melted into a glob but highly flammable material
> touching the metal is not even scorched.

<snip>

> I think this is why Nassisi's windows kept breaking.  These waves themselves
> are anomalous since they seem to be associated with time changes and effects
> on material that are gravity or magnetic like.

Kept thinking of the Hutchison phenomena while reading this. I saw the
video. Of course the events on the video could have been faked without too
much trouble, but I do get the impression that they probably weren't. He has
racks full of hard metal parts rent asunder and sometimes liquified at
apparently low temperatures by some anomalous electrical process. Very
strange. I sure wish someone could get a solid handle on the conditions that
cause these things to occur.

This kind of thing defines what the "fringe" is all about. Astonishing and
"impossible" phenomena that just seems to keep popping up, yet managing to
avoid hard scrutiny by being so irreproducible on demand. Very frustrating.

Besides everything else implied by these reports, the manufacturing
possibilities for casting and forming fancy metals at low temperature and
pressure are mind-boggling.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 18:11:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA09137;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:10:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:10:49 -0700
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <7394a0da.24c7c95d aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:09:49 EDT
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54
Resent-Message-ID: <"wNwOk1.0.gE2.P-cbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29220
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dieter,

About that Mengoli, et al., paper.  How long were the runs?  

I seem to recall that years ago, Mills said re Robert Bush's sodium results 
that Bush had been misled by the heat of absorption of sodium onto nickel, an 
effect that dissipates after a while.

Bush didn't say in INFINITE ENERGY No. 12 what the electrolyte was in his 
Ni/H2O cell that made Huizenga blink, but he did say later that it was 
another one of the electrolytes that Mills recommended, rubidium I think.  
Anyway, Bush didn't use a sodium electrolyte, because sodium won't work for a 
demo, unless it's a short one and the purpose is to discredit Mills.

A question for Mitchell Swartz:  where do you stand re sodium?  Have you 
tried a sodium electrolyte?

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 18:16:39 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA13147;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:15:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:15:19 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3bc1e8d8865 [207.8.127.173]>
In-Reply-To: <379768fb.258528737 mail-hub>
References: <v04011700b3bc0a5fc966 [207.8.127.188]>
 <379609F5.13C3B97A ix.netcom.com> <v04011700b3bc0a5fc966@[207.8.127.188]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:13:22 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Jones... Storms ..Re: Swartz paper
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id SAA12996
Resent-Message-ID: <"Sn7BU.0.DD3.c2dbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29221
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 19:22:20 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>[snip]
>>stands, it doesn't demonstrate squat. As I have noted repeatedly, until
>>George reveals his He3 numbers and deducts 769234 atoms of He4 for every
>>atom of He3, *and demonstrates that there are large numbers of He4 atoms
>>left over*, we have not a scintilla of a reason for thinking he has
>>observed the CF effect. It is, after all, only the He4's that are left over
>[snip]
>Short quote from Britannica ("helium" Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
><http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=1721&sctn=1>
>):-
>
>"Helium-4 is by far the most plentiful of the stable isotopes: helium-4
>atoms outnumber those of helium-3 about 700,000:1 in atmospheric helium
>and about 7,000,000:1 in certain helium-bearing minerals"
>
>It would thus seem Mitchell, that given your conjectured source of He,
>the ratio may not necessarily be as you suggest.

***{Yes, I mentioned in one of my very first posts on this subject that
769234 was the minimum number [calculated by dividing the percentage
abundance of He4 by the percentage abundance of He3, by the way] and that
it would probably be higher underground, but that fact momentarily slipped
my mind as I was preparing my most recent post. Thus it appears that Russ
George must do *both* of the things I have been suggesting, if he is to
bring his experiment up to speed: (1) he must demonstrate that lots of He4
remains after he has deducted 769,234 atoms of He4 for every atom of He3,
AND (2) he must do thorough testing to discount the possibility of
contamination from geological sources. Thanks for the reminder, Robin!
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 21 23:01:27 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA06766;
	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:58:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:58:42 -0700
Message-ID: <01BED3CC.38D49E80.bhorst gte.net>
From: Bob Horst <bhorst gte.net>
Reply-To: "bhorst ieee.org" <bhorst@ieee.org>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Update from BLP Website
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:56:08 -0700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211
Encoding: 20 TEXT
Resent-Message-ID: <"WpH031.0.af1.IChbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29222
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:

[]  >> What else passes through these threads which might be investment
grade? Solar cells? Fuel cells? The Great Energy Machine of Alfred E.
Newman? Any other real ideas? There's money freshly won from the big
internet gains now snooping around in the small caps and pennies, looking
for gems overlooked in the big net stampede.

[]  -------------

[]  A few weeks ago I was in Illinois and stopped by Miley's lab.  He only 
had a few minutes between appointments, but mentioned that he now has DOE 
funding for his research, and he is also hoping to start a new company 
based on the thin film processes he has developed at U of Illinois.  Miley 
is one of the few scientists who has the respect of both the mainline 
physics community and the CF researchers.  If he is able to get the company 
started, I think he has an excellent chance of success.  You might hold 
your money until his company goes public.

-- Bob Horst

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 01:22:19 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA29185;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:21:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:21:18 -0700
Message-Id: <v01510100b3bc823a4179 [195.132.13.217]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.1
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:32:13 +0200
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "JEAN DELAGARDE" <jlagarde cyberaccess.fr>
Subject: Re: Update from BLP Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"YG8ZC2.0.x77.-Hjbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29223
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mike Carrell wrote :
>As for BLP, there is an expressed intention to go public and I might be one
>the the first in line.

May we know what he does mean exactly by "being one (of ?) the first in
line" ?. Should we infer that he has not the slightest doubt on the whole
BLP story, including results and corresponding explanations and is ready to
invest, or that he is (or would be) involved in the coming development of
this affair ?

                                        Jean DeLagarde


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 03:36:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA16587;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:30:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:30:42 -0700
Message-ID: <001e01bed435$79286c00$af441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Xenon-Deuterium "Gas Lattice" Experiment
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:22:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"RfEUP3.0._24.IBlbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29224
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
>
> H2CO3 + WXeO4 --> XeO3 + WCO3
>
Yes, Robert, and it is also interesting that Xenon forms the Hydrate and
Deuterate.

Since it is non-toxic in the uncombined state, and costs about $20/liter at
STP
(about $3.50/gram) I would prefer it over Hg.

Argon (Z=18) and Krypton (Z=36) are below the "Magic" nucleon number of
Technetium (Z=43) that are favorable for CF induced "Fission", that you
might expect from Pd (Z=46) or Xenon (Z=54).

So, a mix of  Xe-D2 "doped" with Potassium Vapor in a discharge vessel, free
of Oxygen, might be interesting for OU experiments?

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 03:40:31 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA18368;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:35:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:35:00 -0700
Message-ID: <002001bed436$12cb7a00$af441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  Periodic Table  - WebElements  xenon  key data
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:33:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED3FB.58C65EC0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"jJhA42.0.wU4.JFlbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29225
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED3FB.58C65EC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/web-elements/webelements/elements/text/key/X
e.html

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED3FB.58C65EC0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name=" Periodic Table  - WebElements  xenon  key data.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=" Periodic Table  - WebElements  xenon  key data.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/web-elements/webelements/elemen=
ts/text/key/Xe.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=3Dhttp://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/web-elements/webelements/elements/t=
ext/key/Xe.html
Modified=3DC0DB2BF535D4BE0183

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED3FB.58C65EC0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 09:07:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA26216;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:05:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:05:31 -0700
Message-ID: <001501bed464$3e40ba00$c8441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Potassium-Nickel Compatibility
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:03:23 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"GaqXt3.0.YP6.B5qbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29226
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The BLP info on electrolysis of aqueous K2CO3 using a Nickel cathode might
pose the question of heat caused by absorption of K by the Ni cathode.

Since BLP is collaborating with Don Ernst at Thermocore, and in the late 60s
I worked with Don (then at RCA Lancaster) on Nickel Heat Pipes that were
operated for thousands of hours at 600 C or more,at multikilowatt levels
with a Potassium working fluid, I don't think there is any K-Ni
absorption/reaction heat problems.

However, if there was any oxygen present (NiOx or KOx) there was a black
Potassium Nickelate "gunk" residue that chewed up the nickel mesh wick over
time.

I wax nostalgic when I recall  our Happy Hour sing-alongs at the local Oak
Ridge (Tenn.) pub after a hard day's work. Amazing how good a singer one
becomes, and how attractive Godzilla's sister playing the piano, looks,
after a few cool ones.    :-)

Regards,    Frederick












From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 13:09:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA13571;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:03:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:03:16 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990722160012.00798100 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:00:12 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Mizuno cleans with acetone
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"htmo8.0.zJ3.4atbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29230
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is a message mainly for Scott Little, but other people might want to
read it.

I have had a busy day. My coffee maker died. The back of office chair broke
off while I was gabbing on the phone, and nearly dumped me on the floor. My
faithful Hewlett-Packard LaserJet 1 appears to be running out of ink, and
they don't make the cartridges anymore. Busy, busy, busy but not especially
productive.

Reviewing my notes on the Mizuno experiment, I realize that the
preparations are not as onerous as I described. Mizuno described extensive
cleaning with an ultrasound jewelry cleaner, which I related here, but I
did not see that. Presumably, the cathodes that Mizuno sends to Scott
Little have already been cleaned. Before he commenced electrolysis, Mizuno
removed the cathodes from the test tube where they are stored after initial
cleaning, dowsed the cathode and anode with acetone, and then rinsed them
extensively with pure water from the Millipore Milli-Q Labo water cleaning
machine. That was about it. I think he does more elaborate preparations
before experiments intended to detect transmutations.

To prepare the electrolyte he washed the glassware with pure water from a
bottle then Milli-Q water. He placed a beaker on the milligram weight
scale, and filled it with reagent by tilting and tapping the bottle. "Don't
use a spoon or anything like that," he said. I suppose this would be common
knowledge to anyone who has done chemistry.

We do not know how important purity and cleanliness is in these
experiments. Since we do not know, I suppose we should strive to me them as
pure and clean as possible. Looking at the filth and squalor around
Mizuno's lab, or at any Japanese National University, you would be amazed
that experiments ever stay clean, but they do. The proof is in the pudding.
After Mizuno and Ohmori have run palladium and gold cathodes for weeks they
are cleaner and shinier than most people's cathodes going in. After a few
days of electrolysis cathode usualy turn grey and become visibly covered
with muck.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 13:12:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA18636;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:00:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: critique of experimental set up (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990722160022.27570I-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"AdcZ62.0.5Z4.VVtbt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29229
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:59:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: critique of experimental set up



	Here is brief description of an experimental set up, open for
critique

	Background:

	Standard EM, or electromagnetic, signals can be conducted by
coaxial cable, transmission lines, long wire and other "hard" as opposed
to "in the air" paths.  We will call tese paths simply 'wires'.

	Events have been used to test or trouble shoot such lines for
faults.  One method looks at time of flight in a cable or wire.  Trouble
in the cable or wire can cause a distortion of a test event ... the time
it takes the event to travel some distsnce gives an idea of the location
of the fault.   This is especially helpful in places where the wire is
underground or high overhead and difficult to get to.

	This is NOT new technology.

	One type of trouble in the field of communications is non steady
state changes in the transmission quality.  These are sometimes called
"hits" ... such as  "gain hit" or "phase hit"  and a "hit" might, for
example  be a near instantaneous change... ie in a gain hit ... the signal
might have an apparent increase in strength .... say from 1.05 volts to
1.85 volts.... as rapidly as though someone flipped a switch.


	Task:  Determine the time a "hit" occurred by means of arbitrary
"flag" or tagging of the signal on the wire.

	PS:  If John Steck is out there, Motorola ... or any other
communications company, for that matter, will want to use the methods we
are already using and those under development ! :)

	The Flag:

	We will determin the time an event, or "hit", happened.  We know
there will be some internal system delay... and this is OK, as long as we
know it is there and it is stable within a measurement time frame.
Example:  If it takes 1 millisecond to generate the flag from the "US" ...
or "unknown signal" ... then this is fine.... So long as the 1 millisecond
is stable that day.  If tomorrow it takes 2 milliseconds to generate flag
... then this too is OK.  So long as we know the 1 millisecond system
delay or 2 millisecond system delay is the same on a given day.

	Test 1

	In test one a flag is intentionally generated and the delay is
measure.....  The same test is done periodically through the course of the
day  ... and if the system delay remains 1 millisecond.... then we know to
subtract it from out total time budget.

	Test 2

	A flag is generated for gain or phase deviation.
	Gain: To flag gain, the signal is conveyed to an envelope detector
and then to a window comparator.  If the gain goes up or down beyond the
window limits, then the comparator changes state.  This state change is
conveyed to simple RC practical differentiator and then to a One Shot set
to deliver a 10 millisecond pulse.
	The leading edge of the pulse is he flag.
	Phase:  Phase is measure in similar manner.  The signal is
conveyed to phase detector and the output, amplified if needed, goes to
the same train of comparator, differentiator, and one shot.
	The leading edge of the pulse is the flag.

	NOW:  We do this already... and some more tricks too, but the
question is does anyone have any trouble  with the flag generation and is
it valid as to time of event, witih the error limits of the electronics.

		Thanks for taking the time,

			J H Schnurer 
	

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 13:12:32 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA07447;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:29:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:29:27 -0700
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:33:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Ripped asunder ...of anomalous 
In-Reply-To: <199907212110.SM00219 [192.168.0.2]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990722152854.27570G-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"wMjtG1.0.Gq1.N4tbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29227
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo., Rick, e lewis ....


	See notes below ... some cuts...

	Can ANYONE give an over view of some of the writing below? ...

On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Rick Monteverde wrote:

> e lewis wrote:
> 
> <snip>
__________
	What ?

> > on material that are gravity or magnetic like.
> 
__________________________

> Kept thinking of the Hutchison phenomena while reading this. 

......... He has
> racks full of hard metal parts rent asunder and sometimes liquified at
> apparently low temperatures by some anomalous electrical process.

			What ?

__________________

				J

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 13:13:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA10582;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:50:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:50:31 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:48:58 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: More Excerpts
Resent-Message-ID: <"KZgYl3.0.Bb2.5Otbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29228
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

As I mentioned the other day, I have been having an e-mail discussion with
a fellow who is either a proponent of "quantum mechanics" or, at least,
more accepting of it than I am. (A fairly easy task, I know. :-) At any
rate, he has made some very interesting comments, which I paraphrase below,
followed by my responses. Any feedback, particularly of the critical
variety, will be appreciated.

(1) Commenting on my claim that a neutral H atom could not enter the Pd
lattice because it is "too big," he suggested that my analysis was
thoroughly classical to the point of absurdity. My response:

***{A classical analysis is merely one that is based on a clear picture--a
visual model--of what is going on. As such, of course, my approach is
classical, and avowedly so. (I try to leave foggy thinking to others.) ...
--Mitchell Jones}***

(2) He suggested that a classical analysis is inappropriate for phenomena
at the atomic scale. My response:

***{It works... Look up the published length for the covalent bond of Pd,
and compare to the one that I calculated.[As did Horace Heffner before me,
some 4 years ago. Thanks, Horace! --MJ] You will discover that the
agreement is very close--so close, in fact, that when adjustments are made
to account for thermal expansion, impurities in the samples that were
tested, and cracks and bubbles in the lattice, my number is likely right on
the money . --Mitchell Jones}***

(3) He suggested that we should think of this situation in terms of the QM
notion of "electron clouds," wherein an indeterminate fog of
"probabilities" supplants the crisp, classical picture, thereby allowing a
formless, amoeboid H atom to enter the lattice by squeezing between equally
formless, amoeboid Pd atoms. Such a view, according to him, is completely
plausible and beyond reproach. My response:

***{No it isn't. If you run the numbers, you will discover that the
hydrogen electron makes about 10^16 revolutions per second around the
nucleus. Each pass deviates by a tad from the path of the previous one due
to precession and other effects. The result is the formation of what is,
for low speed collisions, a solid shell at the Bohr radius. To understand
why, suppose that you have a hundred people who want to sit down and only
one stool. What do you do? Simple: you move the stool in a circle at 10^16
revolutions per second. Result: from the perspective of the 100 people, it
is a circular bench, and everybody can sit down. The stool, of course,
would disintegrate due to the g forces, but the electron doesn't. That's
why electron shells are *real*, and it is also why a neutral H atom cannot
pass into the Pd lattice at low speeds. Bottom line: classical mechanics,
like freedom, fell into disrepute because of government control of
"education." Memory retards--people who lack visual imagery--took over the
system and set up an obstacle course which only they could run. Result:
persons who had high intellectual standards and the ability to see through
bullshit were relegated to the backwaters of intellectual life. The effect
was like AIDS: society's immune system--its ability to detect and cull out
falsehood--was vitiated, and, over many decades, the culture of freedom and
individualism which made America great was destroyed. The result is what
you see before you today: a society, and a civilization, tottering on the
brink of destruction. --Mitchell Jones}***

The rest of the material would be of less interest, and has been snipped.

--Mitchell Jones

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 13:30:05 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA22502;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:28:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:28:05 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: HEY BILL BEATY!  Questions on vortex subsciptions
In-Reply-To: <v01530504b3a0d6263290 [12.21.211.103]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.990722132648.1115D-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"C98273.0.WV5.Kxtbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29231
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Horace Heffner wrote:

> If you are subscribed to the vortex digest, can you send emails to
> <vortex-l eskimo.com>?
> 
> I know <vortex-digest eskimo.com> is a separate list, but it gets all the
> posts made to <vortex-l eskimo.com>.  Is it true vice versa?  Do digest
> readers post to <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <vortex-digest@eskimo.com>, or do
> they have no ability to post at all?

Sorry for the late answer!   Yes, vortex-digest users are supposed to be
able to post to vortex-L.

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 14:18:20 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA12918;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:11:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:11:46 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990723041122.00f23844 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 04:11:22 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Mizuno raw data key
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990721095236.00798100 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"U3Ng-2.0.f93.Haubt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29232
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Come on, you armchair theoreticians.  Let's see some analysis of the raw
data from Mizuno's runs that Jed posted.  I'd already be done if I wasn't
tied up on other matters....:(

I suggest you plot temp vs time and input power vs time and focus on the
latter part of the run where the cell purportedly goes from near-unity
behavior to way over-unity.



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 Jul 22 14:22:45 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA17171;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:20:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:20:41 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990722172104.007a8100 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:21:04 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Mizuno raw data key
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990723041122.00f23844 mail.eden.com>
References: <3.0.6.32.19990721095236.00798100 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"hPFR11.0.DC4.fiubt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29233
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little writes:

>I suggest you plot temp vs time and input power vs time and focus on the
>latter part of the run where the cell purportedly goes from near-unity
>behavior to way over-unity.

On run #5 only. The others are calibration runs, at unity. Input closely
tracks output.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 14:33:14 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA21382;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:32:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:32:13 -0700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:32:06 -1000
Subject: Re: Ripped asunder from anomalous word usage
From: "Rick Monteverde" <rick highsurf.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <199907221732.SM00219 [192.168.0.2]>
Resent-Message-ID: <"frMwY.0.xD5.Ttubt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29234
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John -

 
>> Kept thinking of the Hutchison phenomena while reading this. 
>
> ......... He has
>> racks full of hard metal parts rent asunder and sometimes liquified at
>> apparently low temperatures by some anomalous electrical process.
>
>    What ?
>
> __________________
>
>     J

Let me try that again. To be worthwhile to store metal parts on the racks,
his *rent is under* ... (tip of the voice-recognition hat to Jed) ...

Naw, kidding. I meant by 'rent asunder' that these metal samples are all
blown up. They look like they were exploded from within. Engine parts and
all sorts of scrap metal objects he used as samples are cracked and split
like trees that have been hit by lightning. Sometimes during his experiments
they make a lunge for the ceiling too, as if their mass went negative or
something. In the video I saw a sample of (allegedly) aluminum sitting next
to a piece of paper on a plywood surface. The bar of metal begins to
splinter and fall apart, melting in places. No smoke from the plywood under
it, and the paper never even scorches. For a fake, gallium or a low melt
solder might do the trick. But it had the same characteristics as the
multitude of metal parts on the racks, some of which were quite obviously
the real thing (steel, aluminum, etc.) unless a fairly large scale fraud
with excellent video editing was involved.

It's my understanding that metals are indeed a sort of frozen plasma, held
together by the electrical balance between the atomic nuclei and the sea of
outer electrons surrounding them. What would it take to cause that 'sea' to
activate in some way which tends to defeat the bonds throughout the bulk
material - like heat, only in this case perhaps energy in some other form
accumulating from long exposure to the jumble of EM fields Hutchison exposes
the samples to?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 15:45:00 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA09824;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:43:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:43:56 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: More Excerpts - Classical with a twist
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:43:14 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37989c0e.337144242 mail-hub>
References: <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 PAA09796
Resent-Message-ID: <"-pn0b1.0.QP2.iwvbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29235
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:48:58 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
[snip]
>(3) He suggested that we should think of this situation in terms of the QM
>notion of "electron clouds," wherein an indeterminate fog of
>"probabilities" supplants the crisp, classical picture, thereby allowing a
>formless, amoeboid H atom to enter the lattice by squeezing between equally
>formless, amoeboid Pd atoms. Such a view, according to him, is completely
>plausible and beyond reproach. My response:
>
>***{No it isn't. If you run the numbers, you will discover that the
>hydrogen electron makes about 10^16 revolutions per second around the
>nucleus. Each pass deviates by a tad from the path of the previous one due
>to precession and other effects. The result is the formation of what is,
>for low speed collisions, a solid shell at the Bohr radius. To understand
>why, suppose that you have a hundred people who want to sit down and only
>one stool. What do you do? Simple: you move the stool in a circle at 10^16
>revolutions per second. Result: from the perspective of the 100 people, it
>is a circular bench, and everybody can sit down. The stool, of course,
>would disintegrate due to the g forces, but the electron doesn't. That's
>why electron shells are *real*, and it is also why a neutral H atom cannot
>pass into the Pd lattice at low speeds. Bottom line: classical mechanics,
>like freedom, fell into disrepute because of government control of
>"education." Memory retards--people who lack visual imagery--took over the
>system and set up an obstacle course which only they could run. 
[snip]
Hi Mitchell,

What do you think of a model where the electron rather than circling the
nucleus, continually falls toward the nucleus, bounces off, reaches some
distance, slowing all the while, then falls back again? (Like a tennis
ball with perfect bounce).

Because the nucleus itself is "lumpy" (and probably rotating as well),
the electron bounces in unpredictable directions, and to unpredictable
heights, yet because it sometimes gains energy from the nucleus, and
sometimes loses it, it has a statistically constant average distance.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 16:34:10 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA28022;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:33:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:33:06 -0700
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <c23374d9.24c90403 aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:32:19 EDT
Subject: Re:  BLP Update
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54
Resent-Message-ID: <"H9n8V1.0.lr6.oewbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29236
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mike, you wrote that self-published theories of everything were "not 
uncommon."  Can you name two, other than Mills'?  (I can't.)

Rick, I agree with you that BLP could raise lots of money if it wanted to go 
public, but they won't price the shares in the penny range, because BLP isn't 
like the penny-stock companies on the Denver exchange and BLP doesn't want to 
be seen that way.  I suppose it's conceivable that they'd offer at 
twenty-five cents a share, the way AOL did in 1992, but I'd guess otherwise.  
I suspect that BLP would be more likely to price the way Goldman Sachs did 
when it went public.  I wonder why BLP isn't going public now.  Maybe their 
distinguished board prefers the old way of doing things financially, even 
though they're involved with a radically new company.

Jed, why keep calling Mills "secretive"?  Three peer-reviewed articles, a big 
website, and a thousand-page book, all full of technical advice, drawings, 
and numbers, don't really qualify as secretive.  The second and last time I 
saw Mills, in October 1995, he received me politely, even cordially, but he 
didn't want to show me his lab.  I was a bit miffed, because I knew that he'd 
shown the lab to other people, but I didn't press the point (indeed, I hadn't 
even raised it, he did).  I didn't regard Mills as secretive just because he 
wouldn't put on a private demo for me.

He has done convincing demos for other people.  I think you recently said 
yourself that his ability to raise more than $10 million was prima facie 
evidence that he had working devices.  If Gene did, then he might be able to 
raise millions, too.  So far, Mills is the only one with devices robust 
enough to pass that test.

Mills' stuff does work.  The specs he published were good enough to enable 
even some who considered Mills a rival to replicate his electrolytic work.

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 18:43:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA23167;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:39:02 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk> <378A23A7.24D2FECF@ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub> <3790E060.7796D4DD@ix.netcom.com> <379125ac.610868574@mail-hub> <3791DD3A.1820BFC8@ix.netcom.com> <37948236.2777839@mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com> <379bdffc.92344680@mail-hub> <3794D322.72BD32F8@ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id SAA23127
Resent-Message-ID: <"emLks1.0.sf5.AXybt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29237
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:51:04 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
[snip]
>Thus, you can not invoke tunneling or neutron formation without also using the same mechanism
>to carry away the energy.  Saying an electron did it is not sufficient. You need to show
>exactly how the process works so that quantitative predictions can be made.  

Suppose the Charles Cagle's theory of electromagnetism is correct (see
http://www.singtech.com/definitions.html#anchor587207 ), and explains
the tunnelling mechanism by the inversion of the repulsive force into an
attractive one when his specified condition is met.
This would not only explain the attraction of the D nuclei, but also
result in a repulsive force being exerted on any electrons caught in
between the D nuclei, as these would tend to have similar distances and
velocities. Due to their much smaller mass however, they would tend to
begin to be repelled by the nuclei before the nuclei themselves began to
attract.
IOW the very  conditions which bring about the fusion also bring about
the repulsion of electrons, and consequent loss of energy thereto.
(Perhaps this is a way of saying that the energy given to the electrons
results in a "debt to the Heisenberg bank", which is repaid during the
fusion of the nuclei).

>A theory is only
>useful when it shows why a phenomenon happens and how the phenomenon can be controlled, i.e.
>how the conditions can be modified to alter the phenomenon in predictable ways.  None of the
>proposed theories have met this criteria.  Until they do, they are only useful to people who
>like to speculate, not to the rest of the world. 

My apologies for only providing fuel for speculators.

>Besides, such  primitive models will not
>convert skeptics, a very necessary event if the field is to grow.

I doubt anything will convince those bent on ignoring the field. (And I
suspect some of them would continue to deliberately ignore it, even if
they were convinced of it's legitimacy, perhaps even more so.)
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 19:59:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA00988;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:58:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:58:41 -0700
Message-ID: <3797DA54.E4B33DDA ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:58:34 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk> <378A23A7.24D2FECF@ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub> <3790E060.7796D4DD@ix.netcom.com> <379125ac.610868574@mail-hub> <3791DD3A.1820BFC8@ix.netcom.com> <37948236.2777839@mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com> <379bdffc.92344680@mail-hub> <3794D322.72BD32F8@ix.netcom.com> <3798bebd.6934776@mail-hub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"y5NJi1.0.IF.Xfzbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29238
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:51:04 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> [snip]
> >Thus, you can not invoke tunneling or neutron formation without also using the same mechanism
> >to carry away the energy.  Saying an electron did it is not sufficient. You need to show
> >exactly how the process works so that quantitative predictions can be made.
>
> Suppose the Charles Cagle's theory of electromagnetism is correct (see
> http://www.singtech.com/definitions.html#anchor587207 ), and explains
> the tunnelling mechanism by the inversion of the repulsive force into an
> attractive one when his specified condition is met.
> This would not only explain the attraction of the D nuclei, but also
> result in a repulsive force being exerted on any electrons caught in
> between the D nuclei, as these would tend to have similar distances and
> velocities. Due to their much smaller mass however, they would tend to
> begin to be repelled by the nuclei before the nuclei themselves began to
> attract.
> IOW the very  conditions which bring about the fusion also bring about
> the repulsion of electrons, and consequent loss of energy thereto.
> (Perhaps this is a way of saying that the energy given to the electrons
> results in a "debt to the Heisenberg bank", which is repaid during the
> fusion of the nuclei).
>

The entire electron structure must carry the energy not just a few local electrons.  Otherwise
significant Bremsstrahlung would be produced by the energetic electrons.  A process making the
electron structure coherent must also be part of the theory if electrons are proposed to be
involved.
Please give this concept some thought.  You see, any idea gets more and more complicated if the
observed behavior is to be explained.  That is why people are having such difficulty coming up
with a rational theory and that is why throwing out a few simple mechanisms will not do the job.

Ed Storms

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 20:19:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA12173;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:18:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:18:08 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:12:03 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
In-Reply-To: <3797DA54.E4B33DDA ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"pR5dg.0.2-2.kxzbt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29239
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



   At 08:58 PM 7/22/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>The entire electron structure must carry the energy not just a few local
electrons.  Otherwise
>significant Bremsstrahlung would be produced by the energetic electrons.
A process making the
>electron structure coherent must also be part of the theory if electrons
are proposed to be
>involved.
>Please give this concept some thought.  You see, any idea gets more and
more complicated if the
>observed behavior is to be explained.  That is why people are having such
difficulty coming up
>with a rational theory and that is why throwing out a few simple
mechanisms will not do the job.
>
>Ed Storms

   If this is about cf, what is the comment about Bremsstrahlung?   

     -m-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 22 22:05:07 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA19725;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:03:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:03:37 -0700
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:07:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: EE OM ....CF theory and practice ....
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990723002608.15351D-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"beofN2.0.7q4.fU_bt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29240
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

	
	Not a new Theory:

	I  propose to name an experiment type or genre.  The
lexicography is new.  The experiment type, genre or name is
Ehibits Energy, Other Mechanism.  This is abbreviated EEOM.
	An experiment, process, demonstration or possible reaction of this
type is best described by some hypothetical examples:
	Some Examples:
	
	1] 	Fluid cell type, liquid 

	This is a reaction cell or chamber that is filled with an aqueous
solution of some material which serves as an electrolyte.  The cell is
equipped with electrodes and an experiment is run.  An example experiment
is to apply energy in the form of heat and-or electricity to the cell.
	The amount and type of energy applied is carefully measured.  
At some point, maybe right away, or after a period of time energy produced
by the cell is monitored.  Also recorded are any and all chemicals, fluids
and so on which are added to and-or circulated through the cell.

	For this experiment to fall into the EEOM type the only thing
required is that the energy from the cell exceeds the energy added to the
cell ... this could be from heat, or from burning and-or "fuel cell" -ing
hydrogen and oxygen, if this is water cell.

	2] A similar cell as in [1] is set up... but is a pressurized gas
cell, like that of BLP or Vince's ... To be EEOM it only has to make more
out.


	SO:  To be an EEOM type it is only required more energy comes out
than was applied.... it might be by fusion, or fission or another reaction
either well known or unknown.

	3]  An EEOM might also be realized by means of wire and magnets.
Such as with Newman and many others. 

	The theory:

	The "Not a New Theory" is an experimentalist theory and states
that an EEOM effect is true and valid.... no matter what name is given to
the mechanism, indeed no mechanism is required to be given for the
experiment to work.	

	An analogy:  Suppose we have two vehicles.... and both are
internal combustion engines.  One is a diesel and one is a more
conventional gas engine.  
	Both are IC engines and operate by burning gasoline or fuel
oil.  

	Important: Both have "plugs" in them .... glow plugs... and
spark plugs, respectively. 
	Both types of plugs use electricity.
	Both ignite or help to ignite the fuel at some point in time
during the operation of the engines.

	Now suppose there is an argument between IC engine "experts"
and "amateurs".  There are obviously commonalities and differences between
the two engines ... and  one group might say "their" engine type is
better, or cleaner or somehow other superior.

	NOW:  Let us call any thing which burns petroleum and roll a car
along a CAR EEOM.  As far as EEOM goes.... and as far as rolling along
and doing so by burning petro fuel goes ...It does NOT matter what the two
groups say about the  two IC engines....
	If it rolls it rolls.
____________________

	The Not a New EEOM theory states an EEOM type effect operates no
matter what is said about its mechanism of operation.  In other words....
if something works... then saying it does not work ... does not change the
operation.

	Finally:  This concept of EEOM extends, or is theorized to extend
to any other experiments which may seem hard to understand, such as, for
example, Faster Than Light signal transmission.... if one transmits a
signal at more-than-C ... then this is an experimental result.  
	A Theory claiming this is not so does not affect the result.


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

	NOTE:  I onlt put the Not a New Theory here because in Vortex, in
genral, the thread of discussion is fairly calm. 
	

	This Not a New Theory stands by itself.


	 To recap

	An EEOM that works will do so even if there is discussion which
claims is either does not or cannot.
	An FTL effect that works will do so .... not matter if there is
discussion which claims it does not or cannot.

	Do any Vo find any big ... or little .. :)  holes in this?

			John Schnurer

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 00:48:01 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA19725;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:46:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:46:58 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: swindon.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:46:51 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi swindon
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: re: John Collins
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990723084444.14209B-100000 swindon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"EmxP43.0.7q4.nt1ct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29241
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

False Alarm!
The first law cannot be broken its to do with invariance of space and
time. I'm closed minded on this. Without going into details, the balls
were sucked into the column of water by a cohesion effect.
Duped for about 3/4 of a day.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 05:34:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA02168;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 05:33:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 05:33:10 -0700
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:37:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: re: John Collins
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990723084444.14209B-100000 swindon>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990723083706.20660B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"VsLXI2.0.jX.646ct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29242
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	What balls ?

On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Cornwall RO wrote:

> False Alarm!
> The first law cannot be broken its to do with invariance of space and
> time. I'm closed minded on this. Without going into details, the balls
> were sucked into the column of water by a cohesion effect.
> Duped for about 3/4 of a day.
> Remi.
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 07:38:55 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04039;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 07:37:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 07:37:38 -0700
MR-Received: by mta EUROPA; Relayed; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:36:46 -0400 (EDT)
MR-Received: by mta GOSIP; Relayed; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:37:13 -0400 (EDT)
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:31:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 <MH2_BRIGGS ODNVMS.A1.Ohio.Gov>
Subject: Re: John Collins
In-reply-to: 
 <Pine.GSO.3.96.990723083706.20660B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-id: <E2143ZYAHF5NEY*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Posting-date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:36:00 -0400 (EDT)
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
UA-content-id: E2143ZYAHF5NEY
X400-MTS-identifier: [;64630132709991/3882178 ODNVMS]
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
Resent-Message-ID: <"Nd8Tt.0.1_.ou7ct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29243
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John,

What balls!!!

John Schnurer wrote:

>        What balls ?

>On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Cornwall RO wrote:

>> False Alarm!
>> The first law cannot be broken its to do with invariance of space and
>> time. I'm closed minded on this. Without going into details, the balls
>> were sucked into the column of water by a cohesion effect.
>> Duped for about 3/4 of a day.
>> Remi.

Bill
webriggs concentric.net
briggs XLNsystems.com
DISCLAIMER: Anything discussed are my own hair brained ideas,
            and not the hair brained ideas of my employer.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 08:11:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA25261;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <37988456.4076D3D8 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:04:06 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
	 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
	 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
	 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
	 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
	 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
	 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
	 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
	 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
	 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
	 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub> <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"AVhFp.0.aA6._M8ct" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29244
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>    At 08:58 PM 7/22/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> >
> >The entire electron structure must carry the energy not just a few local
> electrons.  Otherwise
> >significant Bremsstrahlung would be produced by the energetic electrons.
> A process making the
> >electron structure coherent must also be part of the theory if electrons
> are proposed to be
> >involved.
> >Please give this concept some thought.  You see, any idea gets more and
> more complicated if the
> >observed behavior is to be explained.  That is why people are having such
> difficulty coming up
> >with a rational theory and that is why throwing out a few simple
> mechanisms will not do the job.
> >
> >Ed Storms
>
>    If this is about cf, what is the comment about Bremsstrahlung?

Bremsstrahlung is the radiation (X-rays) produced when high energy electrons
pass through material.  If the nuclear energy created during a CF reaction
were focused on a few electrons, these electrons would produce Bremsstrahlung
as they shed their energy within the lattice.  This radiation is not
detected.  Therefore, the nuclear energy has not been focused on a few
electrons.  The only way this local focus can be avoided is for the energy be
shared between a large number of electrons.  For this to happen, a
relationship between the electrons must exist which allows the energy to be
transmitted throughout the electron structure.  The relationship is called
coherence. Does this answer your question?

Ed

>
>
>      -m-




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 08:59:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA31103;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:58:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:58:00 -0700
Message-ID: <004501bed52c$5a713b00$99441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk> <378A23A7.24D2FECF@ix.netcom.com> <378ecefd.260898352@mail-hub> <3790E060.7796D4DD@ix.netcom.com> <379125ac.610868574@mail-hub> <3791DD3A.1820BFC8@ix.netcom.com> <37948236.2777839@mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com> <379bdffc.92344680@mail-hub> <3794D322.72BD32F8@ix.netcom.com> <3798bebd.6934776@mail-hub> <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70@world.std.com> <37988456.4076D3D8@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Swartz paper
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:56:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"xzrBG1.0.vb7.849ct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29245
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: Swartz paper

Ed Storms wrote:


> Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>
> >    At 08:58 PM 7/22/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> > >
> > >The entire electron structure must carry the energy not just a few
local
> > electrons.  Otherwise
> > >significant Bremsstrahlung would be produced by the energetic
electrons.
> > A process making the
> > >electron structure coherent must also be part of the theory if
electrons
> > are proposed to be
> > >involved.
> > >Please give this concept some thought.  You see, any idea gets more and
> > more complicated if the
> > >observed behavior is to be explained.  That is why people are having
such
> > difficulty coming up
> > >with a rational theory and that is why throwing out a few simple
> > mechanisms will not do the job.
> > >
> > >Ed Storms
> >
> >    If this is about cf, what is the comment about Bremsstrahlung?
>
> Bremsstrahlung is the radiation (X-rays) produced when high energy
electrons
> pass through material.  If the nuclear energy created during a CF reaction
> were focused on a few electrons, these electrons would produce
Bremsstrahlung
> as they shed their energy within the lattice.  This radiation is not
> detected.  Therefore, the nuclear energy has not been focused on a few
> electrons.  The only way this local focus can be avoided is for the energy
be
> shared between a large number of electrons.  For this to happen, a
> relationship between the electrons must exist which allows the energy to
be
> transmitted throughout the electron structure.  The relationship is called
> coherence. Does this answer your question?

Interesting connection to the "tail wags the dog" effect (MV~= mv)obtained
by the equating
the ground state momentum (mv where v = c/137)of the electron group of a gas
to the
momentum of the atom/molecule (MV where V =  (2kT/M)^1/2 = 1.6E5 cm/sec.
For H2, mv  for the two electrons =  4.0E-19 gram*cm/sec,
and for the H2 molecule MV = 5.25E-19 gram*cm/sec.

IOW. A disturbance of  the electron cloud has to transfer/share momentum
with the nucleus, thus an increase in enthalpy/heat in a lattice.

Hope this helps.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick
>
> Ed
>
> >
> >      -m-
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 09:19:15 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA02631;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:11:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:11:28 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v04011700b3bd6aa61d19 [207.8.127.145]>
In-Reply-To: <37989c0e.337144242 mail-hub>
References: <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
 <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:09:54 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: More Excerpts - Classical with a twist
Resent-Message-ID: <"FUTzR1.0.1f.mG9ct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29246
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:48:58 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>[snip]
>>(3) He suggested that we should think of this situation in terms of the QM
>>notion of "electron clouds," wherein an indeterminate fog of
>>"probabilities" supplants the crisp, classical picture, thereby allowing a
>>formless, amoeboid H atom to enter the lattice by squeezing between equally
>>formless, amoeboid Pd atoms. Such a view, according to him, is completely
>>plausible and beyond reproach. My response:
>>
>>***{No it isn't. If you run the numbers, you will discover that the
>>hydrogen electron makes about 10^16 revolutions per second around the
>>nucleus. Each pass deviates by a tad from the path of the previous one due
>>to precession and other effects. The result is the formation of what is,
>>for low speed collisions, a solid shell at the Bohr radius. To understand
>>why, suppose that you have a hundred people who want to sit down and only
>>one stool. What do you do? Simple: you move the stool in a circle at 10^16
>>revolutions per second. Result: from the perspective of the 100 people, it
>>is a circular bench, and everybody can sit down. The stool, of course,
>>would disintegrate due to the g forces, but the electron doesn't. That's
>>why electron shells are *real*, and it is also why a neutral H atom cannot
>>pass into the Pd lattice at low speeds. Bottom line: classical mechanics,
>>like freedom, fell into disrepute because of government control of
>>"education." Memory retards--people who lack visual imagery--took over the
>>system and set up an obstacle course which only they could run.
>[snip]
>Hi Mitchell,
>
>What do you think of a model where the electron rather than circling the
>nucleus, continually falls toward the nucleus, bounces off, reaches some
>distance, slowing all the while, then falls back again? (Like a tennis
>ball with perfect bounce).

***{The coefficient of restitution is 1.0, to put it in the vernacular. :-)
Your idea is thoroughly classical, as you correctly noted in your subject
line. The reason: the electrons in your model follow continuous spatial
pathways, like the objects of ordinary experience. That is a faux pas to
believers in QM: phenomena in the microcosm are supposed to be
"quantized"--which means: they exist only in "preferred" states, without
existing even for an instant in the transitional "classical" states. That
means when an electron "jumps" from, say, a higher orbit to a lower one, it
doesn't follow a spatial pathway from the first orbit to the second one. It
merely vanishes from the former location and magically reappears in the
latter! And when a particle goes from spin "up" to spin "down" there is,
again, no intervening interval, however brief, during which it passes
through transitional states. (And if that leaves "ordinary" people
scratching their heads, why, don't worry: normal human beings, who have the
ability to think visually, are just inferior to the memory retards who
cannot do so, and who came up with this crap.) --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Because the nucleus itself is "lumpy" (and probably rotating as well),
>the electron bounces in unpredictable directions, and to unpredictable
>heights, yet because it sometimes gains energy from the nucleus, and
>sometimes loses it, it has a statistically constant average distance.

***{While your idea is classical, and hence intelligible, it also seems
thoroughly wrong, for lots of reasons. For example, it leaves atoms with no
discernable shell structure. Consider the case of a proton which has a
head-on collision with an electron in empty space, where the velocity of
the electron at the moment of impact is less than escape velocity. Result:
the bounce distance is a function of kinetic energy at time of impact.
Since that can have any value, so can the bounce distance. Thus there is
nothing about this model which could explain the discrete energy levels
which have been observed. At least when we work with the idea of orbits,
there are mechanical considerations which could render the preferred orbits
stable and the non-preferred ("classical") orbits unstable, thereby
explaining such phenomena as discrete spectral lines, the photoelectric
effect, etc. I see no hope of doing that with your model, since we know up
front that the bounce distance is a function of the incident kinetic
energy, which could have any value. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 10:53:56 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA10291;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:51:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:51:54 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990723130157.00fd4180 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:01:57 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Cold fusion and Bremsstrahlung
In-Reply-To: <37988456.4076D3D8 ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
 <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"GNVp12.0.iW2.wkAct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29247
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 09:04 AM 7/23/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>    If this is about cf, what is the comment about Bremsstrahlung?
>
>Bremsstrahlung is the radiation (X-rays) produced when high energy electrons
>pass through material.  If the nuclear energy created during a CF reaction
>were focused on a few electrons, these electrons would produce Bremsstrahlung
>as they shed their energy within the lattice.  This radiation is not
>detected.  Therefore, the nuclear energy has not been focused on a few
>electrons.  The only way this local focus can be avoided is for the energy be
>shared between a large number of electrons.  For this to happen, a
>relationship between the electrons must exist which allows the energy to be
>transmitted throughout the electron structure.  The relationship is called
>coherence. Does this answer your question?
>
>Ed


  
  It would, if it were true.  But the bremsstrahlung of
cold fusion is not in the xray region -- but in the near infrared.

  It cannot easily be detected because it is locked in the 
metal due to skin depth (another, admittedly engineering issue).
Unlike penetrating xradiation, cold fusion bremsstrahlung is
involved in locally (contributing to the excess heat
itself, and more importantly to the phonon processes therein).

  This is discussed in "Bremsstrahlung - Relative Role in
Hot and Cold Fusion and its Impact upon Potential Isotopic
Fuels", M. Swartz, G.Verner, Journal of New Energy, 3, 4, 
90-101 (1999).

   Hope that helps.
     Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 10:54:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA10882;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:52:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:52:53 -0700
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:56:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l eskimo.com>
cc: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: OK, I will cross the line ....Re: John Collins
In-Reply-To: <E2143ZYAHF5NEY*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990723135138.4219D-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zytoa1.0.uf2.rlAct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29248
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	See notes....

	At the risk of opening the door... wider, that is.... the "want
balls" ... is just that ... what BALLS GOT SUCKED UP .... ? Happy now??

See flag, below...

On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 wrote:

> John,
> 
> What balls!!!
> 
> John Schnurer wrote:
> 
> >        What balls ?
> 
> >On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Cornwall RO wrote:
> 
> >> False Alarm!
> >> The first law cannot be broken its to do with invariance of space and
> >> time. I'm closed minded on this.
________________________ FLAG ________________________


 Without going into details, 

	"........the balls were sucked into the column of water by a
cohesion effect.   ......"

	Huh?   What balls?  What got sucked into ... uh duh ...
	There!  That ought to be enough!

> >> Duped for about 3/4 of a day.
> >> Remi.
> 
	Who duped what who how?


> Bill
> webriggs concentric.net
> briggs XLNsystems.com
> DISCLAIMER: Anything discussed are my own hair brained ideas,
>             and not the hair brained ideas of my employer.
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 11:23:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26682;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:22:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:22:13 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990723142509.00c918b0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:25:09 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: More Excerpts
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"oLrRt1.0.qW6.KBBct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29249
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:48 PM 7/22/1999 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>(3) He suggested that we should think of this situation in terms of the QM
>notion of "electron clouds," wherein an indeterminate fog of
>"probabilities" supplants the crisp, classical picture, thereby allowing a
>formless, amoeboid H atom to enter the lattice by squeezing between equally
>formless, amoeboid Pd atoms...

   Wrong picture.  There are five ways the hydrogen can move around inside
the Palladium lattice.

   First, the atom can shed it's electron slip through the hole as d+, then
pick up another electron on the other side.

   Second, it can form a covalent bond with one of the surrounding Pd
atoms, slip through as bump on the Pd, then break the bond to appear in
another void.  My guess is that this is the main source of the high mobility.

   Third, all the Pd atoms are vibrating. It is possible for four Pd atoms
to move away from each other while still maintaining their position in the
lattice.  A hydrogen or deuterium atom can slip through while the door is
open.  I suspect that this is only important at higher temperatures.

   Fourth, which is very speculative, is that if the deuterium atoms form a
Bose-Einstein condensate, then any deuterium atom can be found in any
location within the lattice.  (Note that this is not just an abstract
concept.  It isn't that you can't know where any particular particle in the
BEC is, it is that the location of every atom is spread over the entire
volume of the condensate.)

   Finally, you can use QM to compute the probability that one of the
deuterium atoms in the lattice will "jump" to an adjacent void.  This
probability is very small, but it corresponds to moving from one location
to the next without being in any inbetween location.

   Notice that either you have the BEC behavior or you have the other four.
 The reason that this is interesting is that either can result in more than
one deuterium atom can end up in one of the voids.  (In the BEC case,
talking about this only makes sense after the BEC collapses.  They you have
a game of musical chairs, and the number of atoms in a void will have a
Poisson distribution.  The higher the loading, the greater number of sites
with two, three, four or more atoms trying to occupy them.)

   So what happens if you get two (neutral) deuterium atoms in one site?
First they will quickly form D2 or combine with Pd atoms.  Maybe the
interesting number to look at is the smallest possible deuterium to
deuterium distance when two adjacent sites are occupied by PdD instead of
Pd.

                                        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 Jul 23 11:33:17 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA31056;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:31:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:31:35 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990723143429.00c939b0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:34:29 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Mizuno cleans with acetone
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990722160012.00798100 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NbkRk.0.Ab7.7KBct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29250
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:00 PM 7/22/1999 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 
>We do not know how important purity and cleanliness is in these
>experiments. Since we do not know, I suppose we should strive to me them as
>pure and clean as possible...

    Forget about cleanliness, tell me how long between ultrasonic cleaning
an reimmersion in water.  There will normally be a layer of gasses (mostly
oxygen) adsorbed (not absorbed) on the surface of the metal.  If the
cathodes stay in unionized water, or at least wet, going from the cleaning
device to the test apparatus, that will result in a very different surface.
 Water can also be adsorbed onto a metal surface, so after removing the gas
coating the surface may stay wetted for several days.  When making copper
heat pipes with water as a working fluid, we could often open them up to
remove excess water and reseal them without baking.  (Of course you had to
redraw a partial vaccum.)

                                        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 Jul 23 11:40:45 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00391;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:39:04 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:39:04 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990723143328.0102e0b0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:33:28 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Lattice Coupling
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990723130157.00fd4180 world.std.com>
References: <37988456.4076D3D8 ix.netcom.com>
 <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
 <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"iWFfp.0._5.7RBct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29251
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



>At 09:04 AM 7/23/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>> ....  Therefore, the nuclear energy has not been focused on a few
>>electrons.  The only way this local focus can be avoided is for the
energy be
>>shared between a large number of electrons.  For this to happen, a
>>relationship between the electrons must exist which allows the energy to be
>>transmitted throughout the electron structure.  The relationship is called
>>coherence. Does this answer your question?


  It may not be correct that electrons alone must necessarily couple the
energy from the collapsing nucleus to the lattice.   What may occur is
coupling 
of the energy to the incredibly large phonon pool, as discussed in 
Swartz, M., 1997, "Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids", 
Fusion Technology, 31, 228-236 (March 1997), and in P. Hagelstein, 
M. Swartz, Optics and Quantum Electronics, MIT RLE Progress Report, 
139: 1, 1-13 (1997).  Peter has an additional article in preprint since then.

   Hope that helps.
     Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 12:16:23 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA13949;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:12:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:12:53 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990723151330.0079fe90 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:13:30 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Note from Mizuno about calorimetry formulas
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"jNfqU.0.nP3.qwBct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29252
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mizuno sent me the following note in Japanese about his calorimetry with
the 1-liter heat up cell. This describes how he processed the raw data
which I posted here. (I did not process it; you have to draw your own
conclusions, and you cannot do this by merely multiplying columns and
adding up numbers.) He produced graphs based on this algorithm which I
supplied to Scott Little and others on a CD-ROM. Mizuno did not spell out
the full details of the algorithm to derive a linear relationship between
temperature and radiated heat, except by example. It would be over my head
anyway. I hope to have translated this much correctly.

I think the algorithms must be generally correct because the graphs of the
first four calibration runs show a close balance between input and output.

Hv, heat of vaporization, is included here in the formal definition of the
algorithm. However, in the actual examples graphed and computed this factor
was ignored because he did not measure vapor and very little was produced.
The experiment was halted as soon as the cell came to boil.

- Jed


Temperature is measured with 3 K-type thermocouples. The thermocouple
terminals are covered in 0.1 mm Teflon shrink wrap. One records the cell
temperature, and the other two record room  and incubator temperatures.
These thermocouples have all been calibrated against a standard (mercury)
thermometer. The heat release style cell is made of Pyrex, and it has the
capacity of 1000 cubic centimeters. The top portion has a silicon plug.
This plug has holes opened and it to allow the passage of the electrical
leads and thermocouples. The cell is surrounded by Styrofoam insulation.
The cell is placed on a magnetic stirrer, which drives a Teflon mixer
placed at the bottom of the cell. The magnetic stirrer is a Yamato brand,
model MA300, which spins at selectable constant rate.

The formula for determining the heat balance with this heat release cell
system is as follows

Input = I x V			(1)
Output = Hw+Hc+Hr+Hv+Hg	(2)

Here, input and output are measured in joules. I is current (amperes), V is
voltage, Hw is the quantity of heat in the water, Hc is the quantity of
heat in the cell glass material, Hr is heat radiated from the cell, Hv is
heat lost to vapor, and Hg is heat lost to the electrolytic decomposition
of hydrogen and oxygen. The terms in detail are:

Hw = mass of fluid x specific heat of fluid x temperature change
Hc = mass of cell Pyrex material x specific heat of Pyrex x temperature change
Hr = ( mass of fluid x specific heat + mass of cell x specific heat) x
temperature decline
Hv = mass of vapor x heat of vaporization
Hg = 1.48 x current

The amount fluid is taken as 1000 grams. The specific heat of the fluid
varies with temperature but it is approximately 4.18 joules/g * deg. Hr is
computed based on the temperature drop, which is determined by examining
the heat decay curve produced after the experiment ends. The rate of change
in temperature at every data point is determined. The logarithm of these
points is plotted as a function of the temperature difference, and a linear
relationship between temperature and energy content is derived. When this
formula is applied to the cell mass and heat capacity, Hr is derived
according to the following formula:

Hr = M*4.18*A*10^b*T

Where M is the thermal mass of the cell, including the thermal mass of the
fluid, electrode metal and  cell material, based on the weight of the
material and a calibration. In this case M equals 1100. Factors A and b are
based on the heat decay curve of the fluid temperature. In one example, A
equals 0.00190 and b equals 0.0227. T is the Delta T temperature difference
between the cell and the incubator air temperature. Hv is the mass of vapor
multiplied by the heat of vaporization, which is taken as 2256 kJ/g.
However in the graphed examples of July 8 data, Hv  was not taken into
account. The last factor in the equation is Hg, heat required for
electrolytic decomposition. This varies depending upon conditions at the
electrodes, however here is taken as 1.48 x I.

Heat generation is computed based on these terms, and input is compared to
output. Any difference constitutes excess heat energy.

- Tadahiko Mizuno
mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp
July 21, 1999

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 12:20:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA16509;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:18:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:18:32 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990723151849.0079baf0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:18:49 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Mizuno cleans with acetone
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990723143429.00c939b0 spectre.mitre.org>
References: <3.0.6.32.19990722160012.00798100 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"PA4_J3.0.t14.70Cct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29253
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus writes:

>    Forget about cleanliness, tell me how long between ultrasonic cleaning
>an reimmersion in water.  There will normally be a layer of gasses (mostly
>oxygen) adsorbed (not absorbed) on the surface of the metal. . . .

A very long time. Usually weeks, I think. The prepared, dried, clean
cathodes are stored in test tubes covered with plastic wrap. As I noted,
before use they are dowsed with acetone and rinsed extensively with water.
I expect most adsorbed materials would be washed off. As far as I know,
cathodes are not treated with heat or vacuum, although that sounds like a
good idea.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 13:20:26 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03931;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:17:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:17:36 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3be64abc4a1 [207.8.127.138]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990723142509.00c918b0 spectre.mitre.org>
References: <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:11:25 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: More Excerpts
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id NAA03907
Resent-Message-ID: <"bJNtL1.0.Gz.WtCct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29254
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 02:48 PM 7/22/1999 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>(3) He suggested that we should think of this situation in terms of the QM
>>notion of "electron clouds," wherein an indeterminate fog of
>>"probabilities" supplants the crisp, classical picture, thereby allowing a
>>formless, amoeboid H atom to enter the lattice by squeezing between equally
>>formless, amoeboid Pd atoms...
>
>   Wrong picture.  There are five ways the hydrogen can move around inside
>the Palladium lattice.
>
>   First, the atom can shed it's electron and slip through the hole as d+,
>then
>pick up another electron on the other side.

***{Agreed, but the fellow I have been corresponding with initially denied
that, claiming that whenever an H+ (or D+) approached the lattice, it would
be handed an electron and be promoted to a neutral H (or D) atom. He didn't
seem to realize that it is only the *excess electrons* within the cathode
which are capable of being handed over, rather than all of the outer shell
electrons. (I don't know whether he still maintains that position or not.)
At any rate, while there is a "sea" of outer shell electrons covering the
surface of a conductor, the number of excess electrons tends to be very
small, relatively speaking, and their mutual repulsion tends to cause them
to accumulate on the outer surfaces--the "high ground," so to speak. In the
low ground, a condition of depletion tends to exist, and in those regions
H+ ions can enter the cathode *without* necessarily being handed an excess
electron. (This, in my view, is why Ohmori's technique of using glass
shards to cut grooves in his cathodes improves his success rate. You can't
form protoneutrons if the H+ ions are handed electrons before they get
inside the cathode.) --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>   Second, it can form a covalent bond with one of the surrounding Pd
>atoms, slip through as bump on the Pd, then break the bond to appear in
>another void.  My guess is that this is the main source of the high mobility.

***{No. The covalent radius of Pd is 1.376 Å (measured) while the covalent
radius of D is .742 Å, whereas the entry hole is a mere .206 Å. --MJ}***

>
>   Third, all the Pd atoms are vibrating. It is possible for four Pd atoms
>to move away from each other while still maintaining their position in the
>lattice.  A hydrogen or deuterium atom can slip through while the door is
>open.  I suspect that this is only important at higher temperatures.

***{Agreed on all counts. --MJ}***

>
>   Fourth, which is very speculative, is that if the deuterium atoms form a
>Bose-Einstein condensate, then any deuterium atom can be found in any
>location within the lattice.  (Note that this is not just an abstract
>concept.  It isn't that you can't know where any particular particle in the
>BEC is, it is that the location of every atom is spread over the entire
>volume of the condensate.)

***{No. The nuclei lose their integrity, so that the component parts are
intermingled, and individual atoms no longer have discrete identities. It's
as if ten cooks in a military mess hall each brews up his own pot of stew,
and the ten pots are then poured into one big retort. You can't say that
"the location of Sam's stew is spread out over the entire retort," because
"Sam's stew" ceased to exist as soon as the pots were intermingled. (If Sam
were at ground zero of a thermonuclear explosion, he would be vaporized,
and the atoms of which he had been composed would be spread to the four
winds. Would you then say: "Sam no longer exists," or would you say "The
location of Sam is spread over the entire volume of the atmosphere?" :-)
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>   Finally, you can use QM to compute the probability that one of the
>deuterium atoms in the lattice will "jump" to an adjacent void.  This
>probability is very small, but it corresponds to moving from one location
>to the next without being in any inbetween location.

***{No. The principle of continuity states that "no thing may come into
existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing." It is one of the
necessary supports to the structure of human knowledge. Without it,
knowledge is impossible. Hence the probability that one of the deuterium
atoms vanishes into nothing is zero, and the probability that another
deuterium atom comes into existence out of nothing somewhere else is also
zero.

As for the probability that a deuterium atom at one lattice location will
move into the adjacent location, that is *not* zero, because there are lots
of things going on in the lattice which can produce that effect without
recourse to magical thinking. For  example, there is the lattice
wave--i.e., the patterned movements of lattice atoms--wherein the atoms in
the lattice move in coordinated waves, like a field of grain in the wind.
Because this pattern has peaks and troughs, and because it is capable of
being influenced by sound waves, mechanical impacts, temperature, etc.,
there will be rare circumstances under which a lattice cell will open up
long enough for an H atom to move from cell to cell, despite the fact that
such movement is normally impossible. Another possibility would be photon
impacts--e.g., cosmic ray gammas--pushing an H atom from one cell to the
next. Etc.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>   Notice that either you have the BEC behavior or you have the other four.
> The reason that this is interesting is that either can result in more than
>one deuterium atom can end up in one of the voids.  (In the BEC case,
>talking about this only makes sense after the BEC collapses.  They you have
>a game of musical chairs, and the number of atoms in a void will have a
>Poisson distribution.  The higher the loading, the greater number of sites
>with two, three, four or more atoms trying to occupy them.)

***{One of the points I brought up in my e-mail discussion was the
possibility of protoneutron clusters. The fellow I was discussing this
with, responding to my suggestion that a cobalt-60 source should speed up
the CF reaction, suggested the use of more readily available sources in the
60-200 keV range. I said:

"It may work, despite not reaching the .79 MeV threshold [needed to turn a
protoneutron into a neutron], due to the "energy rapacity" postulate. [My
notion, described on sci.physics.fusion some four years ago, that
protoneutrons somehow "suck up" the energy of passing photons, thereby
saving the experimenters from being fried by hard gammas and x-rays.]  I
have speculated (privately) that what is going on may be the formation of
protoneutron clusters that absorb incident radiation and hold it in
internal vibrational form, until the accumulation of energy from multiple
sources exceeds the .79 MeV threshold, at which point one of the
protoneutrons within the cluster would convert to a real neutron. The
appearance of vast numbers of such clusters within a cathode region would
have the effect of raising the photon capture probability rapidly toward
1.0. In effect, the cathode would become opaque to all photons, including
gammas. Result: nuclear power without radiation."

It occurs to me that a protoneutron cluster would have some features in
common with a Bose-Einstein condensate, despite the purely classical
reasoning underlying it.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>   So what happens if you get two (neutral) deuterium atoms in one site?
>First they will quickly form D2 or combine with Pd atoms.  Maybe the
>interesting number to look at is the smallest possible deuterium to
>deuterium distance when two adjacent sites are occupied by PdD instead of
>Pd.

***{The close approach of two protoneutrons (pn) is not a problem, due to
their virtual electrical neutrality, and the same applies to the variant
involving collapsed D atoms, symbolized by dn. Thus we can get dn + dn -->
2He4 + 23.8 MeV with a very high cross section. However, the merger of
neutral deuterons that are loaded into adjacent lattice sites faces the
same Coulomb barrier that exists elsewhere. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>                                        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 Jul 23 13:26:30 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA04630;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:19:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:19:45 -0700
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:23:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: CF Humor ...Re: Water
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990723143429.00c939b0 spectre.mitre.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990723161456.12529A-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"53tgv2.0.G81.WvCct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29255
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	See notes, below, some cuts, at the flag ...

On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> At 04:00 PM 7/22/1999 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>  
> >We do not know how important.....

	VERY IMPORTANT !!!  _________FLAG ____________

...........If the cathodes stay in unionized water,

	Then you got to talk to the workers in the shop with you, 
	you got to build a Union,got to build it strong 
	and if the atoms stick together it won't be long 
	Before you get higher energy states, 
		better fusing conditions,
			and vacancies with pay ......


	From "Talkin' Hydrogen Union"  CO Schnurer 1999

	[could'nt help it]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 13:35:27 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA11380;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:33:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:33:42 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3be81117459 [207.8.127.138]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990723143429.00c939b0 spectre.mitre.org>
References: <3.0.6.32.19990722160012.00798100 pop.mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:32:09 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Mizuno cleans with acetone
Resent-Message-ID: <"C6QDb.0.kn2.c6Dct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29256
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 04:00 PM 7/22/1999 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>We do not know how important purity and cleanliness is in these
>>experiments. Since we do not know, I suppose we should strive to me them as
>>pure and clean as possible...
>
>    Forget about cleanliness, tell me how long between ultrasonic cleaning
>an reimmersion in water.  There will normally be a layer of gasses (mostly
>oxygen) adsorbed (not absorbed) on the surface of the metal.  If the
>cathodes stay in unionized water

***{Unionized water? I knew we had too many unions in this country, but
this is getting ridiculous! :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

, or at least wet, going from the cleaning
>device to the test apparatus, that will result in a very different surface.
> Water can also be adsorbed onto a metal surface, so after removing the gas
>coating the surface may stay wetted for several days.  When making copper
>heat pipes with water as a working fluid, we could often open them up to
>remove excess water and reseal them without baking.  (Of course you had to
>redraw a partial vaccum.)
>
>                                        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 Jul 23 13:37:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA12153;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:35:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:35:28 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990723163825.00c2c390 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:38:25 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: CF Humor ...Re: Water
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990723161456.12529A-100000 college.antioch-c
 ollege.edu>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990723143429.00c939b0 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"bXoC62.0.pz2.G8Dct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29257
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 04:23 PM 7/23/1999 -0400, John Schnurer wrote:
>............If the cathodes stay in unionized water,
 
    I know, one of the few homographs (words spelled the same but
pronounced differently) that also breaks into a different number of
syllables depending on the intended meaning.

                                        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 Jul 23 13:40:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA13857;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:38:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:38:18 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990723164117.00c2c390 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:41:17 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Mizuno cleans with acetone
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990723151849.0079baf0 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990723143429.00c939b0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.6.32.19990722160012.00798100 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"OBbyh2.0.NO3.vADct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29258
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:18 PM 7/23/1999 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>I expect most adsorbed materials would be washed off. As far as I know,
>cathodes are not treated with heat or vacuum, although that sounds like a
>good idea.
 
   No, adsorbed gases are pretty hard to get off.  Baking in a vaccum and
ultrasonic baths are the normal methods.  You can also do it by
electrochemistry...

                                        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 Jul 23 14:09:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA25682;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:07:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:07:37 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990723171036.00c98920 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:10:36 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: More Excerpts
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3be64abc4a1 [207.8.127.138]>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990723142509.00c918b0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
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 OAA25659
Resent-Message-ID: <"wJaAn1.0.CH6.PcDct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29259
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:11 PM 7/23/1999 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>>   Second, it can form a covalent bond with one of the surrounding Pd
>>atoms, slip through as bump on the Pd, then break the bond to appear in
>>another void.  My guess is that this is the main source of the high
mobility.
>
>***{No. The covalent radius of Pd is 1.376 Å (measured) while the covalent
>radius of D is .742 Å, whereas the entry hole is a mere .206 Å. --MJ}***
 
    Irrelevant.  The PdD would occupy one node in the lattice with the
deuterium "bump" extending into one of the holes, so it is the shape of the
PdD molecule that is important.

>***{No. The nuclei lose their integrity, so that the component parts are
>intermingled, and individual atoms no longer have discrete identities.

   No, the bosons lose their identity.  But in this case the deuterium
nuclei,or deuterium atoms that are the bosons, not the individual particles
which are fermions.

>***{No. The principle of continuity states that "no thing may come into
>existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing." It is one of the
>necessary supports to the structure of human knowledge...

    Anyone who understands quantum mechanics (both of us ;-) will tell you
that the fundamental basis of quantum mechanics is that particles appear
and disappear all the time.  You cannot directly observe the intermediate
states where the energy is out of balance, but if you don't account for
them, you get the wrong answers.  If you want to think of what happens in
this case is that one deuterium atom disappears and another appears out of
nothing, physicists won't turn a hair.  (Although the more verbose of them
will explain why conservation of energy--as modified by Heisenberg-- and
other conservation laws insure that the "new" atom can't be distinguished
from the original.)

>"It may work, despite not reaching the .79 MeV threshold [needed to turn a
>protoneutron into a neutron], due to the "energy rapacity" postulate. [My
>notion, described on sci.physics.fusion some four years ago, that
>protoneutrons somehow "suck up" the energy of passing photons, thereby
>saving the experimenters from being fried by hard gammas and x-rays.]  I
>have speculated (privately) that what is going on may be the formation of
>protoneutron clusters that absorb incident radiation and hold it in
>internal vibrational form, until the accumulation of energy from multiple
>sources exceeds the .79 MeV threshold, at which point one of the
>protoneutrons within the cluster would convert to a real neutron. The
>appearance of vast numbers of such clusters within a cathode region would
>have the effect of raising the photon capture probability rapidly toward
>1.0. In effect, the cathode would become opaque to all photons, including
>gammas. Result: nuclear power without radiation."

     No need to go so far out...  Any hydrogen atom has some probability of
actually being a neutron--see discussion above.  If it can enter into a
reaction (or several) before the Heisenberg banker comes to collect, it can
stay a neutron.  Framed this way, your suggestion translates into a virtual
neutron absorbing several photons.  The problem is conservation of momentum.
Reactions where two particles come in and one goes out are often forbidden
by various conservation laws.  (In the case of a proton or neutron
absorbing a photon, spin is not a problem--a -1/2 proton absorbs a +1
photon and becomes a +1/2 neutron.  However, conservation of momentum can
cause a problem.  In a three particle reaction only certain energy changes
allow both momentum and energy to balance.  However, for four particle
reactions, such as scattering a photon, there are almost always entry and
exit vectors that work.


                                        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 Jul 23 15:24:15 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA01038;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:22:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:22:38 -0700
Message-ID: <3798EB11.40642A8A ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:22:15 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Bremsstrahlung
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
	 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
	 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
	 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
	 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
	 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
	 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
	 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
	 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
	 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
	 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
	 <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19990723130157.00fd4180@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"JUdU73.0.8G.jiEct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29260
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:

> At 09:04 AM 7/23/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> >>    If this is about cf, what is the comment about Bremsstrahlung?
> >
> >Bremsstrahlung is the radiation (X-rays) produced when high energy electrons
> >pass through material.  If the nuclear energy created during a CF reaction
> >were focused on a few electrons, these electrons would produce Bremsstrahlung
> >as they shed their energy within the lattice.  This radiation is not
> >detected.  Therefore, the nuclear energy has not been focused on a few
> >electrons.  The only way this local focus can be avoided is for the energy be
> >shared between a large number of electrons.  For this to happen, a
> >relationship between the electrons must exist which allows the energy to be
> >transmitted throughout the electron structure.  The relationship is called
> >coherence. Does this answer your question?
> >
> >Ed
>
>
>   It would, if it were true.  But the bremsstrahlung of
> cold fusion is not in the xray region -- but in the near infrared.
>
>   It cannot easily be detected because it is locked in the
> metal due to skin depth (another, admittedly engineering issue).
> Unlike penetrating xradiation, cold fusion bremsstrahlung is
> involved in locally (contributing to the excess heat
> itself, and more importantly to the phonon processes therein).
>
>   This is discussed in "Bremsstrahlung - Relative Role in
> Hot and Cold Fusion and its Impact upon Potential Isotopic
> Fuels", M. Swartz, G.Verner, Journal of New Energy, 3, 4,
> 90-101 (1999).
>
>    Hope that helps.
>      Mitchell Swartz

Mitchell, once again you have redefined words to suit your model.  Bremsstrahlung
arises from an energetic electron knocking  another electron out of its stable
orbit.  When the electron returns to its stable orbit, radiation is emitted.
Because most stable orbits involve energies in the X-ray region, most of the
radiation is in the X-ray region.  I imagine if only the most weakly bonded
electrons were involved, radiation in the IR region might be emitted.  If you
propose bremsstrahlung radiation to be only in the IR, you would have to explain
why only weakly bonded electrons were involved.  Unfortunately, I do not have a
copy of your paper.  Can you send me a copy?  I will avoid any further discussion
on this topic until I have read your paper.

Regards,
Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 15:30:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03563;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:29:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:29:08 -0700
Message-ID: <3798ECE9.17D816FD ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:30:09 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Lattice Coupling
References: <37988456.4076D3D8 ix.netcom.com>
	 <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
	 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
	 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
	 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
	 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
	 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
	 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
	 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
	 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
	 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
	 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
	 <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19990723143328.0102e0b0@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZLKOF.0.Yt.ooEct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29261
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:

> >At 09:04 AM 7/23/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> >> ....  Therefore, the nuclear energy has not been focused on a few
> >>electrons.  The only way this local focus can be avoided is for the
> energy be
> >>shared between a large number of electrons.  For this to happen, a
> >>relationship between the electrons must exist which allows the energy to be
> >>transmitted throughout the electron structure.  The relationship is called
> >>coherence. Does this answer your question?
>
>   It may not be correct that electrons alone must necessarily couple the
> energy from the collapsing nucleus to the lattice.   What may occur is
> coupling
> of the energy to the incredibly large phonon pool, as discussed in
> Swartz, M., 1997, "Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids",
> Fusion Technology, 31, 228-236 (March 1997), and in P. Hagelstein,
> M. Swartz, Optics and Quantum Electronics, MIT RLE Progress Report,
> 139: 1, 1-13 (1997).  Peter has an additional article in preprint since then.
>
>    Hope that helps.
>      Mitchell Swartz

Yes, that is true.  Indeed, numerous models have been proposed involving various
ways the electrons, phonons or atoms are involved or combinations thereof.  Each
of these models suffers from some limitation such that none presently explain
the observed effects in an useful way, i.e. none can account for all aspects of
the phenomenon and none can predict the conditions need to produce the effect in
a reproducible way.  I'm sure Mitchell will disagree.

Regards,
Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 16:32:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA23990;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:31:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:31:35 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990723192555.008593d0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:25:55 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Bremsstrahlung
In-Reply-To: <3798EB11.40642A8A ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
 <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990723130157.00fd4180 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"MCkVK1.0.is5.MjFct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29262
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



   At 04:22 PM 7/23/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:

>Mitchell, once again you have redefined words to suit your model.
Bremsstrahlung
>arises from an energetic electron knocking  another electron out of its
stable
>orbit.  When the electron returns to its stable orbit, radiation is emitted.
>Because most stable orbits involve energies in the X-ray region, most of the
>radiation is in the X-ray region.  I imagine if only the most weakly bonded
>electrons were involved, radiation in the IR region might be emitted.  If you
>propose bremsstrahlung radiation to be only in the IR, you would have to
explain
>why only weakly bonded electrons were involved.  Unfortunately, I do not
have a
>copy of your paper.  Can you send me a copy?  I will avoid any further
discussion
>on this topic until I have read your paper.



   Sorry, Ed.  Bremsstrahlung is "breaking radiation". Get a book.
In fact, the word is German for "breaking radiation".  
Bremsstrahlung is described by a theoretical energy spectrum 
and angular distribution, and has an observed power output spectrum 
(confer figure 1 in the paper) as a function of the emitted photon energy.
The output spectral curves are continuous, but also contains characteristic 
material-specific photon peaks (lines) superimposed to which you, Ed, may
referring. These do occur from the displacement of lower-lying electrons.

  "Bremsstrahlung [Breaking Radiation]
  There are two well-known types of bremsstrahlung - outer and inner.  
  Outer bremsstrahlung (output spectrum shown in Figure 1) is the release of 
  ionizing radiant energy from highly energetic moving charged particles upon 
  their deceleration (9,10).  This form of bremsstrahlung was first observed 
  when it produced secondary x-radiation from fast moving electrons hitting 
  thick metallic targets.   Inner bremsstrahlung occurs in b-decay and
results 
  in the emission of photons in energy between zero and the maximum energy 
  available for that transition"
  ["Bremsstrahlung - Relative Role in Hot and Cold Fusion and 
   its Impact upon Potential Isotopic Fuels",
    M. Swartz, G.Verner, Journal of New Energy, 3, 4, 90-101 (1999)]

   Hope that helps.
     Mitchell Swartz


     





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 18:02:19 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA23839;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:01:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:01:22 -0700
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <37991190.C4C ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:06:24 -0700
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: JedRothwell infinite-energy.com
Subject: Great review of Mizuno book translation by Rothwell
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"UqqEO3.0.Pq5.Y1Hct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29263
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

July 23, 1999

Vortex,

I just received the 'Journal of Scientific Exploration',Vol. 13, no. 2
Summer, 1999 publication. Of note to vortex is a warm book review by
Prof. John O'M. Brokris of Jed Rothwell's beefed up English translatioin
of Tadahiko Mizuno's personal experience in 'Nuclear Transmutation: The
Reality of Cold Fusion'.

Brokris summarises the chapters nicely and relates to certain chapters
that boosts his own experiences in the field.

Brokris: "To say that this book is worthwhile would be an
understatement. It is a gem and, historically, will be treasured when
one looks back, in 2020, say, upon the very turbulent birth of a new
field in science. The fluency and relaxed accuracy of the translation
depends upon the happy accident that the translator is a significant
figure in the field -- and married to a Japanese."

Congratulations, Jed.

To take nothing away from yout talented wife, I find your command of the
Japanese language more dedicated than most people fluent in the
language. If there were any external influences to your draft
translation and addendums, they probably were welcomed to 'round out'
the translation treatment and accuracy. 

-AK-

ps: Journal of Scientific Exploration can be found at their website. The
current book review is not yet available there yet.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 18:06:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA25618;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:06:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:06:00 -0700
Message-ID: <007201bed578$e83f31c0$ee441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell 
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:02:04 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"F4yad2.0.CG6.u5Hct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29265
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Using a double Bridgman Seal and a perforated Pd or Ni disk, and a hydraulic
or screw jack, a low temperature  high pressure electrolysis cell can easily
attain kilobar pressures.

Two insulating tubes pressed into a block of steel with a Pd or Ni
(cathode)disk with a bleed-hole penetration, squeezed between the junction
of the tubes and in electrical contact with the steel block, can accept the
Bridgman at each end.

The "soft gasket" of the Bridgman seal can be of Teflon, Neoprene, Nylon,or
such.

The hydraulic ram and base will be at the anode potential (wrt the disk)of
the power supply.

A Pt foil disk at the inner piston-electrolyte interface should do well as
an anode.

I would think that under these conditions the D2 and O2 will go into
solution and recombine in the
D2O-K2CO3 electrolyte?


Regards,     Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 19:05:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA24067;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:04:04 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:04:04 -0700
Message-ID: <000401bed581$042ce0a0$08441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Nov-Dec 94 The New Alchemy
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:46:59 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED544.20C7A5C0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"ORwBd1.0.zt5.JyHct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29266
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_0005_01BED544.20C7A5C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Putting High Pressure Physics to work, and the Bridgman Seal,etc.

 http://www.techreview.com/articles/nov94/hazen.html

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED544.20C7A5C0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Nov-Dec 94 The New Alchemy.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Nov-Dec 94 The New Alchemy.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.techreview.com/articles/nov94/hazen.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.techreview.com/articles/nov94/hazen.html
Modified=404CE8947ED5BE011A

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED544.20C7A5C0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 23 20:23:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA21260;
	Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:17:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:17:13 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990723231133.00862050 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:11:33 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Bremsstrahlung
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990723192555.008593d0 world.std.com>
References: <3798EB11.40642A8A ix.netcom.com>
 <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
 <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990723130157.00fd4180 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"VhtuW2.0.5C5.u0Jct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29267
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:25 PM 7/23/99 -0400, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>
>
>   At 04:22 PM 7/23/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>>Mitchell, once again you have redefined words to suit your model.
>Bremsstrahlung
>>arises from an energetic electron knocking  another electron out of its
>stable
>>orbit.  When the electron returns to its stable orbit, radiation is emitted.
>>Because most stable orbits involve energies in the X-ray region, most of the
>>radiation is in the X-ray region.  I imagine if only the most weakly bonded
>>electrons were involved, radiation in the IR region might be emitted.  If
you
>>propose bremsstrahlung radiation to be only in the IR, you would have to
>explain
>>why only weakly bonded electrons were involved.  Unfortunately, I do not
>have a
>>copy of your paper.  Can you send me a copy?  I will avoid any further
>discussion
>>on this topic until I have read your paper.
>
>
>
>   Sorry, Ed.  Bremsstrahlung is "breaking radiation". Get a book.
>In fact, the word is German for "breaking radiation".  
>Bremsstrahlung is described by a theoretical energy spectrum 
>and angular distribution, and has an observed power output spectrum 
>(confer figure 1 in the paper) as a function of the emitted photon energy.
>The output spectral curves are continuous, but also contains characteristic 
>material-specific photon peaks (lines) superimposed to which you, Ed, may
>referring. These do occur from the displacement of lower-lying electrons.
>
>  "Bremsstrahlung [Breaking Radiation]
>  There are two well-known types of bremsstrahlung - outer and inner.  
>  Outer bremsstrahlung (output spectrum shown in Figure 1) is the release of 
>  ionizing radiant energy from highly energetic moving charged particles
upon 
>  their deceleration (9,10).  This form of bremsstrahlung was first observed 
>  when it produced secondary x-radiation from fast moving electrons hitting 
>  thick metallic targets.   Inner bremsstrahlung occurs in b-decay and
>results in the emission of photons in energy between zero and the maximum
energy 
>  available for that transition"
>  ["Bremsstrahlung - Relative Role in Hot and Cold Fusion and 
>   its Impact upon Potential Isotopic Fuels",
>    M. Swartz, G.Verner, Journal of New Energy, 3, 4, 90-101 (1999)]




  BTW, the books you should get, if you do not believe me, include
Johns,H.E., Cunningham, "The Physics of Radiology", 
Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, 1953, and especially
Heitler, W., The Quantum Theory of Radiation", Oxford Clarendon Press (1954),
and dont forget Adler, R.B., L. J. Chu, R.M.Fano, "Electromagnetic Energy 
Transmission and Radiation", Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY (1966), and 
Jackson, J.D., "Classical Electrodynamics", Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY (1962).
These are the fundamentals for this subject IMO.

  I will be send you a copy of the paper, Ed.

     Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 05:02:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA26661;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 05:01:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 05:01:41 -0700
Message-ID: <003f01bed5d4$81bbbca0$08441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Neutrino-Antineutrino Pair Production and Cold Fusion/Heat
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 05:59:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"iAq7F.0.QW6.aiQct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29268
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Given that QED ALLOWS Neutrino-Antineutrino Pair Production during an
Electron-Proton or Electron-Deuteron Collision, the OU Heat and/or CF (CANR)
can be explained.

A,

1, e + P ---> e + P + neutrino + antineutrino composite entity + heat

2, Composite entity ejects Neutrino with relativistic mass Mr **,and becomes
a Neutron

3, Neutron captured in material, effecting transmutations/heat

4, Neutrino collides with electron cloud and thermalizes dumping energy

B,

1, e + D --->  e + D + neutrino + antineutrino composite entity + heat

2, Composite entity ejects Neutrino   and becomes Two Free Neutrons

3, Neutrons captured in material, effecting transmutaions/heat

** Mr = Mo[(Ek/Eo) + 1] and Kinetic Energy (Ek) diminishes at each collision
effecting heat rise in the material.

Since Eo ~= 0.5 ev (Mo~= 9.1E-37 Kg) velocity ~= 0.87c at Ek = 0.5 ev, and
Radius R = kq^2/Eo, thermalization of the Neutrinos by collisions with
Groups of Electrons, is going to occur in a very short distance.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 06:27:41 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA02617;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:26:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:26:53 -0700
Message-ID: <005601bed5e0$67b8afa0$08441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fw: Neutrino-Antineutrino Pair Production and Cold Fusion/Heat
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 07:25:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"EUmUu1.0.pe.TyRct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29269
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 




>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Frederick Sparber <fjsparber earthlink.net>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l eskimo.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 1999 5:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Neutrino-Antineutrino Pair Production and Cold Fusion/Heat
>
>
> > To: Vortex
> >
> > Given that QED ALLOWS Neutrino-Antineutrino Pair Production during an
> > Electron-Proton or Electron-Deuteron Collision, the OU Heat and/or CF
> (CANR)
> > can be explained.
> >
> > A,
> >
> > 1, e + P ---> e + P + neutrino + antineutrino composite entity + heat
> >
> > 2, Composite entity ejects Neutrino with relativistic mass Mr **,and
> becomes
> > a Neutron
> >
> > 3, Neutron captured in material, effecting transmutations/heat
> >
> > 4, Neutrino collides with electron cloud and thermalizes dumping energy
> >
> > B,
> >
> > 1, e + D --->  e + D + neutrino + antineutrino composite entity + heat
> >
> > 2, Composite entity ejects Neutrino   and becomes Two Free Neutrons
> >
> > 3, Neutrons captured in material, effecting transmutaions/heat
> >
> > ** Mr = Mo[(Ek/Eo) + 1] and Kinetic Energy (Ek) diminishes at each
> collision
> > effecting heat rise in the material.
> >
> > Since Eo ~= 0.5 ev (Mo~= 9.1E-37 Kg) velocity ~= 0.87c at Ek = 0.5 ev,
and
> > Radius R = kq^2/Eo, thermalization of the Neutrinos by collisions with
> > Groups of Electrons, is going to occur in a very short distance.
>
> However, in order to comply with Conservation of  Energy, unlesss it is
> coming from ZPE:
>
> A,
>
> 1, P + e + P --->  P + e + P + neutrino + antineutrino composite entity +
> heat
>
> 2, Composite entity ejects electron and neutrino and becomes D,which
> contains the "extra" electron and the antineutrino
>
> B,
>
> 1, P + e + D ---> P + e + D + neutrino + antineutrino composite entity +
> heat
>
> 2, Composite entity ejects electron and neutrino and becomes He3
>
> C,
>
> 1, D + e + D ---> D + e + D + neutrino + antineutrino composite entity +
> heat
>
> 2, Composite entity ejects electron + neutrino and becomes He4
>
> Or
>
> 3, Composite entity ejects a Neutron + electron + neutrino and becomes He3
>
> IOW, Deuterium "Stripping" CANNOT OCCUR without a Three-Body Collision?
>
> Regards,    Frederick
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 06:43:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA04991;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:38:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:38:08 -0700
Message-ID: <3799C207.711758F5 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 07:39:24 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell
References: <007201bed578$e83f31c0$ee441d26 fjsparber>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"brgZ.0.vD1.07Sct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29270
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> To: Vortex
>
> Using a double Bridgman Seal and a perforated Pd or Ni disk, and a hydraulic
> or screw jack, a low temperature  high pressure electrolysis cell can easily
> attain kilobar pressures.
>
> Two insulating tubes pressed into a block of steel with a Pd or Ni
> (cathode)disk with a bleed-hole penetration, squeezed between the junction
> of the tubes and in electrical contact with the steel block, can accept the
> Bridgman at each end.
>
> The "soft gasket" of the Bridgman seal can be of Teflon, Neoprene, Nylon,or
> such.
>
> The hydraulic ram and base will be at the anode potential (wrt the disk)of
> the power supply.
>
> A Pt foil disk at the inner piston-electrolyte interface should do well as
> an anode.
>
> I would think that under these conditions the D2 and O2 will go into
> solution and recombine in the
> D2O-K2CO3 electrolyte?
>
> Regards,     Frederick

Application of high external pressures has been tried.  McKubre used high gas
pressure and another study used a Bridgman type device.  Neither method
produced useful results.  The problem is that the electrochemical process
creates over 10^6 atm by its self.  Any practical external pressure is trivial
compared to this pressure.  In addition, the role of impurities is also
important which are hard to control when a cell is designed for high pressure
use.  This is a practical problem which you may be able to overcome.  I would
be interested in seeing your detailed design.

Regards,
Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 06:45:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA06574;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:40:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:40:03 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990724093353.00854650 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 09:33:53 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Fraud at Lawrence Berkeley Lab; comment by Park
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"D_08e2.0.ec1.p8Sct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29271
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

 
UPDATE:


July 24, 1999 
Scientist Faked Data Linking Cancer to 
Electromagnetic Fields, Probe Finds 
By WILLIAM J. BROAD 

"A federal probe has found that a scientist at the Lawrence 
Berkeley Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., faked what had 
been considered crucial evidence of a tie
between electromagnetic radiation and cancer." 

   includes comments by Dr. Park

"In misconduct cases, especially ones involving large 
sums of money, the federal government can bring civil 
or criminal charges, and the defendant can be fined and
sentenced to jail. In this case, officials say, they concluded 
that an administrative remedy was sufficient. 
....
Robert L. Park, a professor of physics at the University of 
Maryland who has long questioned the power-cancer link, said 
Liburdy's deception was probably typical for the field, which 
he said seems to attract crusaders out to vilify industry. 
"It's often not deliberate fraud either," Park said of slanted data. 
"People are awfully good at fooling themselves. They're so 
sure they know the answer that they
don't want to confuse people with ugly-looking data." 



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

   Want more on this?  
  click here: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a379947364233.htm  


   Want more on cold fusion?  
      click here:   http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 06:46:18 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA07838;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:45:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:45:22 -0700
Message-ID: <3799C3D2.B23D1370 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 07:47:05 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Bremsstrahlung
References: <3798EB11.40642A8A ix.netcom.com>
	 <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
	 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
	 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
	 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
	 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
	 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
	 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
	 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
	 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
	 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
	 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
	 <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70 world.std.com>
	 <3.0.1.32.19990723130157.00fd4180 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19990723231133.00862050@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"jbN8q1.0.Jw1.oDSct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29272
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:

> At 07:25 PM 7/23/99 -0400, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
> >
> >
> >   At 04:22 PM 7/23/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> >
> >>Mitchell, once again you have redefined words to suit your model.
> >Bremsstrahlung
> >>arises from an energetic electron knocking  another electron out of its
> >stable
> >>orbit.  When the electron returns to its stable orbit, radiation is emitted.
> >>Because most stable orbits involve energies in the X-ray region, most of the
> >>radiation is in the X-ray region.  I imagine if only the most weakly bonded
> >>electrons were involved, radiation in the IR region might be emitted.  If
> you
> >>propose bremsstrahlung radiation to be only in the IR, you would have to
> >explain
> >>why only weakly bonded electrons were involved.  Unfortunately, I do not
> >have a
> >>copy of your paper.  Can you send me a copy?  I will avoid any further
> >discussion
> >>on this topic until I have read your paper.
> >
> >
> >
> >   Sorry, Ed.  Bremsstrahlung is "breaking radiation". Get a book.
> >In fact, the word is German for "breaking radiation".
> >Bremsstrahlung is described by a theoretical energy spectrum
> >and angular distribution, and has an observed power output spectrum
> >(confer figure 1 in the paper) as a function of the emitted photon energy.
> >The output spectral curves are continuous, but also contains characteristic
> >material-specific photon peaks (lines) superimposed to which you, Ed, may
> >referring. These do occur from the displacement of lower-lying electrons.
> >
> >  "Bremsstrahlung [Breaking Radiation]
> >  There are two well-known types of bremsstrahlung - outer and inner.
> >  Outer bremsstrahlung (output spectrum shown in Figure 1) is the release of
> >  ionizing radiant energy from highly energetic moving charged particles
> upon
> >  their deceleration (9,10).  This form of bremsstrahlung was first observed
> >  when it produced secondary x-radiation from fast moving electrons hitting
> >  thick metallic targets.   Inner bremsstrahlung occurs in b-decay and
> >results in the emission of photons in energy between zero and the maximum
> energy
> >  available for that transition"
> >  ["Bremsstrahlung - Relative Role in Hot and Cold Fusion and
> >   its Impact upon Potential Isotopic Fuels",
> >    M. Swartz, G.Verner, Journal of New Energy, 3, 4, 90-101 (1999)]
>
>   BTW, the books you should get, if you do not believe me, include
> Johns,H.E., Cunningham, "The Physics of Radiology",
> Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, 1953, and especially
> Heitler, W., The Quantum Theory of Radiation", Oxford Clarendon Press (1954),
> and dont forget Adler, R.B., L. J. Chu, R.M.Fano, "Electromagnetic Energy
> Transmission and Radiation", Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY (1966), and
> Jackson, J.D., "Classical Electrodynamics", Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY (1962).
> These are the fundamentals for this subject IMO.
>
>   I will be send you a copy of the paper, Ed.
>
>      Mitchell Swartz

Mitchell, I know very well what bremsstrahlung is.  I have a Ph.D. in
radiochemistry and have studied this phenomenon in the past.  Your additional
information is correct and worth knowing.  However, it misses the point I was
trying to make.  I would like to know whether you are able to admit that another
person may have a valid point and answer this point directly without implying
that the other person is wrong or ignorant?  If you can not do this, we are not
going to get anywhere in this discussion either.

I look forward to reading your paper.

Regards,
Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 06:58:31 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA10020;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:57:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:57:23 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990724095138.00867ec0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 09:51:38 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Dieter Britz <db@kemi.aau.dk>
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell
In-Reply-To: <3799C207.711758F5 ix.netcom.com>
References: <007201bed578$e83f31c0$ee441d26 fjsparber>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"YN7pj2.0.US2.2PSct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29273
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:39 AM 7/24/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>Application of high external pressures has been tried.  McKubre used high gas
>pressure and another study used a Bridgman type device.  Neither method
>produced useful results.  The problem is that the electrochemical process
>creates over 10^6 atm by its self.  Any practical external pressure is
trivial
>compared to this pressure.  In addition, the role of impurities is also
>important which are hard to control when a cell is designed for high pressure
>use.  This is a practical problem which you may be able to overcome.  I would
>be interested in seeing your detailed design.
>
>Regards,
>Ed Storms


  Nice idea by Frederick Sparber.

  First, given optimal operating points, the systems may have been
simply driven in a "less than optimal" part of the input
power phase space.  That is why OOP analysis is so impt.

  Second, the '10^6 atm' is hard to accept and may refer to 
the calculated fugacity rather than an actual pressure which
will be large (leading to why corrosion is so impt) but not
that large.  I am sending this to Dieter for his comments
(hopefully) as well.  He will correct us both perhaps.

     Mitchell Swartz




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 06:59:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA10425;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:58:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:58:36 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990724095255.00865c00 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 09:52:55 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Bremsstrahlung
In-Reply-To: <3799C3D2.B23D1370 ix.netcom.com>
References: <3798EB11.40642A8A ix.netcom.com>
 <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
 <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990723130157.00fd4180 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990723231133.00862050 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"j702-1.0.kY2.BQSct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29274
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:47 AM 7/24/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:

>> >  "Bremsstrahlung [Breaking Radiation]
>> >  There are two well-known types of bremsstrahlung - outer and inner.
>> >  Outer bremsstrahlung (output spectrum shown in Figure 1) is the
release of
>> >  ionizing radiant energy from highly energetic moving charged particles
>> upon
>> >  their deceleration (9,10).  This form of bremsstrahlung was first
observed
>> >  when it produced secondary x-radiation from fast moving electrons
hitting
>> >  thick metallic targets.   Inner bremsstrahlung occurs in b-decay and
>> >results in the emission of photons in energy between zero and the maximum
>> energy
>> >  available for that transition"
>> >  ["Bremsstrahlung - Relative Role in Hot and Cold Fusion and
>> >   its Impact upon Potential Isotopic Fuels",
>> >    M. Swartz, G.Verner, Journal of New Energy, 3, 4, 90-101 (1999)]
>>
>>   BTW, the books you should get, if you do not believe me, include
>> Johns,H.E., Cunningham, "The Physics of Radiology",
>> Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, 1953, and especially
>> Heitler, W., The Quantum Theory of Radiation", Oxford Clarendon Press
(1954),
>> and dont forget Adler, R.B., L. J. Chu, R.M.Fano, "Electromagnetic Energy
>> Transmission and Radiation", Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY (1966), and
>> Jackson, J.D., "Classical Electrodynamics", Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY (1962).
>> These are the fundamentals for this subject IMO.
>>
>>   I will send you a copy of the paper, Ed.
>>
>>      Mitchell Swartz
>
>Mitchell, I know very well what bremsstrahlung is.  I have a Ph.D. in
>radiochemistry and have studied this phenomenon in the past.  Your additional
>information is correct and worth knowing.  However, it misses the point I was
>trying to make.  I would like to know whether you are able to admit that
another
>person may have a valid point and answer this point directly without implying
>that the other person is wrong or ignorant?  If you can not do this, we
are not
>going to get anywhere in this discussion either.
>
>I look forward to reading your paper.
>
>Regards,
>Ed Storms



    If you know, then you should have used the accurate definition.
And the same goes for voltage.

    I dont understand your projections, Edmund, given that it was
YOU who have attempted to trash our ideas on bremsstrahlung and optimal
operating points (OOP) - when in fact they BOTH appear to have some
valid and valuble points. 

   BTW, the article is in the J. New Energy, which is a great
issue. I recomment all on vortex subscribe to it too if they can.

   Best wishes.
    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 07:55:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA23703;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 07:55:07 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 07:55:07 -0700
Message-ID: <3799D410.721A50FE ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:56:27 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Bremsstrahlung
References: <3798EB11.40642A8A ix.netcom.com>
	 <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
	 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
	 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
	 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
	 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
	 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
	 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
	 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
	 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
	 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
	 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
	 <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70 world.std.com>
	 <3.0.1.32.19990723130157.00fd4180 world.std.com>
	 <3.0.1.32.19990723231133.00862050 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19990724095255.00865c00@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_ndSA3.0.Ho5.AFTct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29275
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:

> At 07:47 AM 7/24/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> >> >  "Bremsstrahlung [Breaking Radiation]
> >> >  There are two well-known types of bremsstrahlung - outer and inner.
> >> >  Outer bremsstrahlung (output spectrum shown in Figure 1) is the
> release of
> >> >  ionizing radiant energy from highly energetic moving charged particles
> >> upon
> >> >  their deceleration (9,10).  This form of bremsstrahlung was first
> observed
> >> >  when it produced secondary x-radiation from fast moving electrons
> hitting
> >> >  thick metallic targets.   Inner bremsstrahlung occurs in b-decay and
> >> >results in the emission of photons in energy between zero and the maximum
> >> energy
> >> >  available for that transition"
> >> >  ["Bremsstrahlung - Relative Role in Hot and Cold Fusion and
> >> >   its Impact upon Potential Isotopic Fuels",
> >> >    M. Swartz, G.Verner, Journal of New Energy, 3, 4, 90-101 (1999)]
> >>
> >>   BTW, the books you should get, if you do not believe me, include
> >> Johns,H.E., Cunningham, "The Physics of Radiology",
> >> Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, 1953, and especially
> >> Heitler, W., The Quantum Theory of Radiation", Oxford Clarendon Press
> (1954),
> >> and dont forget Adler, R.B., L. J. Chu, R.M.Fano, "Electromagnetic Energy
> >> Transmission and Radiation", Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY (1966), and
> >> Jackson, J.D., "Classical Electrodynamics", Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY (1962).
> >> These are the fundamentals for this subject IMO.
> >>
> >>   I will send you a copy of the paper, Ed.
> >>
> >>      Mitchell Swartz
> >
> >Mitchell, I know very well what bremsstrahlung is.  I have a Ph.D. in
> >radiochemistry and have studied this phenomenon in the past.  Your additional
> >information is correct and worth knowing.  However, it misses the point I was
> >trying to make.  I would like to know whether you are able to admit that
> another
> >person may have a valid point and answer this point directly without implying
> >that the other person is wrong or ignorant?  If you can not do this, we
> are not
> >going to get anywhere in this discussion either.
> >
> >I look forward to reading your paper.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Ed Storms
>
>     If you know, then you should have used the accurate definition.
> And the same goes for voltage.
>
>     I dont understand your projections, Edmund, given that it was
> YOU who have attempted to trash our ideas on bremsstrahlung and optimal
> operating points (OOP) - when in fact they BOTH appear to have some
> valid and valuble points.
>
>    BTW, the article is in the J. New Energy, which is a great
> issue. I recomment all on vortex subscribe to it too if they can.
>
>    Best wishes.
>     Mitchell Swartz

I assume from your response that the answer to my question is no, you can not
give a simple answer without criticizing the other person.

I have not trashed your ideas.  I do not agree with your approach in some areas,
I do not understand some of your ideas and have sought information, and I have
admitted that some of your ideas are good and useful. This latter admission would
be more common if I did not have to wade through so much conflict. I have tried
to obtain from you a defense of your approach as is common in science.
Unfortunately,  your method of response has prevented a meaningful discussion.
Rather than discuss the main issues, you nitpick over trivial and irrelevant
points and never address my questions directly.  Even when I agree with you, you
keep on insisting that I do not agree or that I do not understand, for example
your comments above.  As for the Bremsstrahlung subject, I do not yet understand
your approach and will not until I have read your paper.  I only raised the issue
that you need to justify why IR radiation is emitted rather than the expected
X-rays as observed during "normal" Bremsstrahlung.  This observation in no way
trashed your approach.  The fact that you view my efforts this way makes any
discussion pointless.

Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 08:05:56 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA27514;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:05:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:05:18 -0700
Message-ID: <3799D67F.4D8110E2 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 09:06:52 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell
References: <007201bed578$e83f31c0$ee441d26 fjsparber> <3.0.1.32.19990724095138.00867ec0@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"XZFFx1.0.qj6.kOTct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29276
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:

> At 07:39 AM 7/24/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> >
> >Application of high external pressures has been tried.  McKubre used high gas
> >pressure and another study used a Bridgman type device.  Neither method
> >produced useful results.  The problem is that the electrochemical process
> >creates over 10^6 atm by its self.  Any practical external pressure is
> trivial
> >compared to this pressure.  In addition, the role of impurities is also
> >important which are hard to control when a cell is designed for high pressure
> >use.  This is a practical problem which you may be able to overcome.  I would
> >be interested in seeing your detailed design.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Ed Storms
>
>   Nice idea by Frederick Sparber.
>
>   First, given optimal operating points, the systems may have been
> simply driven in a "less than optimal" part of the input
> power phase space.  That is why OOP analysis is so impt.
>
>   Second, the '10^6 atm' is hard to accept and may refer to
> the calculated fugacity rather than an actual pressure which
> will be large (leading to why corrosion is so impt) but not
> that large.  I am sending this to Dieter for his comments
> (hopefully) as well.  He will correct us both perhaps.
>
>      Mitchell Swartz

OK, Mitchell, if your OOP is useful, please tell me exactly under what gas
pressure, applied current and cell voltage I would find the best production of
excess energy?

The 10^6 atm is an approximation and refers to the applied external pressure one
would expect to be required to achieve a composition in excess of PdD1.5.   The
issue is not whether this is an exact value, but whether the pressure provided by
electrolysis would completely overwhelm any practical applied pressure.

Regards,
Ed Storms






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 08:15:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA28927;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:09:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:09:53 -0700
Message-ID: <008001bed5ee$cc3c7700$08441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Neutrino-Antineutrino Pair Production and Cold Fusion/Heat
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 09:07:39 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bu6dL2.0.v37.0TTct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29277
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Between distractions by a hyperactive 7 year-old that has his own ideas on
how the morning should be spent. :-)

A,

1,  P + e + Heavy Nucleus ---> forms neutrino-antineutrino pair in a
composite entity

2, Composite entity "Fissions" into stable fragments + electron + neutrino

B,

1, D + e + Heavy Nucleus ---> forms neutrino-antineutrino pair in a
composite entity

2, Composite entity "Fissions" into stable fragments + electron + neutrino

These are exoergic reactions that allow the externally undetectable (except
by heating effects) neutrino to
generate the OU heat.

This conjecture, along with dozens of others, means little, unless, a means
for maximizing the yield is accomplished.

Regards,      Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 08:21:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA00132;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:20:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:20:54 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990724111514.0085b530 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:15:14 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Cold fusion and Bremsstrahlung
In-Reply-To: <3799D410.721A50FE ix.netcom.com>
References: <3798EB11.40642A8A ix.netcom.com>
 <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907120847560.8999-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
 <378A23A7.24D2FECF ix.netcom.com>
 <378ecefd.260898352 mail-hub>
 <3790E060.7796D4DD ix.netcom.com>
 <379125ac.610868574 mail-hub>
 <3791DD3A.1820BFC8 ix.netcom.com>
 <37948236.2777839 mail-hub>
 <37934EFA.627ACCFB ix.netcom.com>
 <379bdffc.92344680 mail-hub>
 <3794D322.72BD32F8 ix.netcom.com>
 <3798bebd.6934776 mail-hub>
 <3.0.1.32.19990722231203.00855a70 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990723130157.00fd4180 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990723231133.00862050 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990724095255.00865c00 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"93lcg3.0.v1.MdTct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29278
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:56 AM 7/24/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>     If you know, then you should have used the accurate definition.
>> And the same goes for voltage.
>>     I dont understand your projections, Edmund, given that it was
>> YOU who have attempted to trash our ideas on bremsstrahlung and optimal
>> operating points (OOP) - when in fact they BOTH appear to have some
>> valid and valuble points.
>>    BTW, the article is in the J. New Energy, which is a great
>> issue. I recomment all on vortex subscribe to it too if they can.
>>    Best wishes.
>>     Mitchell Swartz
>
>"I assume from your response that the answer to my question is no, you can
not
>give a simple answer without criticizing the other person."


   Ed,

    I told you I will not get involved with your ad hominems, so
this hopefully be my last post on the subject, and anyone who
wants to see what the issue is can simply click on the URL below.

     A bremsstrahlung spectrum is available by
mouse click here:  

     http://world.std.com/~mica/jetbrem1.html

    It can be seen from the figure that characteristic
radiation such as you described is a VERY VERY small portion of
the bremsstahlung spectrum.  Therefore your, Ed's, definition
was flawed and nonstandard.  Electromagnetic radiation,
transmission and other engineering aspects are as important
as corrosion engineering and radiation safety IMO.


  Ed, perhaps it is the electronic medium but unfortunately 
you dont appear to stick rigorous to the science.
If you feel detailed scientific and engineering corrections
of bad definitions and flawed nonscientific notions are "critical"
as you state above, then you may be correct, but given where 
PC-science is heading, denotations seem like a good idea.


>I have not trashed your ideas. 

  That is clear.  It says "attempted to trash".  ;-)X


  Best wishes.
   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 08:39:28 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA05587;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:38:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:38:31 -0700
Message-ID: <008c01bed5f2$cc1ff180$08441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <007201bed578$e83f31c0$ee441d26 fjsparber> <3.0.1.32.19990724095138.00867ec0@world.std.com> <3799D67F.4D8110E2@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 09:36:37 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"7pRQ53.0.DN1.ttTct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29279
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 1999 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell

Ed Storms wrote:
>
> The 10^6 atm is an approximation and refers to the applied external
pressure one
> would expect to be required to achieve a composition in excess of PdD1.5.
The
> issue is not whether this is an exact value, but whether the pressure
provided by
> electrolysis would completely overwhelm any practical applied pressure.

The intent of high pressure electrolysis wasn't aimed at pushing the Pd/D
ratio up,
but, rather to increase the pressure at the liquid-gas-Pd cathode interface,
which
should help compensate for differences between Pd samples.

This might also aid in the production of an oxide film, that you suggested
was necessary:

1, 2 H2O + 2 e-  ---> 2 H- +  2 OH

2, 2 OH + Pd ---> PDO + H2O?

Other than that, if the O2 from the anode dissolves in the electrolye under
the high pressure
travels to the cathode it can form the oxide layer.

Regards,    Frederick

>
> Regards,
> Ed Storms
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 10:07:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA29437;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:06:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:06:36 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990724130052.0085a910 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 13:00:52 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell
In-Reply-To: <3799D67F.4D8110E2 ix.netcom.com>
References: <007201bed578$e83f31c0$ee441d26 fjsparber>
 <3.0.1.32.19990724095138.00867ec0 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"SVOSR.0.tB7.SAVct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29280
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



   At 09:06 AM 7/24/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>   Nice idea by Frederick Sparber.
>>
>>   First, given optimal operating points, the systems may have been
>> simply driven in a "less than optimal" part of the input
>> power phase space.  That is why OOP analysis is so impt.
>>
>>   Second, the '10^6 atm' is hard to accept and may refer to
>> the calculated fugacity rather than an actual pressure which
>> will be large (leading to why corrosion is so impt) but not
>> that large.  I am sending this to Dieter for his comments
>> (hopefully) as well.  He will correct us both perhaps.
>>
>>      Mitchell Swartz
>
>OK, Mitchell, if your OOP is useful, please tell me exactly under what gas
>pressure, applied current and cell voltage I would find the best
production of
>excess energy?



   Dear Edmund:

    Some of those issues involved in this require
detailed engineering, and some are proprietary. 
If you are interested in a specific system, please
call either me, Dr. Frank [FrankAl uhpcc.medserv.net],
or contact JET Energy Technology 
  http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html by mail.


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


>The 10^6 atm is an approximation and refers to the applied
>external pressure one would expect to be required to achieve
>a composition in excess of PdD1.5.   The issue is not
>whether this is an exact value, but whether the pressure
>provided by electrolysis would completely overwhelm any
>practical applied pressure.


  Since you bring it up again (*), the 10^6 atm 
IMHO might be off by as much as ~two orders of magnitude,
so perhaps you mean calculated and approximated fugacity.
I humbly await Dieter's comments, corrections, and
hopefully definitive answer on any of this for now.

  As importantly, IMO, Frederick's idea had merit. 

    Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 10:29:57 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA05562;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:29:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:29:22 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: BaFe Magnet Source
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 13:35:09 -0400
Message-ID: <19990724173509281.AAC252 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"SeSWc1.0.qM1.oVVct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29281
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ola!

I was away from the computer for a couple weeks, and then had some heat
related computer problems after that.  I found this in my mailbox when I
returned, and finally am able to post it.  I'm not sure who asked for the
info or which group that it came from, so I'm posting it to both the FreeNRG
Group and the Vortex Group on the off chance that it came from there.

______________________________________

Hello Mr. M.T. Huffman,

I ran just accidentally in your website and found it very interesting.
So, I came across somebody was looking for barium ferrite magnets.
That person called a number in Holland and he didn't understand the
Dutch recorded message, so I tried that number too.
Dutch is my motherlanguage, so it was easy for me to find out that their
number has changed.
The company name is Bakker Magnetics, old # 0031-499-474550
new #   0031-40-2678678,   fax 0031-40-2678899

A lady told me they do sell barium ferrite magnets.....

If I can help in any way, please send an e-mail to me.

Sincerely,

Han vriezen,
Holland.
e-mail:   vriezen wxs.nl

_________________________________

Knuke



Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 12:35:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA13719;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:33:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:33:52 -0700
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:37:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Cosmic synchrotron ...Crab Nebula ... I have made observation DIFFERENT from A P Community. (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990724153754.4465C-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"r_oTf2.0.CM3.WKXct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29282
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:37:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Cosmic synchrotron ...Crab Nebula ... I have made observation DIFFERENT from A P Community. (fwd)


	Dear Folks,
	
	I would like to talk about astronomical stuff.

	In Feynman's Lectures 34 - 4 he writes about Cosmic Synchrotron
Radiation.  There is figure... Fig. 34-8  The Crab Nebula.  There are two
photos.... taken with blue filter and polarizing filter together.
	The photos look different in 
		[a] electric vector Vertical 

			and  in

		[b] electric vector horizontal.
	
.......The text goes on to say, among other things...
	1] the star stuff is emitting... but transparent
	2] the two views are different because the light is polarized
	" ...The reason, presumably, is that there is a local magnetic
field, and many very energetic electrons are going around in that magnetic
field."
	3]  You should read page preceeding and the the rest of the
text.... but, paraphrased... we have:
	NOTE: .....this is discussion of the astro photos of the Crab
Nebula ... 
		a] in the central region "... is a mysterious fuzzy patch
of light in a continuous distribution of frequency.." as opposed to the
nominal red of excited nitrogen. 
		b] "...We can see stars through it, so it is
transparent, but it is emitted light." 
		c] the discussion, in general concludes this is
synchrotron radiation ....and then the discussion moves to:
	Section 34-5 Bremsstrahlung

	What is the point?
	
	I have made observation and a bench experiment. 
		 Yes  "... the effects of the stars, right on your bench!"

	The same observation of different appearence in the vertical VS
horizontal polarization can be made from Reflected light as well as from
emitted light.  This is due to the fact that once "launched into space" 
the observation's source.... the polarized light in this case, looks the
same, emitted or reflected.

	The point:  The same observation ... yields more than one
explanation of events.  
	This discussion is not about two different
theories.  In this discussion theory is irrelevent.  The discussion is to
point out that a given observation, in this case of the Crab Nebula, and
recorded on film, can be the result at least two different series of
events .... the observation of reflected or emitted light.... looks about
the same. 
	But we are not out there 900 or so years ago to see what happened.

	One can, however, make an experiment to show that, at least, two
different conclusions may be reached, and are both possibly accurate.
	
	SO: 
		1-a)..... we have one photograph set, showing vertical VS
horizontal polarizing filter pictures...
		2-a) ....we have two true observations .... the light is
reflected .... the light is emitted.

	Conclusion:  If I were doing something here on earth, and I had
the resources, I would do some more experiments to try to find the truth.

	Theories are great.... but I prefer the truth of experimental
verification.

				John

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 15:14:23 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA09936;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:08:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:08:11 -0700
Message-ID: <379A39A7.992CC3A1 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 16:09:50 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell
References: <007201bed578$e83f31c0$ee441d26 fjsparber> <3.0.1.32.19990724095138.00867ec0@world.std.com> <3799D67F.4D8110E2@ix.netcom.com> <008c01bed5f2$cc1ff180$08441d26@fjsparber>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"jYOvO1.0.AR2.BbZct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29283
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
> To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 1999 8:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell
>
> Ed Storms wrote:
> >
> > The 10^6 atm is an approximation and refers to the applied external
> pressure one
> > would expect to be required to achieve a composition in excess of PdD1.5.
> The
> > issue is not whether this is an exact value, but whether the pressure
> provided by
> > electrolysis would completely overwhelm any practical applied pressure.
>
> The intent of high pressure electrolysis wasn't aimed at pushing the Pd/D
> ratio up,
> but, rather to increase the pressure at the liquid-gas-Pd cathode interface,
> which
> should help compensate for differences between Pd samples.

The difference between Pd samples which is found to matter is the difference in
their ability to achieve the necessary high composition.  So, we are back to
the composition of the surface region.  The application of pressure does not
seem to have much effect.

>
> This might also aid in the production of an oxide film, that you suggested
> was necessary:

The oxide layer is not necessary in the Pd-D2O system.  This system requires a
very high concentration of D in PdD.  My comment about an oxide refers to a
system, such as W-H2O, where a hydride is unlikely to form.  Without the
presence of a suitable chemical environment, the CANR effect, in my opinion, is
unlikely to occur.  The problem then is to identify where this environment is
likely to be located.  The LENT-1 uses high voltage discharge through a liquid,
similar to the Mizuno case, but here the nuclear reaction occurs in microsparks
which pass through an insulating ZrO2 layer.  I was suggesting a similar
situation might occur in the Mizuno case.  The problem is to find where such an
insulating layer might form, not an easy task.

Regards, Ed Storms


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 24 20:14:41 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA19467;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:13:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:13:37 -0700
Message-ID: <379A8149.B371C3DB ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:15:26 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell
References: <007201bed578$e83f31c0$ee441d26 fjsparber> <3.0.1.32.19990724095138.00867ec0@world.std.com> <3799D67F.4D8110E2@ix.netcom.com> <008c01bed5f2$cc1ff180$08441d26@fjsparber> <379A39A7.992CC3A1@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"jm4of.0.0m4.W3ect" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29284
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

For those who are interested, the pressure of D2 in
equilibrium with various compositions of deuterium in PdDx
can be obtained using the following equation

LN P(D2, atm) = 12.8 + 2*LN (x/(1-x)) - 1/T * (11490 -
10830*x)

which is from the review by Santandrea and Behrens, "A
review of the thermodynamic and phase relationships in the
palladium-hydrogen, palladium-deuterium and
palladium-tritium systems",High Temp. Mater. Processes, 7
(1986) 149.

When solved at 300K, this equation gives a pressure of

Composition      Pressure (atm)
0.95                                2.4*10^6
0.96                                5.5810^6
0.97                                1.4*10^7
0.98                                4.7*10^7
0.99                                2.7*10^8

Because the phase boundary of beta-PdD when it converts to
the next higher phase is unknown, but in this composition
range, the pressure of PdD1.5 will be as I posted
previously, i.e. near 10^6 atm.  The nuclear-active phase is
expected to be at a higher composition, hence a higher
pressure.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 25 02:57:42 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA05708;
	Sun, 25 Jul 1999 02:56:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 02:56:39 -0700
Message-ID: <00d701bed68c$32374100$08441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 03:54:07 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"gPcg63.0.6P1.Nzjct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29285
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Since Ed Storms insists that the CF activation of Pd-D2O electrolysis
requires PdD1.5 and
lattice pressures of about 10^6 Atm, it would seem prudent to go to a mix of
D2, and Kr, or
Xe, at a few kilobars or less with some Potassium vapor thrown in for good
measure.

Using the Bridgman seal, kilobar pressures for a discharge device shouldn't
be a problem.

In the mid-30s Guy Suits ran discharge experiments in Hydrogen, Nitrogen,
and Argon
at these pressures, and couldn't get a stable discharge of H2  above about
20 Atm, but
he never published anything on a H2-Kr, or H2-Xe mix.

With a (potassium promoted) Kr-D or Xe-D gas discharge, the Kr/D or Xe/D
ratios can
easily be set for optimum yield.

Krypton is about 12 times as abundant as Xenon in the Earth's atmosphere and
costs about
the same as Xenon ($30.00/liter), but I tend to feel weak and disoriented
when there are
large concentrations nearby, especially if it has crystalized.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick









From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 25 06:38:43 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA02008;
	Sun, 25 Jul 1999 06:37:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 06:37:57 -0700
Message-ID: <379B138C.AD92595D ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 07:39:29 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell
References: <00d701bed68c$32374100$08441d26 fjsparber>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z8k5I2.0.IV.rCnct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29286
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> Since Ed Storms insists that the CF activation of Pd-D2O electrolysis
> requires PdD1.5 and
> lattice pressures of about 10^6 Atm, it would seem prudent to go to a mix of
> D2, and Kr, or
> Xe, at a few kilobars or less with some Potassium vapor thrown in for good
> measure.

Present experience indicates that all CANR occurs within a solid environment.
Indeed, only this type of environment offers the possibility of an explanation,
according to many efforts at an explanation Why do you think the process would
occur in a high pressure gas discharge?

Regards,
Ed Storms




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 25 09:58:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA12353;
	Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:56:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:56:45 -0700
Message-ID: <000601bed6c6$e47823e0$1c441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <00d701bed68c$32374100$08441d26 fjsparber> <379B138C.AD92595D@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:54:43 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"BSzsg2.0.x03.D7qct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29287
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell

Ed Storms wrote:


> Frederick Sparber wrote:
>
> > Since Ed Storms insists that the CF activation of Pd-D2O electrolysis
> > requires PdD1.5 and
> > lattice pressures of about 10^6 Atm, it would seem prudent to go to a
mix of
> > D2, and Kr, or
> > Xe, at a few kilobars or less with some Potassium vapor thrown in for
good
> > measure.
>
> Present experience indicates that all CANR occurs within a solid
environment.
> Indeed, only this type of environment offers the possibility of an
explanation,
> according to many efforts at an explanation Why do you think the process
would
> occur in a high pressure gas discharge?

Well.... first of all, there are 6.8E22 Pd atoms/cm^3,so if you want the
equivalent of
1.5 Deuterons/Pd atom, and as you claim, get 14.5 Million Psi Pressure in a
material that
has a yield strength of  less than 100,000 psi, 1.27 kilobar of D2 gas
pressure added
to 1.27 kilobar of  Xenon  or Krypton gas pressure, will give you a
SELF-HEALING
 "Kr-D2" or "Xe-D2"  Gas Lattice at 2.54 kilobars  (about 37,000 psi,as
opposed to 14.5 million psi) .

This "Gas Lattice" doped with Potassium,with an electrical discharge going
through it,
Might do as well  as the unpredictable and virtually unattainable PdD1.5
material.

Add the advantage of being able to vary the pressure over a range of 12
orders of
magnitude and the Hydrogen-Deuterium/Heavy-Atom Ratio by orders of magnitude
also,
Might give a decided OU advantage over Pd.

Gas discharges are in the Charter of  Radiochemists too.  :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
> Regards,
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 25 11:26:28 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA02797;
	Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:18:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:18:32 -0700
Message-ID: <379B554C.6DFA7DC1 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:20:05 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell
References: <00d701bed68c$32374100$08441d26 fjsparber> <379B138C.AD92595D@ix.netcom.com> <000601bed6c6$e47823e0$1c441d26@fjsparber>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VRGTe1.0.Zh.uJrct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29288
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
> To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 6:39 AM
> Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell
>
> Ed Storms wrote:
>
> > Frederick Sparber wrote:
> >
> > > Since Ed Storms insists that the CF activation of Pd-D2O electrolysis
> > > requires PdD1.5 and
> > > lattice pressures of about 10^6 Atm, it would seem prudent to go to a
> mix of
> > > D2, and Kr, or
> > > Xe, at a few kilobars or less with some Potassium vapor thrown in for
> good
> > > measure.
> >
> > Present experience indicates that all CANR occurs within a solid
> environment.
> > Indeed, only this type of environment offers the possibility of an
> explanation,
> > according to many efforts at an explanation Why do you think the process
> would
> > occur in a high pressure gas discharge?
>
> Well.... first of all, there are 6.8E22 Pd atoms/cm^3,so if you want the
> equivalent of
> 1.5 Deuterons/Pd atom, and as you claim, get 14.5 Million Psi Pressure in a
> material

There is no pressure within the material.  The pressure is only the external
gas which is in equilibrium with the deuterium ions located within the
structure.  In other words, this high pressure is necessary to keep the ions in
the structure from forming D2.

> that
> has a yield strength of  less than 100,000 psi, 1.27 kilobar of D2 gas
> pressure added
> to 1.27 kilobar of  Xenon  or Krypton gas pressure, will give you a
> SELF-HEALING

No self healing is necessary.  The lattice does not come apart because of
internal pressure.  The lattice comes apart during electrolysis because of
unequal expansion caused by an inhomogenous composition and  expansion
experienced by the lattice caused by the entry of D ions.

>
>  "Kr-D2" or "Xe-D2"  Gas Lattice at 2.54 kilobars  (about 37,000 psi,as
> opposed to 14.5 million psi) .
>
> This "Gas Lattice" doped with Potassium,with an electrical discharge going
> through it,
> Might do as well  as the unpredictable and virtually unattainable PdD1.5
> material.

Maybe, but why?  There are thousands of combinations of materials and
conditions a person can propose.  Why would this combination warrant the
trouble and expense of its study?

>
> Add the advantage of being able to vary the pressure over a range of 12
> orders of
> magnitude and the Hydrogen-Deuterium/Heavy-Atom Ratio by orders of magnitude
> also,
> Might give a decided OU advantage over Pd.
>
> Gas discharges are in the Charter of  Radiochemists too.  :-)

The solid offers the possibility of coherent behavior and resonance phenomenon
which a random structure as present in a gas can not achieve.  You see, the
structure as well as the composition plays a role in current thinking.  If you
see a new way to produce the necessary conditions, please share it.

Regards,
Ed storms

>
>
> Regards,    Frederick
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ed Storms
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 25 12:00:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA19667;
	Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:58:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:58:57 -0700
Message-ID: <001f01bed6d7$f2a89600$1c441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <00d701bed68c$32374100$08441d26 fjsparber> <379B138C.AD92595D@ix.netcom.com> <000601bed6c6$e47823e0$1c441d26@fjsparber> <379B554C.6DFA7DC1@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:56:57 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"ftX2l1.0.8p4.mvrct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29289
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell

Ed Storms wrote:

[snip]
>
> The solid offers the possibility of coherent behavior and resonance
phenomenon
> which a random structure as present in a gas can not achieve.  You see,
the
> structure as well as the composition plays a role in current thinking.  If
you
> see a new way to produce the necessary conditions, please share it.

The solid (Pd-D) has chewed up over a decade (thousands of man-years of
experimentation)
 and probably Hundreds of $Million. Don't you think it might be worth the
price of
the 200 atm lecture bottles of D2, Kr, and Xe, and a Bridgman Seal piston,
to compress
the 200 atm Kr-D2 or Xe-D2 gas mix to 2 kilobars in a simple high pressure
cell, and
run a discharge throughit to see if it goes OU?

I don't think a "predictable structure" in the Pd means squat, but, rather,
the stochastic
interactions of the Pd Nucleus and it's 46 electrons with the H2 or D2 in
this
 "solid state plasma" are where one wants to look. A Krypton Nucleus with 36
electrons,
and a Xenon Nucleus with 54 electrons, brackets the 46 electron Pd Nucleus,
and any
or all may require the presence of Potassium.

Potassium Iodide (KI) instead of  K2CO3 as a K source?

Regards,    Frederick
>
> Regards,
> Ed storms
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 25 13:40:58 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA10698;
	Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:40:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:40:03 -0700
Message-ID: <379B767A.46128ACC ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:41:36 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell
References: <00d701bed68c$32374100$08441d26 fjsparber> <379B138C.AD92595D@ix.netcom.com> <000601bed6c6$e47823e0$1c441d26@fjsparber> <379B554C.6DFA7DC1@ix.netcom.com> <001f01bed6d7$f2a89600$1c441d26@fjsparber>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"fxS391.0.4d2.ZOtct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29290
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
> To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 11:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell
>
> Ed Storms wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > The solid offers the possibility of coherent behavior and resonance
> phenomenon
> > which a random structure as present in a gas can not achieve.  You see,
> the
> > structure as well as the composition plays a role in current thinking.  If
> you
> > see a new way to produce the necessary conditions, please share it.
>
> The solid (Pd-D) has chewed up over a decade (thousands of man-years of
> experimentation)
>  and probably Hundreds of $Million. Don't you think it might be worth the
> price of
> the 200 atm lecture bottles of D2, Kr, and Xe, and a Bridgman Seal piston,
> to compress
> the 200 atm Kr-D2 or Xe-D2 gas mix to 2 kilobars in a simple high pressure
> cell, and
> run a discharge throughit to see if it goes OU?

You are welcome to try your idea, but if you expect other people to use their
time and money you need to come up with a better reason than this.

>
> I don't think a "predictable structure" in the Pd means squat, but, rather,
> the stochastic
> interactions of the Pd Nucleus and it's 46 electrons with the H2 or D2 in
> this
>  "solid state plasma" are where one wants to look. A Krypton Nucleus with 36
> electrons,
> and a Xenon Nucleus with 54 electrons, brackets the 46 electron Pd Nucleus,
> and any
> or all may require the presence of Potassium.
>
> Potassium Iodide (KI) instead of  K2CO3 as a K source?

And what is this belief based on? Why does a "predictable structure" in the Pd
mean squat?  Have you studied the various proposed explanations and thought
about how nuclei interact?  Why is potassium needed?

Regards,
Ed Storms



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 25 14:57:54 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA31771;
	Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:56:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:56:03 -0700
Message-ID: <002d01bed6f0$b0e5d520$1c441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <00d701bed68c$32374100$08441d26 fjsparber> <379B138C.AD92595D@ix.netcom.com> <000601bed6c6$e47823e0$1c441d26@fjsparber> <379B554C.6DFA7DC1@ix.netcom.com> <001f01bed6d7$f2a89600$1c441d26@fjsparber> <379B767A.46128ACC@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 15:54:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"1qvEN1.0.Lm7.pVuct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29291
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell


> >
> > Ed Storms wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > The solid offers the possibility of coherent behavior and resonance
> > phenomenon
> > > which a random structure as present in a gas can not achieve.  You
see,
> > the
> > > structure as well as the composition plays a role in current thinking.
If
> > you
> > > see a new way to produce the necessary conditions, please share it.
> >
> > The solid (Pd-D) has chewed up over a decade (thousands of man-years of
> > experimentation)
> >  and probably Hundreds of $Million. Don't you think it might be worth
the
> > price of
> > the 200 atm lecture bottles of D2, Kr, and Xe, and a Bridgman Seal
piston,
> > to compress
> > the 200 atm Kr-D2 or Xe-D2 gas mix to 2 kilobars in a simple high
pressure
> > cell, and
> > run a discharge throughit to see if it goes OU?
>
> You are welcome to try your idea, but if you expect other people to use
their
> time and money you need to come up with a better reason than this.

No thanks, Ed. I put my money and 20 years of effort with Hoyt Pattison,
PNL, and NREL (SERI) into Biomass (Ag wastes into motorfuels and power
generation).

Look up the share of world energy production from biomass that has gone
online and into synfuels over the past decade.


With 12,000 Quads/Day Solar Insolation and One Quad/Day World Energy
Production and Use, I'll let the brave-ones do the CF/OU experiments.  :-)
>
> >
> > I don't think a "predictable structure" in the Pd means squat, but,
rather,
> > the stochastic
> > interactions of the Pd Nucleus and it's 46 electrons with the H2 or D2
in
> > this
> >  "solid state plasma" are where one wants to look. A Krypton Nucleus
with 36
> > electrons,
> > and a Xenon Nucleus with 54 electrons, brackets the 46 electron Pd
Nucleus,
> > and any
> > or all may require the presence of Potassium.
> >
> > Potassium Iodide (KI) instead of  K2CO3 as a K source?
>
> And what is this belief based on? Why does a "predictable structure" in
the Pd
> mean squat?  Have you studied the various proposed explanations and
thought
> about how nuclei interact?  Why is potassium needed?

If  a "predictable structure" in Pd does work, it will only be a very
expensive "one-shot" device anyhow.

Oh  yes, and I read Glasstone and Loveberg's Hot Fusion book too.

Mills raised over $10 million with claims that Potassium "catalyzed" his
aqueous  K2CO3-Nickel OU experiments, so why not increase your odds for
success?   :-)

Regards,     Frederick
>
> Regards,
> Ed Storms
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 25 15:42:22 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA11681;
	Sun, 25 Jul 1999 15:41:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 15:41:26 -0700
Message-ID: <379B92FD.D4971EAD ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 16:43:13 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell
References: <00d701bed68c$32374100$08441d26 fjsparber> <379B138C.AD92595D@ix.netcom.com> <000601bed6c6$e47823e0$1c441d26@fjsparber> <379B554C.6DFA7DC1@ix.netcom.com> <001f01bed6d7$f2a89600$1c441d26@fjsparber> <379B767A.46128ACC@ix.netcom.com> <002d01bed6f
0$b0e5d520$1c441d26 fjsparber>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"DV07b2.0.Is2.LAvct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29292
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> If  a "predictable structure" in Pd does work, it will only be a very
> expensive "one-shot" device anyhow.

So far, there is no evidence that the life time is too short to be practical,
although this is a possibility. In any case, the electrodes can be recycled
with almost total recovery of the expensive materials.

> Oh  yes, and I read Glasstone and Loveberg's Hot Fusion book too.
>
> Mills raised over $10 million with claims that Potassium "catalyzed" his
> aqueous  K2CO3-Nickel OU experiments, so why not increase your odds fo

>
> success?   :-)

Mills uses potassium as a catalyst to allow the electron to go into a lower
orbit.  No nuclear reaction is expected or claimed.  On the other hand, the
Pd-D2O system produces helium, a nuclear product. No evidence shows that
potassium helps this reaction.

Regards,
Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 25 16:44:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA24089;
	Sun, 25 Jul 1999 16:42:07 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 16:42:07 -0700
Message-ID: <004701bed6ff$2d8a5e80$1c441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <00d701bed68c$32374100$08441d26 fjsparber> <379B138C.AD92595D@ix.netcom.com> <000601bed6c6$e47823e0$1c441d26@fjsparber> <379B554C.6DFA7DC1@ix.netcom.com> <001f01bed6d7$f2a89600$1c441d26@fjsparber> <379B767A.46128ACC@ix.netcom.com> <002d01bed6f
0$b0e5d520$1c441d26 fjsparber> <379B92FD.D4971EAD@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:36:40 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"DCoSa.0.Ju5.F3wct" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29293
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Gas Cell

Ed Storms wrote:

>
> Mills uses potassium as a catalyst to allow the electron to go into a
lower
> orbit.  No nuclear reaction is expected or claimed.  On the other hand,
the
> Pd-D2O system produces helium, a nuclear product. No evidence shows that
> potassium helps this reaction.

So...why not use potassium in Krypton or Xenon, mixed with H or D, where the
electron/deuteron ratio is 37:1 or 55:1 respectively, and with the odds
increased
over a 1:1 electron/deuteron ratio as in low yield Hot Fusion
experiments,accept
the QED tenet that a low energy "resonant" electron-deuteron collision can
create
a Neutrino-Antineutrino Pair,  which allows P-e-P, P-e-D, D-e-D,  D-e-Pd,
etc.,
 reactions which is a rational explanation of Mills' "Hydrino".

IOW, the creation of the neutrino-antineutrino pair in conjunction with the
electron-proton
or electron-deuteron creates a neutral particle which can then combine
with,or Fission
the Pd into helium and other isotopes concurrently ejecting the neutrino
which explains the "gamma-less" OU heat?

Mills used Nickel which IS NOT energetically favorable for such Fissioning
reactions,
and he got no helium,but there could be copper or zinc isotopes formed that
he isn't aware of.

I figured using Kr or Xe with protons or deuterons at pressures orders of
magnitude higher and
a lot cooler than CTR devices would be a good way to see if this conjecture
has any merit.

Regards,    Frederick

>
> Regards,
> Ed Storms
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 01:48:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA03383;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 01:46:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 01:46:16 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990726044023.00863e40 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 04:40:23 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Dieter Britz <db@kemi.aau.dk>
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"hBtEg.0.jq.N12dt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29294
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


 Dieter Britz has kindly augmented the following discussion
(below), here for reference.

========== following for reference ========================
At 07:39 AM 7/24/99 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>Application of high external pressures has been tried.  McKubre used high gas
>pressure and another study used a Bridgman type device.  Neither method
>produced useful results.  The problem is that the electrochemical process
>creates over 10^6 atm by its self.  Any practical external pressure is
trivial
>compared to this pressure.  In addition, the role of impurities is also
>important which are hard to control when a cell is designed for high pressure
>use.  This is a practical problem which you may be able to overcome.  I would
>be interested in seeing your detailed design.
>
>Regards,
>Ed Storms

>   Nice idea by Frederick Sparber.
> 
>   First, given optimal operating points, the systems may have been
> simply driven in a "less than optimal" part of the input
> power phase space.  That is why OOP analysis is so impt.
> 
>   Second, the '10^6 atm' is hard to accept and may refer to 
> the calculated fugacity rather than an actual pressure which
> will be large (leading to why corrosion is so impt) but not
> that large.  I am sending this to Dieter for his comments
> (hopefully) as well.  He will correct us both perhaps.


  ========= Comment by Dieter =======================


Minimally. Higher pressures have been tried, e.g. I extract from the
biblio,

Silvera IF, Moshary E;   Phys. Rev. B42 (1990) 9143.
"Deuterated palladium at temperatures from 4.3 to 400K and pressures to 105
kbar: search for cold fusion".
** The authors used their diamond anvil to achieve these pressures. Detectors
for neutrons, gamma radiation and heat were mounted around the press. From the
volume compression, a loading of up to 1.34 was inferred. Several days at the
various temperatures and pressures evinced no evidence for cold fusion.

Also, in Pd at least, Subramanyam & Bockris wrote in about 1974 that
the most you get is 10^4 atm from hydrogen ingress, but this figure
might vary with the metal. They did note that this real pressure
corresponds to a much higher fugacity. Make what you will of that.
I.e., is it real pressure, or fugacity, that operates? If you facilely
go for real pressure, keep in mind that activity (which is what
fugacity is) is a sort of effective, or operational, concentration.
E.g. in highly concentrated salt solution, a weak acid can behave like
a strong one. To say that the real concentration of hydrogen ions is
only...  is then to miss the point. Bockris himself now considers the
fugacity to be the important figure. I leave these thoughts with you.

-- Dieter Britz alias db kemi.aau.dk;  http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db
*** Echelon, bomb, sneakers, GRU: swamp the snoops with trivia! ***



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 04:44:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA26060;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 04:43:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 04:43:33 -0700
Message-ID: <006301bed764$4cc605a0$1c441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 05:41:33 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"QK8UD.0.6N6.bd4dt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29295
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell and Ed

This is what I envision:

A  thick block or length (1.0 to 2.0 inches) of 6061-T6 of  aluminum
round-stock (3.0 inches diameter) with a one inch diameter hole, internally
hard anodized to act as an insulated tube, with Bridgman seal "pistons"
(steel) with a Pt foil disk anchored to the piston face with a nylon screw
at one end, and a Pd foil disk anchored in the same manner to the face of a
Bridgman seal piston at the other end, should serve as a Double-Ended High
Pressure Electrolysis Cell.

Preliminary pressurization to a kilobar, with the D2O- K2CO3 electrolyte
with the pistons restrained, can be accomplished with a $12.00,
manually-operated Greasegun (feeding the cavity through a capillary tube)
available from any auto-parts store.

If higher pressures are desired, the pistons can be forced together with
hydraulic or screw jacks, with an insulating bloc to prevent shorting out
the power supply.

Fugacity and Pd loading aside, the liquid-gas-solid interface created at
both electrodes will now be at the hydrostatic pressure as opposed to the
highly variable local atmospheric pressure.

An electolysis cell worked like gangbusters in San Diego (100 feet avove sea
level ?) at least for one-shot, didn't it, Jed?  :-)

Hook up the Power Supply and Calorimeter, and see what you get.

Regards,     Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 08:03:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA26476;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:02:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:02:16 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 22:01:41 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: electron's location
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"XhAP51.0.bT6.uX7dt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29296
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I would like to clarify a bit about the QM interpretation of the electron's
location in the H atom.  The mathematical statements can be misleading if
you don't realize exactly what's being said.

QM produces a probability distribution for the electron in the ground state
of the H atom which is peaked at the nucleus.  This means, according to QM,
the electron will be found more often at the nucleus than at any other
SINGLE location. Note the emphasis on "single".

However, this is sometimes not a very useful view of the electron's
location.  If instead we ask the question, "What is the most probable
DISTANCE between the electron and the nucleus", QM says that it will be
found most often at about the Bohr radius.  This is because there are
zillions of locations around the nucleus that are all at the Bohr radius.
Mathematically, when we use the centrally-peaked probability distribution
to calculate the most probable DISTANCE, we must multiply it by 4*pi*r^2*dr
and that is what changes the distribution to one that is peaked at about
the Bohr radius (see "Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure", G. Herzberg).

I'm starting to see the H atom electron like a jittery comet, zooming in
close to the nucleus on each orbit but spending most of its time out at the
aphelion....and somehow changing its orbit each time so that a uniform
spherical distribution is created.  Interestingly, Robin's
bounce-off-the-nucleus model (which I would never have thought of) fits
this picture pretty well.



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 Jul 26 08:42:43 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04892;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:36:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:36:11 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3beb0a3865d [207.8.127.138]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990723171036.00c98920 spectre.mitre.org>
References: <v04011700b3be64abc4a1 [207.8.127.138]>
 <3.0.5.32.19990723142509.00c918b0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:34:37 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: More Excerpts
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id IAA04839
Resent-Message-ID: <"fkrCd.0.MC1.g18dt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29297
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 03:11 PM 7/23/1999 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>>   Second, it can form a covalent bond with one of the surrounding Pd
>>>atoms, slip through as bump on the Pd, then break the bond to appear in
>>>another void.  My guess is that this is the main source of the high
>mobility.
>>
>>***{No. The covalent radius of Pd is 1.376 Å (measured) while the covalent
>>radius of D is .742 Å, whereas the entry hole is a mere .206 Å. --MJ}***
>
>    Irrelevant.  The PdD would occupy one node in the lattice with the
>deuterium "bump" extending into one of the holes, so it is the shape of the
>PdD molecule that is important.

***{I repeat: the "deuterium bump" is *way* too large to fit in the holes,
and that is not a matter which you can overcome with a mere wave of the
hand, or, what is the same thing, by labeling it as "irrelevant".
Practically speaking, "palladium deuteride" is just a name chemists use to
describe a palladium lattice that has been loaded with deuterium. The two
elements have little or no true chemical affinity for one another, and it
is simply not reasonable to expect the deuterium to magically shrink from a
radius of .742 Å to .206 Å in response to an attraction which is virtually
nonexistent. Thus if you want to demonstrate that it does so, you are going
to have to supply a specific argument to that effect. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>***{No. The nuclei lose their integrity, so that the component parts are
>>intermingled, and individual atoms no longer have discrete identities.
>
>   No, the bosons lose their identity.  But in this case the deuterium
>nuclei,or deuterium atoms that are the bosons, not the individual particles
>which are fermions.

***{However you slice the apple, the weight remains the same: you cannot
reasonably claim, as you did, that "the location of every atom is spread
over the entire volume of the condensate." That which has "lost its
identity" ceases to exist, and, in the process, ceases to have a location.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>***{No. The principle of continuity states that "no thing may come into
>>existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing." It is one of the
>>necessary supports to the structure of human knowledge...
>
>    Anyone who understands quantum mechanics (both of us ;-) will tell you
>that the fundamental basis of quantum mechanics is that particles appear
>and disappear all the time.

***{I know. That's why if the proponents of QM were to admit the existence
of the unstable transitional states, their house-of-cards would collapse
straightaway: the denial of the intermediate states is the foundation on
which "quantum mechanics" was built. Mechanics, after all, is the study of
motion, and if all motion is continuous, then (1) a particle cannot get
from A to B without passing through every point on some spatial pathway
from A to B, and (2) a particle cannot go from spin "up" to spin "down"
without its axis of rotation occupying, however, briefly, every possible
orientation on some pathway from the first position to the second. Since
the continuous nature of motion was implicitly recognized by classical
mechanics and is explicitly denied by "quantum mechanics," it follows that
if discontinuous motion can be proven to be impossible, then "quantum
mechanics" collapses, and the new form of mechanics that rises in its
place, by whatever name, will be built upon and consistent with the
classical mechanical tradition.

Is such a proof possible? *Of course it is.* Science cannot interpret its
data in ways that violate the foundation principles upon which all human
knowledge, including science, is based, and "quantum mechanics" does
precisely that. You see, the entire structure of human knowledge rests upon
the presumed validity of the principle of continuity, which states simply
that no entity can come into existence out of nothing or vanish into
nothing. If, for example, it is possible for things to leap into existence
out of nothing, then your sensations may do so. This means the sensations
you think come from your arms, legs, body, internal organs, or from objects
in the external world may be simply leaping into existence out of
nothing--which means: the external world, as well as your arms, legs, body,
internal organs, etc., may not exist. Even the sensations which you
interpret as being from your memories of past events may be leaping into
existence out of nothing. Hence you may not have memories or a past. And
when you think you feel an emotion, those sensations may *also* be leaping
into existence out of nothing. Likewise, when you think you are engaging in
an act of "will"--e.g., sending out signals from your mind down your arm,
telling your hand to make a fist--those signals may be simply be vanishing
into nothing. Worse: you can't even argue that your sensations *probably*
are valid, because the concept of probability rests on the presumption that
things will behave in the future as they behaved in the past, and, since
your memories of the "past" may have leaped into existence out of nothing a
mere instant ago, even that seeming patch of firm ground is revealed to be
a mirage. For all you know, everything you believe may be just a chance run
of apparent regularity in an overlying maelstrom of buzzing randomness.
Result: if you assume that things can leap into existence out of nothing
and vanish into nothing, the entire structure of what you thought you knew
dissolves into chaos. You lose the external world, the past, the future,
your body, your memories, your emotions, your will, and even your mind.
Bottom line: everything you think you know about yourself or the world,
including science and "quantum mechanics," rests on the presumed validity
of the principle of continuity. Result: all statements that explicitly or
implicitly deny continuity (e.g., any of the various "quantum mechanical"
claims that motion in the microcosm is discontinuous) are self-refuting.

The implication of the above is straightforward: the only form of mechanics
that can possibly be valid is *continuum mechanics*--i.e., the form of
mechanics that results when the various claims of classical mechanics and
"quantum mechanics" have been reinterpreted in ways that do not clash with
the principle of continuity--and students of physics need to recognize up
front that any teacher or professor who says otherwise is peddling
intellectual poison and cannot be trusted.

--Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

>
>                                        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 Jul 26 08:43:32 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA07901;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:41:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:41:51 -0700
Message-ID: <007d01bed785$95097600$1c441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com>
Subject: Re: electron's location
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:39:42 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"SMKRZ.0.Jx1._68dt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29298
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>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 1999 8:01 PM
Subject: electron's location

Scott wrote:


> I would like to clarify a bit about the QM interpretation of the
electron's
> location in the H atom.  The mathematical statements can be misleading if
> you don't realize exactly what's being said.
>
> QM produces a probability distribution for the electron in the ground
state
> of the H atom which is peaked at the nucleus.  This means, according to
QM,
> the electron will be found more often at the nucleus than at any other
> SINGLE location. Note the emphasis on "single".
>
> However, this is sometimes not a very useful view of the electron's
> location.  If instead we ask the question, "What is the most probable
> DISTANCE between the electron and the nucleus", QM says that it will be
> found most often at about the Bohr radius.  This is because there are
> zillions of locations around the nucleus that are all at the Bohr radius.
> Mathematically, when we use the centrally-peaked probability distribution
> to calculate the most probable DISTANCE, we must multiply it by
4*pi*r^2*dr
> and that is what changes the distribution to one that is peaked at about
> the Bohr radius (see "Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure", G. Herzberg).
>
> I'm starting to see the H atom electron like a jittery comet, zooming in
> close to the nucleus on each orbit but spending most of its time out at
the
> aphelion....and somehow changing its orbit each time so that a uniform
> spherical distribution is created.  Interestingly, Robin's
> bounce-off-the-nucleus model (which I would never have thought of) fits
> this picture pretty well.

Well stated Scott, but, the most probable ground-state velocity,
 v = c/137 = 2.187E6 meters/sec  or, n*h/2(pi)r*m.

So, how can you make it lose energy to slow down to fit Mills' "fractional
orbit" hypothesis?  :-)

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 08:44:39 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA08863;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:43:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:43:19 -0700
Message-ID: <379C8287.F9865532 mccir3.crmc2.univ-mrs.fr>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:45:11 +0200
From: Jean-Paul Biberian <biberian mccir3.crmc2.univ-mrs.fr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: electron's location
References: <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7AUwr.0.PA2.N88dt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29299
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott,

I have a similar model in my mind regarding the trajectory of the electron
around the nucleus. As you know elliptical orbits are true if the two particles
are point particles, or have a spherical symmetry. It is very likely that this
is not true for both particles even in the simplest hydrogen atom. The proton,
is composed of three quarks that are dissimilar, therefore we can imagine a
proton as having either a CO2 linear structure of an H2O type structure, since
two of the quarks have same charge +2/3, and one has charge -1/3. If the
electron has a very elliptical orbit that brings it close to the nucleus, then
as it approaches the proton, its orbit will be randomly modified by the local
attraction field. This will have the effect of transfering the electron into
another orbit, even make it change planes. As you mentionned, the electron will
pass at the center every time, but its speed being maximum, it will not be
there very often. However, possibly, the apogee of the orbit will be close to
the Bohr orbit, since this is where it will be the slowest.

An amelioration of the model would be to say that as the nucleus vibrates, for
example in the case of the proton, vibrations between quarks, or deuterium
vibrations between proton and neutron, sometimes as the electron approaches the
nucleus, it will gain a little energy, if the trajectory of the electron is in
phase with the vibrations, or will loose energy if it is in antiphase.
Therefore, this will also alter the orbit, and will produce a change in the
apogee of the electron, giving an uncertainty in the position of the electron
in the Bohr orbit.

I don't know of any simulations of this kind of multi-body system, but with
powerful computers, I am sure it can be done. However thi is not so simple,
since relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

Jean-Paul Biberian

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 09:10:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA18788;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:07:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:07:21 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990726120557.0079ab40 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:05:57 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Great review of Mizuno book translation by Rothwell
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"OiG_g1.0.Ub4.uU8dt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29300
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Akira Kawasaki writes:

	[Quoting Bockris] . . . The fluency and relaxed accuracy of the
	translation depends upon the happy accident that the translator
	is a significant figure in the field -- and married to a
	Japanese."

	To take nothing away from your talented wife . . .

Well, she did help, but the greatest assistance came from Mizuno himself. I
should also thank Bob Flower, who contributed to Chapter 7, and Soo Seddon,
who helped everywhere. It was, as Bockris says, a "relaxed" translation.
For that we can thank the Internet, which is a tremendous tool for writers,
editors and translators. You can pepper the author with enquires and
remarks like: "We could render this X or Y; suppose we make it X. Any
objection?" A translator should not take liberties with the text, but it is
permissible when the author agrees. I did not change it much. I adding
details that Mizuno provided by e-mail, material from the original
manuscript that the Japanese publisher cut, and some text by Bob Flower.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 09:21:53 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA22462;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:15:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:15:27 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990726121606.007a3100 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:16:06 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Great review of Mizuno book translation by Rothwell
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990726120557.0079ab40 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"v9gNJ2.0.uU5.Vc8dt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29301
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wrote:

>editors and translators. You can pepper the author with enquires and

Should be: enquiries or inquiries, darn it! "Enquiry" sounds like a British
variant. A variant, as we know, is a form "Deviating from a standard,
usually by only a slight difference." (American Heritage) And for no
reason! That's the British for you.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 09:51:01 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA04331;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:49:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:49:50 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:48:11 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: electron's location
Resent-Message-ID: <"pXK5W.0.W31.j69dt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29302
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>I would like to clarify a bit about the QM interpretation of the electron's
>location in the H atom.  The mathematical statements can be misleading if
>you don't realize exactly what's being said.
>
>QM produces a probability distribution for the electron in the ground state
>of the H atom which is peaked at the nucleus.  This means, according to QM,
>the electron will be found more often at the nucleus than at any other
>SINGLE location. Note the emphasis on "single".
>
>However, this is sometimes not a very useful view of the electron's
>location.  If instead we ask the question, "What is the most probable
>DISTANCE between the electron and the nucleus", QM says that it will be
>found most often at about the Bohr radius.  This is because there are
>zillions of locations around the nucleus that are all at the Bohr radius.
>Mathematically, when we use the centrally-peaked probability distribution
>to calculate the most probable DISTANCE, we must multiply it by 4*pi*r^2*dr
>and that is what changes the distribution to one that is peaked at about
>the Bohr radius (see "Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure", G. Herzberg).
>
>I'm starting to see the H atom electron like a jittery comet, zooming in
>close to the nucleus on each orbit but spending most of its time out at the
>aphelion....and somehow changing its orbit each time so that a uniform
>spherical distribution is created.  Interestingly, Robin's
>bounce-off-the-nucleus model (which I would never have thought of) fits
>this picture pretty well.

***{Robin's picture is not "quantum mechanical," and yours isn't, either.
Both of you are assuming that the electron's motion is *continuous*--which
means: you are assuming that when it moves from A to B, it sequentially
occupies every intervening position on some pathway from A to B. Robin was
very explicit in his acknowledgment that his model was classical in nature.
You, however, simultaneously invoke "quantum mechanics" while referring to
the electron as "zooming in," as behaving like a "jittery comet," etc. It
is as if you see no incompatibility between "quantum mechanics" and the
notion that motion in the microcosm is continuous. If this is correct, then
what criterion do you use to distinguish between classical mechanics and
quantum mechanics? Also, how would you explain discrete spectral lines and
the photoelectric effect, using Robin's model? --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>
>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 Jul 26 12:11:54 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA32345;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:07:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:07:56 -0700
Message-ID: <379CB23F.DDD3D76B ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:08:54 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: electron's location
References: <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"sFZFc2.0.Jv7.C8Bdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29303
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:

> I would like to clarify a bit about the QM interpretation of the electron's
> location in the H atom.  The mathematical statements can be misleading if
> you don't realize exactly what's being said.
>
> QM produces a probability distribution for the electron in the ground state
> of the H atom which is peaked at the nucleus.  This means, according to QM,
> the electron will be found more often at the nucleus than at any other
> SINGLE location. Note the emphasis on "single".
>
> However, this is sometimes not a very useful view of the electron's
> location.  If instead we ask the question, "What is the most probable
> DISTANCE between the electron and the nucleus", QM says that it will be
> found most often at about the Bohr radius.  This is because there are
> zillions of locations around the nucleus that are all at the Bohr radius.
> Mathematically, when we use the centrally-peaked probability distribution
> to calculate the most probable DISTANCE, we must multiply it by 4*pi*r^2*dr
> and that is what changes the distribution to one that is peaked at about
> the Bohr radius (see "Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure", G. Herzberg).
>
> I'm starting to see the H atom electron like a jittery comet, zooming in
> close to the nucleus on each orbit but spending most of its time out at the
> aphelion....and somehow changing its orbit each time so that a uniform
> spherical distribution is created.  Interestingly, Robin's
> bounce-off-the-nucleus model (which I would never have thought of) fits
> this picture pretty well.
>

I would just like to add a few comments to Scott's correct description of the
electron state.
QM does not propose that the particle or electron disappears or becomes
discontinues when it goes from one energy state to another, as Mitchell Jones
assumes.  All QM says is that the particle can not be seen, detected, or
otherwise observed when it is the transition state. Therefore, its continuous
existence is a matter of faith.  The fact that the particle appears to
disappear from our view is no more reason to reject QM than would a magician's
trick make us reject normal reality.

A huge literature exists which describes, models, and explains how hydrogen
interacts with metals to form a compound.  This interaction occurs in the same
manner as does all compound formation, i.e. with electron transfer.  This
transfer changes the apparent size of the atom without causing any stress
within the material.  In other words, any simple text on solid state theory or
material science would provide all the evidence needed to destroy the "hole is
too small" theory. Surely reading text books is still considered acceptable
and a source of evidence.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 12:28:21 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06615;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:26:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:26:44 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990727022626.00f3bbb8 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:26:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: electron's location
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"rvxpW1.0.Dd1.pPBdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29304
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Thanks to Jean-Paul for an interesting view of the proton which could
explain the changing orbits.

>***{Robin's picture is not "quantum mechanical," and yours isn't, either.
>Both of you are assuming that the electron's motion is *continuous*--

First, I'd like to say something about "continuous".  AFAIK, QM doesn't
forbid  continuous motion of the electron from one state to the other...in
fact, it doesn't prescribe exactly HOW the transition occurs.  It just says
that the electron can't have a potential energy w.r.t the nucleus that is
in-between the energies of two adjacent states and that, when it makes a
transition between the two states, it radiates away the energy difference
as one photon.  Maybe it does swoop from one state to the other in 10^-20
seconds and the rapid motion is just what is needed to cause it to radiate
the necessary photon.

>You, however, simultaneously invoke "quantum mechanics" while referring to
>the electron as "zooming in," as behaving like a "jittery comet," etc.

All my direct experiences are classical, I can't help appealing to such
analogies.

>how would you explain discrete spectral lines....

Easy, QM predicts them.  In fact, they are perhaps the greatest evidence
that QM is correct...at least at the atomic scale.

How would you explain them without using QM?




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 Jul 26 12:56:15 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA17395;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:54:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:54:33 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: swindon.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:54:25 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi swindon
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: re: John Collins
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990723083706.20660B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990726205239.13218B-100000 swindon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"_lndE1.0.jF4.vpBdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29305
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hello John,
I've been busy. Sorry, this is not quite worth going into at this stage
until I see a full clear demonstartion. Tony has retracted his claim but
there is something useful still there. Tony's enthusiasm is catching and I
can lose judgement sometimes. I'm a bit busy so more on this device later.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 13:38:22 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA06750;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <00b801bed7ae$467b0020$1c441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Explanation of the high-temperature relaxation anomaly in a metal-hydrogen syst
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:31:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01BED773.8C4B2B60"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"-a8lf.0.Cf1.sPCdt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29306
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_0001_01BED773.8C4B2B60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Explanation of the high-temperature relaxation anomaly in a =
metal-hydrogen system
Explanation of the high-temperature relaxation anomaly in a =
metal-hydrogen system
David B. Baker , Mark S. Conradi , R. E. Norberg , R. G. Barnes , D. R. =
Torgeson=20

Physical Review B: Condensed Matter Vol. 49, No. 17, 11773-11782 (01 May =
1994).



-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
          The source of high-temperature anomalous spin relaxation in a =
specific metal-hydrogen system has been investigated. Proton =
spin-lattice relaxation rates R1 from 290 to 1025 K were compared for =
Nb0. 5V0.5H0.36 and its 90% deuterided counterpart, Nb0.5V0. =
5(H0.1D0.9)0. 36. A substantial reduction in the anomalous proton =
relaxation rate R1 is observed for the deuterided metal. Thus, the =
proton relaxation rates R1 are determined by proton-proton (or proton- =
deuteron) dipolar interactions in the anomalous regime, suggesting that =
H2 (or HD) molecules are the source of the relaxation. Relaxation =
studies with overpressures of argon and xenon gas indicate that the =
anomalous relaxation of protons in the metal occurs via fast exchange =
with rapidly relaxing gas phase H2 molecules. A small fraction of =
protons in the gas phase, consistent with the H2 vapor pressure of the =
metal hydride, is adequate to explain our results. A model, based on =
experiment, is presented along with measurements of the proton R1 for =
pure H2 and HD gas and gaseous mixtures of H2 with Ar and H2 with D2. =
The model quantitatively accounts for the isotope and rare-gas effects =
as well as the temperature dependence. Thus, in Nb0.5V0.5H 0.36, the =
relaxation anomaly is proven not to be an intrinsic effect.=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------


------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BED773.8C4B2B60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Explanation of the high-temperature relaxation =
anomaly in a metal-hydrogen system</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://cmp.ameslab.gov/cmp/Abstracts/barnes_2.html>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><!--authorlist|DavidBBaker|MarkSConradi|RENorberg|RGBarn=
es|DRTorgeson|-->
<H2>Explanation of the high-temperature relaxation anomaly in a =
metal-hydrogen=20
system</H2><B>David B. Baker , Mark S. Conradi , R. E. Norberg , R. G. =
Barnes ,=20
D. R. Torgeson </B><BR>
<P><EM>Physical Review B: Condensed Matter</EM> Vol. 49, No. 17, =
11773-11782 (01=20
May 1994).<BR>
<HR>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The source of high-temperature =
anomalous spin=20
relaxation in a specific metal-hydrogen system has been investigated. =
Proton=20
spin-lattice relaxation rates R<SUB>1</SUB> from 290 to 1025 K were =
compared for=20
Nb<SUB>0. 5</SUB>V<SUB>0.5</SUB>H<SUB>0.36</SUB> and its 90% deuterided=20
counterpart, Nb<SUB>0.5</SUB>V<SUB>0.=20
5</SUB>(H<SUB>0.1</SUB>D<SUB>0.9</SUB>)<SUB>0. 36</SUB>. A substantial =
reduction=20
in the anomalous proton relaxation rate R<SUB>1</SUB> is observed for =
the=20
deuterided metal. Thus, the proton relaxation rates R<SUB>1</SUB> are =
determined=20
by proton-proton (or proton- deuteron) dipolar interactions in the =
anomalous=20
regime, suggesting that H<SUB>2</SUB> (or HD) molecules are the source =
of the=20
relaxation. Relaxation studies with overpressures of argon and xenon gas =

indicate that the anomalous relaxation of protons in the metal occurs =
via fast=20
exchange with rapidly relaxing gas phase H<SUB>2</SUB> molecules. A =
small=20
fraction of protons in the gas phase, consistent with the H<SUB>2</SUB> =
vapor=20
pressure of the metal hydride, is adequate to explain our results. A =
model,=20
based on experiment, is presented along with measurements of the proton=20
R<SUB>1</SUB> for pure H<SUB>2</SUB> and HD gas and gaseous mixtures of=20
H<SUB>2</SUB> with Ar and H<SUB>2</SUB> with D<SUB>2</SUB>. The model=20
quantitatively accounts for the isotope and rare-gas effects as well as =
the=20
temperature dependence. Thus, in Nb<SUB>0.5</SUB>V<SUB>0.5</SUB>H<SUB>=20
0.36</SUB>, the relaxation anomaly is proven not to be an intrinsic =
effect.=20
<HR>
<!--=0A=
<A HREF=3D../Papers/xxxxxx.ps>=0A=
Download a PostScript version of this paper?</A>=0A=
--><!--datenumber|199405|--></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BED773.8C4B2B60--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 13:51:19 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03219;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:49:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:49:21 -0700
Message-ID: <00d001bed7b0$745e36e0$1c441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: CNN - NASA launches 'Star Trek' spacecraft of the future - October 24, 1998
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:47:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01BED775.B9ECC540"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"ifaEK2.0.3o.EdCdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29307
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_0011_01BED775.B9ECC540
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

There goes 180 pounds of Xenon.  :-)

This thing (ion drive) is suppoed to reach the asteroid this month.

 http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9810/24/deep.space.launch/

------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BED775.B9ECC540
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="CNN - NASA launches 'Star Trek' spacecraft of the future - October 24, 1998.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="CNN - NASA launches 'Star Trek' spacecraft of the future - October 24, 1998.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9810/24/deep.space.launch/

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9810/24/deep.space.launch/
Modified=8037BB1CB0D7BE01D4

------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BED775.B9ECC540--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 13:58:29 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA06757;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:57:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:57:03 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b3c269943560 [207.8.127.102]>
In-Reply-To: <379CB23F.DDD3D76B ix.netcom.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 15:54:34 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: electron's location
Resent-Message-ID: <"E7BuR.0.Pf1.TkCdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29308
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Scott Little wrote:
>
>> I would like to clarify a bit about the QM interpretation of the electron's
>> location in the H atom.  The mathematical statements can be misleading if
>> you don't realize exactly what's being said.
>>
>> QM produces a probability distribution for the electron in the ground state
>> of the H atom which is peaked at the nucleus.  This means, according to QM,
>> the electron will be found more often at the nucleus than at any other
>> SINGLE location. Note the emphasis on "single".
>>
>> However, this is sometimes not a very useful view of the electron's
>> location.  If instead we ask the question, "What is the most probable
>> DISTANCE between the electron and the nucleus", QM says that it will be
>> found most often at about the Bohr radius.  This is because there are
>> zillions of locations around the nucleus that are all at the Bohr radius.
>> Mathematically, when we use the centrally-peaked probability distribution
>> to calculate the most probable DISTANCE, we must multiply it by 4*pi*r^2*dr
>> and that is what changes the distribution to one that is peaked at about
>> the Bohr radius (see "Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure", G. Herzberg).
>>
>> I'm starting to see the H atom electron like a jittery comet, zooming in
>> close to the nucleus on each orbit but spending most of its time out at the
>> aphelion....and somehow changing its orbit each time so that a uniform
>> spherical distribution is created.  Interestingly, Robin's
>> bounce-off-the-nucleus model (which I would never have thought of) fits
>> this picture pretty well.
>>
>
>I would just like to add a few comments to Scott's correct description of the
>electron state.
>QM does not propose that the particle or electron disappears or becomes
>discontinues when it goes from one energy state to another, as Mitchell Jones
>assumes.  All QM says is that the particle can not be seen, detected, or
>otherwise observed when it is the transition state.

***{Then where is the purported clash with classical mechanics, Ed? It is
common in macrocosmic observations for objects to temporarily disappear
from view. When, for example, an airplane flys behind a building, we can't
see it, yet we assume that it still exists at every instant when it is out
of view, and that it is following a continuous spatial pathway from the
point where we lost sight of it to the point where it ultimately emerges on
the other side. The whole point of "quantum mechanics" was that these sorts
or common sense assumptions did not apply in the microcosm, where motion
was supposedly discontinuous, and where entities only existed in
"preferred" states but not in the "in-between" or "transitional" states.
--Mitchell Jones}***

Therefore, its continuous
>existence is a matter of faith.

***{Then where is the purported clash with classical mechanics? When you
close the hood on your car, is not the continued existence of your engine a
matter of "faith?" --Mitchell Jones}***

 The fact that the particle appears to
>disappear from our view is no more reason to reject QM than would a magician's
>trick make us reject normal reality.

***{Your assumption that motion is continuous is, in fact, a rejection of
QM. The problem is that you do not comprehend what QM *is*, and thus you do
not know that, by making such a commonsensical assumption, you are, in
fact, rejecting it. You do not recognize that the defining characteristic
of QM--its claim to fame and the core of its meaning--lies precisely in its
postulate that motion in the microcosm is discontinuous ("quantized").
Apparently you think that the modern mathematical formulae which have been
curve fitted to experimental results over the last 80 years are somehow
uniquely dependent on the label "quantum mechanics." If so, you are simply
wrong. Those constructs have no allegiance to any philosophy. They care not
a whit whether a user considers the transitional states to be wildly
unstable and so brief as to be undetectable with current instruments, or
considers them to be literally nonexistent, and they will give the same
numerical answers irregardless. Thus if you openly avow that the
transitional states exist and that motion in the microcosm is continuous,
you are a proponent of classical mechanics whether you like it or not, and
whether you know it or not; and if you openly avow that motion in the
microcosm is discontinuous ("quantized"), and that the transitional states
do not exist, then and only then will you qualify as a proponent of
"quantum mechanics." --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>A huge literature exists which describes, models, and explains how hydrogen
>interacts with metals to form a compound.  This interaction occurs in the same
>manner as does all compound formation, i.e. with electron transfer.  This
>transfer changes the apparent size of the atom without causing any stress
>within the material.  In other words, any simple text on solid state theory or
>material science would provide all the evidence needed to destroy the "hole is
>too small" theory. Surely reading text books is still considered acceptable
>and a source of evidence.

***{Talk is cheap, Ed. Anybody can refer vaguely to unnamed textbooks where
"proof" of his claims can be found. If the reasoning is so simple, then why
not simply drop it down on me like Thor's hammer, and be done with my
silliness? --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 17:52:13 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA09254;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:49:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:49:33 -0700
Message-ID: <00f501bed7d2$1a86d2e0$1c441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fact Sheet - Xenon Ion Propulsion
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:48:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01BED797.644DB3C0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"QWKQq3.0.VG2.S8Gdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29309
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_0019_01BED797.644DB3C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Is Isp of 1800 seconds from mnt thrust for days the same as 1 lb thrust for
1800 sec?

 http://www.hughespace.com/factsheets/xips/xips.html

------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BED797.644DB3C0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Fact Sheet - Xenon Ion Propulsion.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Fact Sheet - Xenon Ion Propulsion.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.hughespace.com/factsheets/xips/xips.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.hughespace.com/factsheets/xips/xips.html
Modified=40284A93D1D7BE01AC

------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BED797.644DB3C0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 19:07:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA29306;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:07:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:07:01 -0700
Message-ID: <379D1472.6B816EBF ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:07:51 -0600
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Double-Ended High Pressure Electrolysis Cell
References: <006301bed764$4cc605a0$1c441d26 fjsparber>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"O1WZn1.0.o97.5HHdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29310
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> Mitchell and Ed
>
> This is what I envision:
>
> A  thick block or length (1.0 to 2.0 inches) of 6061-T6 of  aluminum
> round-stock (3.0 inches diameter) with a one inch diameter hole, internally
> hard anodized to act as an insulated tube, with Bridgman seal "pistons"
> (steel) with a Pt foil disk anchored to the piston face with a nylon screw
> at one end, and a Pd foil disk anchored in the same manner to the face of a
> Bridgman seal piston at the other end, should serve as a Double-Ended High
> Pressure Electrolysis Cell.
>
> Preliminary pressurization to a kilobar, with the D2O- K2CO3 electrolyte
> with the pistons restrained, can be accomplished with a $12.00,
> manually-operated Greasegun (feeding the cavity through a capillary tube)
> available from any auto-parts store.
>
> If higher pressures are desired, the pistons can be forced together with
> hydraulic or screw jacks, with an insulating bloc to prevent shorting out
> the power supply.
>
> Fugacity and Pd loading aside, the liquid-gas-solid interface created at
> both electrodes will now be at the hydrostatic pressure as opposed to the
> highly variable local atmospheric pressure.
>
> An electolysis cell worked like gangbusters in San Diego (100 feet avove sea
> level ?) at least for one-shot, didn't it, Jed?  :-)
>
> Hook up the Power Supply and Calorimeter, and see what you get.
>
> Regards,     Frederick

An interesting idea, but unfortunately, Al2O3 is not stable in contact with an
alkali electrolyte.  I 'm afraid the anodized surface would not last very long
and eventually cause Al to be deposited on the Pd.  While this impurity is good
in thin layers, a thick layer would not work.  I suggest the hole be lined with
Teflon.  Turning this assembly into an accurate calorimeter would be the next
problem.  Still, the idea is interesting.

Regards,
Ed Storms






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 19:32:51 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA06236;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:31:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:31:35 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: More Excerpts
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:30:54 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37a01425.6641988 mail-hub>
References: <v04011700b3be64abc4a1 [207.8.127.138]> <3.0.5.32.19990723142509.00c918b0@spectre.mitre.org> <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62@[207.8.127.173]> <v04011700b3beb0a3865d@[207.8.127.138]>
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3beb0a3865d [207.8.127.138]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 TAA06191
Resent-Message-ID: <"UAmcO2.0.MX1.6eHdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29311
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:34:37 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>>At 03:11 PM 7/23/1999 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>
>>>>   Second, it can form a covalent bond with one of the surrounding Pd
>>>>atoms, slip through as bump on the Pd, then break the bond to appear in
>>>>another void.  My guess is that this is the main source of the high
>>mobility.
>>>
>>>***{No. The covalent radius of Pd is 1.376 Å (measured) while the covalent
>>>radius of D is .742 Å, whereas the entry hole is a mere .206 Å. --MJ}***

Hi Mitchell,

I believe that .742 Å is the distance between the nuclei of the
deuterium molecule, and as such is nearer to twice the radius.
(For the covalent radius of H I have 0.32 Å).
[snip]
>>>***{No. The principle of continuity states that "no thing may come into
>>>existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing." It is one of the
>>>necessary supports to the structure of human knowledge...

This is only true, if said disappearances and reappearance are
independent. If they are linked through probability however, then it is
no longer so. (The consequence would be that there would be an
uncertainty in all knowledge).
Note that this could well rest upon continuity at a deeper level, i.e.
at that of the ZPE, quantum vacuum, or aether. IOW it may be possible
that particles as such are continually created and disappear again,
while the "memory" of the particle still exists as a template in the
underlying continuum, resulting in the very likely recreation of an
identical particle in almost the same place, and with almost the same
momentum.
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 19:57:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA13855;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:56:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:56:39 -0700
Message-ID: <00bd01bed7af$6939d900$1c441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Sandia Patents Extreme Ultraviolet Source  (Xenon Gas Stuff)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:39:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01BED774.B2BD9660"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"eTtTc3.0.LO3.d_Hdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29312
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_0009_01BED774.B2BD9660
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/sandia-patent.html

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BED774.B2BD9660
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Sandia Patents Extreme Ultraviolet Source.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Sandia Patents Extreme Ultraviolet Source.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/sandia-patent.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/sandia-patent.html
Modified=80FE6C3BAFD7BE016A

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BED774.B2BD9660--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 20:13:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA20852;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:12:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:12:51 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990726221733.009441c0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 22:17:33 -0500
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>, "Ed Wall" <ewall@infinite-energy.com>
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: M&O paper
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"a906r3.0.k55.pEIdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29313
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed,

I've read the new M&O paper and I'd like to share a few off-the-record
comments.  

First, I can't really comment on the calorimetry.  We've been trying to
sort that out for months now and this paper doesn't provide any new
insights for me...except that the excess heat effect seems TOO easy to
get...e.g. it doesn't matter what electrolyte you use, or whether the
cathode is pure W or 50%W-50%Mo!  That's either amazing...or suspicious.

Regarding the new elements, I'm disappointed to see O&M treating the x-ray
intensities as indicative of the weight concentration of Fe, Cr, Ni etc. in
the sample.  To me it seems like a certainty that the new elements,
regardless of their source, are present as a surface layer on the W
cathode.  In XRF analysis, regardless of the excitation method (i.e.
electron beam or x-ray excitation) thin-samples produce an x-ray response
that is proportional to the mass-per-unit area of the element...not its
weight concentration.  This is an important distinction because a very
small quantity of a given element can make a significant mass-per-unit area
in a small area.  In other words, it still seems possible to me that their
new elements are coming from cell contaminants.

The conclusions they draw from the isotopic ratio measurements are
particularly  disturbing.  First of all, most of the isotopic ratios they
report are really pretty close to normal.  In such a case, they really need
to present data from standards to prove that they can get precisely the
natural ratios before they start drawing conclusions about such small
deviations.  Second, they make some really inscrutable leaps in logic.  On
p. 9, they say, "In view of the overlapping of Fe, Cr, and C at a center
part of the crater-like structure of the W-ype I electrode surface shown in
Fig 10, there would be no doubt that the 56Fe, 52Cr, and 12C atoms were
produced simultaneously at that part by some nuclear reactions."  Frankly,
I can't see ANY reason to assume that those elements are of
nuclear-reaction origin.  Maybe I'm just missing the point.

Regarding the Pb and Re isotopic ratios, the XRF spectra do not show peaks
for these elements, which means that they are present in very low amounts.
I could be wrong but I expect that the SIMS data for these elements is
therefore very sketchy...probably only a few counts in each channel.  Thus
the observed ratio anomalies could just be statistical errors.  Believe it
or not, that's what most of Miley's large isotopic anomalies in the RIFEX
cell were from!

I didn't read the "Plausible nuclear reactions" section.

Boy, am I jaded or what...!

What'd you think of it?


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 20:41:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA29345;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:40:04 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:40:04 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: M&O paper
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:39:27 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37a128e0.11951341 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990726221733.009441c0 mail.eden.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990726221733.009441c0 mail.eden.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 UAA29283
Resent-Message-ID: <"Xk-T_.0.KA7.JeIdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29314
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 22:17:33 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
[snip]
>deviations.  Second, they make some really inscrutable leaps in logic.  On
>p. 9, they say, "In view of the overlapping of Fe, Cr, and C at a center
>part of the crater-like structure of the W-ype I electrode surface shown in
>Fig 10, there would be no doubt that the 56Fe, 52Cr, and 12C atoms were
>produced simultaneously at that part by some nuclear reactions."  Frankly,
>I can't see ANY reason to assume that those elements are of
>nuclear-reaction origin.  Maybe I'm just missing the point.

Perhaps the reasoning was that as these elements only occur in the
centre of craters, where energetic reactions appear to have taken place.
(An alternative might be that the cratering is due to spark impact, and
that impurities are transported in the sparks as ions, resulting in
their deposition primarily at impact sites).
[snip]


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 21:05:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA11162;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:04:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:04:18 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: electron's location
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 04:03:43 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37a229fc.12235318 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com> <379C8287.F9865532@mccir3.crmc2.univ-mrs.fr>
In-Reply-To: <379C8287.F9865532 mccir3.crmc2.univ-mrs.fr>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 VAA11143
Resent-Message-ID: <"bAI332.0.Kk2.1_Idt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29315
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:45:11 +0200, Jean-Paul Biberian wrote:
[snip]
>An amelioration of the model would be to say that as the nucleus vibrates, for
>example in the case of the proton, vibrations between quarks, or deuterium
>vibrations between proton and neutron, sometimes as the electron approaches the
>nucleus, it will gain a little energy, if the trajectory of the electron is in
>phase with the vibrations, or will loose energy if it is in antiphase.
>Therefore, this will also alter the orbit, and will produce a change in the
>apogee of the electron, giving an uncertainty in the position of the electron
>in the Bohr orbit.

Other causes of uncertainty are thermal motion of the nucleus, and also
interactions between the continuum and the nucleus and between the
continuum and the electron, and also interactions between electrons.

>
>I don't know of any simulations of this kind of multi-body system, but with
>powerful computers, I am sure it can be done. However thi is not so simple,
>since relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

Considering that the Hamiltonian is based on potential and kinetic
energy parts, it is hard to see how it could avoid describing such a
model. (This could be my ignorance speaking :-). If so, then things such
as relativistic effects should prove to result in precisely the same
perturbations as they do in QM.

Another way of looking at it is that the electron is oscillating to and
fro through a central attracting field, much like a weight on a spring,
or a pendulum. I think the classical equation of motion governing
circular motion is basically the same as that for oscillating motion
isn't it? (or have I screwed this up too ? :).

Another way of looking at it is as a different progression in a series.
The Sommerfeld orbits are all ellipses, the lowest of which is a circle.
Perhaps an ellipse with minor axis = 0 would serve equally well?
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 21:07:45 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA13287;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:06:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:06:55 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: electron's location
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 04:06:19 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37a32fb2.13697385 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com> <007d01bed785$95097600$1c441d26@fjsparber>
In-Reply-To: <007d01bed785$95097600$1c441d26 fjsparber>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 VAA13260
Resent-Message-ID: <"Dnb5c2.0.XF3.U1Jdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29316
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:39:42 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>So, how can you make it lose energy to slow down to fit Mills' "fractional
>orbit" hypothesis?  :-)
Note that while it does lose energy, it actually speeds up in such an
orbit. This is because half of the potential energy lost ends up as
extra kinetic energy, the other half leaving the atom.

[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 21:18:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA17614;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:17:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:17:20 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: electron's location
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 04:16:45 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37a43079.13896356 mail-hub>
References: <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]>
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 VAA17590
Resent-Message-ID: <"-AjfL.0.8J4.GBJdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29317
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:48:11 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
[snip]
>***{Robin's picture is not "quantum mechanical," and yours isn't, either.
>Both of you are assuming that the electron's motion is *continuous*--which
>means: you are assuming that when it moves from A to B, it sequentially
>occupies every intervening position on some pathway from A to B. Robin was
>very explicit in his acknowledgment that his model was classical in nature.

Actually, I think that the mathematics of QM describes a classical
situation, the nuances of which simply haven't been appreciated yet.

>You, however, simultaneously invoke "quantum mechanics" while referring to
>the electron as "zooming in," as behaving like a "jittery comet," etc. It
>is as if you see no incompatibility between "quantum mechanics" and the
>notion that motion in the microcosm is continuous. If this is correct, then
>what criterion do you use to distinguish between classical mechanics and
>quantum mechanics? 

None, I think they are one and the same.

>Also, how would you explain discrete spectral lines and
>the photoelectric effect, using Robin's model? --Mitchell Jones}***

I suspect that stable orbits are those in which the electron is in phase
with itself, after one complete "orbit". Note that for a flat ellipse,
with constantly changing DB wavelength, this is not as obvious, but I 
suspect that it works out the same as for a circle (if not, then I will
give up on the notion).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 26 21:35:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA23837;
	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:34:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:34:05 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: electron's location
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 04:33:30 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37a532d4.14499363 mail-hub>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com> <3.0.1.32.19990727022626.00f3bbb8@mail.eden.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990727022626.00f3bbb8 mail.eden.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 VAA23788
Resent-Message-ID: <"lbwKQ3.0.Dq5.zQJdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29318
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:26:26 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
[snip]
>fact, it doesn't prescribe exactly HOW the transition occurs.  It just says
>that the electron can't have a potential energy w.r.t the nucleus that is
>in-between the energies of two adjacent states and that, 

Perhaps "can't have a [stable] potential energy ...."?

>when it makes a
>transition between the two states, it radiates away the energy difference
>as one photon.  Maybe it does swoop from one state to the other in 10^-20
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 04:04:08 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA27262;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 04:03:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 04:03:06 -0700
Message-ID: <019101bed827$cd4f4100$1c441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: CF in D2+ and H2+ Ions?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 05:00:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"wsM9A2.0.uf6.f7Pdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29319
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Assuming that a Three-Body interaction in H2+ can internally create a
Neutrino-Anti-Neutrino Pair and become a Deuteron and eject a neutrino or in
the case of D2+, become He4 and eject a neutrino, one can look at ways of
creating the molecular ion.

                     Ionization  Potential (ev)

H & D       H2+ & D2+    HeI     HgII    XeII    KII   LiII    NaII

13.6              15.50          24.6    18.8    21.2   31.6  75.6   47.3


It becomes a problem of ioniizing the H2 or D2 molecules without
dissociating them. However, having volitile metal MII ions or gas ions could
help things:

D2 or H2  plus  M++ --->    H2+   +  M+

Could this be the role of the K  ions?

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 07:21:00 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA12403;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:19:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:19:26 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990727094838.0079a100 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:48:38 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: M&O paper
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990726221733.009441c0 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"gMOKz1.0.j13.k_Rdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29320
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This paper is T. Ohmori, "Nuclear Transmutation Reaction Caused by the
Light Water Electrolysis on Tungsten Cathode under an Incandescent
Condition." It has not be published yet, as far as I know. It was submitted
to Hal Fox's Journal of New Energy.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 08:46:51 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA10811;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:41:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:41:26 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990727224101.00f0bb24 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:41:01 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Mizuno progress
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"9YV963.0.re2.cCTdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29321
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At the excellent suggestion of Ed Wall, I am sending today 5 cathodes to
Mizuno for testing in his cell.  All have been welding using my TIG method.
 They are as follows:

1.  The used cathode from Run 6
2.  A new one made from my materials with no surface prep
3.  A new one made from my materials with SiC abrasive prep (like I used on
my runs)
4.  duplicate of #3
5.  One of the cathodes M sent me that broke.  I have welded it back
together with my TIG welder.

I'm still studying the mountain of material that Jed brought back with him
and xmitted via CD to me.

Nobody's going to analyze the raw data that Jed posted a while back...?



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 Jul 27 09:28:55 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA29189;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:26:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:26:05 -0700
To: "Vortex Discussion Group" <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:25:20 -0700
From: "Sierpinski's Triangle" <formula409 hotbot.com>
Message-ID: <FMNDIGKLABHCFAAA hotbot.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sent-Mail: on
X-Mailer: MailCity Service
Subject: Fractal Antenna Arrays
X-Sender-Ip: 136.182.2.221
Organization: HotBot Mail  (http://mail.hotbot.com:80)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"dpjpz.0.n77.SsTdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29322
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Does anyone have any information on fractal antenna panels?  Specifically I am researching Sierpinski Triangle configurations and arrays (square and wire fractal patterns are not part of the study).

http://www.google.com/search?q=Sierpinski+Triangle

Thanks for any help in advance....


---
Replies to: formula409 hotbot.com


HotBot - Search smarter.
http://www.hotbot.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 09:56:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA08124;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:51:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:51:42 -0700
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: "Vortex" <vortex-l mail.eskimo.com>, "Scott Little" <little@eden.com>
Subject: RE: M&O paper
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:49:38 -0400
Message-ID: <000401bed850$037d9e20$2a0a16cf computer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990726221733.009441c0 mail.eden.com>
Importance: Normal
Resent-Message-ID: <"ecXao2.0.s-1.UEUdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29323
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott,
>
> First, I can't really comment on the calorimetry.  We've been trying to
> sort that out for months now and this paper doesn't provide any new
> insights for me...except that the excess heat effect seems TOO easy to
> get...e.g. it doesn't matter what electrolyte you use, or whether the
> cathode is pure W or 50%W-50%Mo!  That's either amazing...or suspicious.

Well, any carefully measured and large excess heat is amazing and worthy of
scrutiny.
>
> Regarding the new elements, I'm disappointed to see O&M treating the x-ray
> intensities as indicative of the weight concentration of Fe, Cr,
> Ni etc. in
> the sample.

Quoting Ohmori & Mizuno's incandescent W paper:
". . .one can see a crater-like structure at the center part, at which
considerable amounts of several unexpected elements were detected.  Typical
EDX spectra of the electrode surface after the passage of the glow emission
process in 0.5 M Na2SO4 solution are shown in Figs 7 and 8."  Please not the
word "Typical" meaning that many such XRF analyses were made to produce the
Type I and Type II results.  I have trouble envisioning a contamination
scenario in which distinct groupings of several elements are separated like
this, unless we invoke two contaminating compounds of Fe, Cr & Ni and Fe, Ti
& Ca of ratio near those indicated in the XRF spectra.  Perhaps some such
compounds spring up in the minds of Sparber or other experienced chemists.
While I do not dispute that the surface layer XRF signal does not give an
adequate representation of the mass concentration of the putative new
elements, it is representative of concentration of CF reaction product if we
assume the CF reaction to be a surface effect.

The possibility of contamination cannot be completely discounted without a
complete understanding of what was done and adequate controls, and
meaningful replications.  They are using very pure water for the electrolyte
and cleaning in the ultrasonic bath rinse.  They use a two acid solution for
cleaning.  The totality of their data might statistically reduce the
likelihood of contamination if we learn that such 'contamination' only
appears in locations where intense heating has occurred (craters).  On p. 6,
it states that the concentration of these anomalous elements decreases
markedly as the sampling point moves away from the center of the crater.
How can you explain such concentration gradients corresponding to surface
characteristics?  Similar things were found by Stringham and Miley.

What candidate contamination source would you propose and how would you test
for it?

> The conclusions they draw from the isotopic ratio measurements are
> particularly  disturbing.  First of all, most of the isotopic ratios they
> report are really pretty close to normal.  In such a case, they
> really need
> to present data from standards to prove that they can get precisely the
> natural ratios before they start drawing conclusions about such small
> deviations.

The data (at surface and deeper) for several W isotopes IS from an ad hoc
standard and is almost exactly the natural abundance ratio, which tends to
support the other numbers (i.e. the EDX and SIMS work is good).  The fact
that the abundances are close to natural for all but two elements is not
necessarily an indication of anything, but it does not particularly support
a CF means of synthesis.

> Second, they make some really inscrutable leaps in logic.  On
> p. 9, they say, "In view of the overlapping of Fe, Cr, and C at a center
> part of the crater-like structure of the W-ype I electrode
> surface shown in
> Fig 10, there would be no doubt that the 56Fe, 52Cr, and 12C atoms were
> produced simultaneously at that part by some nuclear reactions."  Frankly,
> I can't see ANY reason to assume that those elements are of
> nuclear-reaction origin.  Maybe I'm just missing the point.

I suppose it depends on the assumptions they are making and I do not fully
grasp it.
>
> What'd you think of it?

I think that I do not know enough about the spectrographic techniques to
judge the results.  The excess heat, however, from the bomb-calorimeter
setup seems good.

Any word back from Mizuno on your cathode offer?
>

Ed Wall

New Energy Research Laboratory
http://www.infinite-energy.com   email:ewall infinite-energy.com
Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Bow, NH 03302-2816
(603) 226-4822   fax 224-5975

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 11:02:27 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA28648;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:57:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:57:29 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3c364869a70 [207.8.127.102]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990727022626.00f3bbb8 mail.eden.com>
References: <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]>
 <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:54:39 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: electron's location
Resent-Message-ID: <"-y0eV2.0.5_6.8CVdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29324
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Thanks to Jean-Paul for an interesting view of the proton which could
>explain the changing orbits.
>
>>***{Robin's picture is not "quantum mechanical," and yours isn't, either.
>>Both of you are assuming that the electron's motion is *continuous*--
>
>First, I'd like to say something about "continuous".  AFAIK, QM doesn't
>forbid  continuous motion of the electron from one state to the other...in
>fact, it doesn't prescribe exactly HOW the transition occurs.  It just says
>that the electron can't have a potential energy w.r.t the nucleus that is
>in-between the energies of two adjacent states

***{The potential energy of the electron with respect to the nucleus is a
function of the distance between its center of charge and that of the
nucleus. Thus if it cannot have a potential energy which is in-between that
which it has at one of the preferred orbits and that which it will have at
the next lower one, then it cannot *exist* in the transitional states, as I
said. Thus you have confirmed by your own words that QM claims that the
electron does not pass through the transitional states, and, hence, that
its motion is discontinuous. Case closed. --Mitchell Jones}***

and that, when it makes a
>transition between the two states, it radiates away the energy difference
>as one photon.  Maybe it does swoop from one state to the other in 10^-20
>seconds and the rapid motion is just what is needed to cause it to radiate
>the necessary photon.

***{If we assume that time is required to form the photon and accelerate it
to lightspeed, and that, during that time, the electron is passing through
the space between the two orbits, then our assumptions are classical
mechanical in nature. On the other hand, if we assume that the electron
ceases to exist in the higher orbit--that it vanishes into nothing--and
that, an instant later, an electron appears out of nothing in the next
lower orbit and, simultaneously, a fully formed photon carrying the energy
difference between the two orbits appears at lightspeed--again out of
nothing--then the view is quantum mechanical. The former view is the
natural assumption of any reasonably intelligent person--so much so that
almost nobody who takes a course on "quantum mechanics" leaves the class
with even the foggiest comprehension of how absurd, how intellectually
destructive, and how evil "quantum mechanics" really is. --Mitchell
Jones}***

>
>>You, however, simultaneously invoke "quantum mechanics" while referring to
>>the electron as "zooming in," as behaving like a "jittery comet," etc.
>
>All my direct experiences are classical, I can't help appealing to such
>analogies.

***{Good for you. We live in a classical universe, not a "quantum
mechanical" one. It is not your tendency to fall back on classical thinking
that is wrong; it is your failure to do so proudly and openly, and to
reject and condemn "quantum mechanics" as the philosophical and
intellectual poison that it really is. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>how would you explain discrete spectral lines....
>
>Easy, QM predicts them.  In fact, they are perhaps the greatest evidence
>that QM is correct...at least at the atomic scale.

***{No, QM did *not* predict the spectral lines. If you will check the
history, you will discover that the spectral lines were discovered by
Fraunhoffer in the early 1800s, roughly a hundred years before Bohr
concocted his "quantized" model of the hydrogen atom (1913). Moreover, even
the regularities in the hydrogen series of lines were comprehended by J.J.
Balmer in 1885, a year before Bohr was born. (Balmer discovered that the
frequencies associated with the lines were exactly proportional to the
inverse squares of the integer series 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., which later became
the cornerstone of the Bohr model.) Far from being "predicted" by QM, the
spectral lines were part of the data which Bohr tailored his model to fit.
And the same applies to the later work of Sommerfeld, who extended Bohr's
work to larger atoms, by introducing elliptical orbits into the picture.
Both of these men started with the spectral data, and tailored their models
to fit it, rather than the other way around. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>How would you explain them without using QM?

***{I would begin by noting that QM does not explain the spectral lines.
Bohr, Sommerfeld, and their successors merely studied the existing data
vis-a-vis spectral lines, and concocted a set of formulae and rules of
manipulation which produced results that matched those measurements. Thus
their mathematical work was descriptive, not explanatory. Its advantage was
that, rather than looking through a vast listing of data points to
determine the energy levels and frequencies associated with particular
orbits, a physicist could simply plug numbers into the appropriate formulae
and calculate the desired information. The calculation, however, had no
more explanatory power than the listing of data points which it replaced.
The mathematical construct was just a compact way of expressing the data
points, of doing interpolations between them, and some nearby
extrapolations, and it had nothing whatever to say about such questions as,
for example, whether or not the electron passed through the intervening
orbits in the process of getting from one preferred orbit to the next. Thus
the QM "explanation" of the spectral lines was not contained in the
mathematics, but in Bohr's notion that the electrons only existed in the
preferred states, which then became, via the "Copenhagen interpretation,"
the core of "quantum mechanics," and has remained so to this day. And the
problem with the QM "explanation," as I have noted elsewhere, is that it is
really the antithesis of explanation. In order to pretend to have the
answer to a difficult question that had puzzled far better minds than his,
Bohr put forth his "breakthrough" notion that the principle of continuity
was wrong, and, thus, that the idea of "explanation" is itself meaningless.
(Duh!) The rest is history.

Concerning the actual causal explanation for why electrons spend virtually
all of their time in the so-called "preferred" orbits, I would suggest the
same explanation that I put forth on sci.physics.fusion four or five years
ago, and that I published roughly ten years ago--to wit: that the electron
is moving through a particulate medium, the aether, and that because of its
enormous velocity (about 10^16 revolutions per second for the hydrogen
electron), it is slicing out a cavitation channel in that medium, much as a
rapidly spinning propeller slices out a cavitation void in the water.
Result: just as the propeller that rotates in a cavitation void loses its
ability to transfer energy to the water, and, thus, loses thrust, so the
electron loses its ability to transfer energy to the aether and, thus, does
not radiate (i.e., does not emit photons) when in the preferred orbits.

Well, then, why is it that the electron experiences smooth sailing through
a cavitation channel only when in the preferred orbits? Because the
electron has an internal cycle of its own, defined by the deBroglie
equation (w = h/mv) and the workings of that cycle give it a variable cross
section. Result: the shape of the channel that an orbiting electron slices
out in the aether varies in a cyclical manner, with the wavelength w. To
see what this means, let's begin by simplifying a bit (ignoring shell
structure considerations), and assuming that the electron is moving in an
unvarying circular orbit around the nucleus. In that case, it will cut out
a circular cavitation channel in the aether which will vary in cross
section in accordance with w = h/mv, and if, when it begins its second
transit around the orbit, it is at the same point in its internal cycle
that it was when it began the first transit, then it will fit smoothly into
the cavitation channel that it sliced out on the first orbit, and will
transfer no energy to the medium thereafter--that is, it will not radiate.
If, on the other hand, it is *not* at the same point in its internal cycle
when it begins the 2nd transit around the orbit, then it will *not* fit
smoothly inside the channel which it sliced out the first time around. If,
for example, it began the 1st transit around the orbit at its minimal cross
section, and begins its 2nd transit at its maximal cross section, the
"hole"--i.e., the cavitation channel--will be too small, and it will
continue to transfer energy to the medium--i.e., it will continue to
radiate--as it resizes the cavitation channel for a second time. The
implication: the length of the orbit must be an integral number of
deBroglie wavelengths, if the orbit is to be a stable one. (As noted above,
this treatment of an unvarying circular orbit constitutes a slight
simplification, for explanatory purposes. In fact, the H electron makes
many passes around the nucleus, each on a slightly different circular path
(due to precession and other considerations), forming a shell structure,
before it begins to reuse the first channel that it sliced out. At that
point, however, it must be at the same point in its internal cycle that it
was the first time it entered that section of the shell structure, if it is
not to radiate.)

Thus we have explained the "quantization" of electron orbits based entirely
on classical mechanical assumptions.

How do the proponents of QM respond to the same challenge? Simple: they
assail the possibility of explanation itself, by denying the principle of
continuity. Given such a state of affairs, CM wins and QM loses. It's a no
brainer.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>
>
>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 Jul 27 14:49:12 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA13561;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:45:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:45:43 -0700
Message-ID: <002801bed881$88071960$18441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: CHEMystery Nuclear Reactions Nuclear Reactors
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:42:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED846.AED72C00"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"41k7x.0.oJ3.6YYdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29325
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_0005_01BED846.AED72C00
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Here you go Scott.

A good Primer, and a good illustration of how the Mizuno-Ohmuri
Tungsten-Molybdenum alloys can exothermally fission into Fe56 and other
stable daughters, including Carbon and Helium,and Antineutrinos, etc.

 http://tqd.advanced.org/3659/nucreact/reactors.html

For example:

42Mo96 --->   26Fe56 + 12Mg24 + 4 2He4  +  4 Antineutrinos + heat (sans
gammas)

IOW.  Four "Surplus  Neutrons" decayed into 4 Protons + 4 Antineutrinos & 4
electrons

Same exercize for Pd or W.

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED846.AED72C00
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="CHEMystery Nuclear Reactions Nuclear Reactors.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="CHEMystery Nuclear Reactions Nuclear Reactors.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://tqd.advanced.org/3659/nucreact/reactors.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://tqd.advanced.org/3659/nucreact/reactors.html
Modified=407BECF77BD8BE01B0

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED846.AED72C00--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 16:20:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA16323;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:19:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:19:08 -0700
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:18:27 -0400
From: "Susan J. Seddon" <Soojay compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Great review of Mizuno book translation by Rothwell
Sender: "Susan J. Seddon" <Soojay compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199907271918_MC2-7E7D-8FC1 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id QAA16243
Resent-Message-ID: <"SN6zd2.0.x-3.bvZdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29326
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed

< "Enquiry" sounds like a British variant>

Hmm!

We use enquire and inquire equally in any textual context, and take them to
mean the same thing but generally we like enquire.  Inquire looks.....
well........ too yanklicised and feisty for our more subtle and
sophisticated taste.

However, on a formal level, we only have public *inquiries*.

- Soo
(we're a gentle island race and consciously avoid confrontation at all
times.............YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT,  MATE ??!!????  <smug Brit.
snicker>)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 18:16:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA05286;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <000701bed89d$664add40$4d441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <Ron.Brodzinski@pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: CF/LENR & CANR
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:03:11 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"0Bmxq1.0.WI1.BZbdt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29327
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Does this violate Nuclear Physics?

42Mo96 + CF "Catalyst"---> 26Fe56 + 20Ca40 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos + 6.65 Mev

46Pd106 + CF "Catalyst" ---> 26Fe54 + 24Cr52 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos + 21.3
Mev

This is just a matter of working on both sides of the Fe Nuclear Binding
Energy Peak.
There should be Helium released  in so of these too.

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 18:54:16 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA28002;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:49:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:49:05 -0700
Message-ID: <000f01bed8a3$94a0fd40$4d441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fw: CF/LENR & CANR
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:47:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"37vad.0.Nr6.G6cdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29328
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 Sparber' <fjsparber earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 6:34 PM
Subject: RE: CF/LENR & CANR


> In a word, Yes!  You are mixing strong and weak reactions.  Leptons are
not
> emitted directly in the "fission" process.  Your leptons would have zero
kinetic
> energy.  In reality, the reaction would have to go something like:
>
> 42Mo96 + ? --> 22Ti56 + 20Ca40 - ??MeV
>
> followed by 22Ti56 --> 23V56 --> 24Cr56 -->25Mn56 --> 26Fe56 + 4e + 4nu +
??MeV
>
> In theory, you get back the energy you put in during the beta decays, and
still
> gain 6.65 MeV.  Unfortunately, approximately 14 MeV is carried away by the
> neutrinos, and you'll play hell getting that back.  Furthermore, the first
> reaction doesn't go on the promise of getting the energy back later on.
It
> requires the energy be put in at the gitgo to light the fire.  Hence, it
takes
> more than a "catalyst" to make the reaction go.
>
> Ron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick Sparber [SMTP:fjsparber earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:03 PM
> To: vortex-l; Brodzinski, Ronald L
> Subject: Re: CF/LENR & CANR
>
> Does this violate Nuclear Physics?
>
> 42Mo96 + CF "Catalyst"---> 26Fe56 + 20Ca40 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos + 6.65
Mev
>
> 46Pd106 + CF "Catalyst" ---> 26Fe54 + 24Cr52 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos + 21.3
> Mev
>
> This is just a matter of working on both sides of the Fe Nuclear Binding
> Energy Peak.
> There should be Helium released  in so of these too.
>
> Regards,   Frederick
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 18:58:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA31129;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:57:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:57:42 -0700
Message-ID: <002301bed8a4$c70544c0$4d441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <Ron.Brodzinski pnl.gov>
References: <000f01bed8a3$94a0fd40$4d441d26 fjsparber>
Subject: Re: CF/LENR & CANR
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:56:14 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"qVFfo2.0.Jc7.LEcdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29329
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 Sparber' <fjsparber earthlink.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 6:34 PM
> Subject: RE: CF/LENR & CANR

IOW, You will buy "Double Beta Decay", But NOT Quadruple Beta Decay? :-)

Fred
>
>
> > In a word, Yes!  You are mixing strong and weak reactions.  Leptons are
> not
> > emitted directly in the "fission" process.  Your leptons would have zero
> kinetic
> > energy.  In reality, the reaction would have to go something like:
> >
> > 42Mo96 + ? --> 22Ti56 + 20Ca40 - ??MeV
> >
> > followed by 22Ti56 --> 23V56 --> 24Cr56 -->25Mn56 --> 26Fe56 + 4e + 4nu
+
> ??MeV
> >
> > In theory, you get back the energy you put in during the beta decays,
and
> still
> > gain 6.65 MeV.  Unfortunately, approximately 14 MeV is carried away by
the
> > neutrinos, and you'll play hell getting that back.  Furthermore, the
first
> > reaction doesn't go on the promise of getting the energy back later on.
> It
> > requires the energy be put in at the gitgo to light the fire.  Hence, it
> takes
> > more than a "catalyst" to make the reaction go.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frederick Sparber [SMTP:fjsparber earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:03 PM
> > To: vortex-l; Brodzinski, Ronald L
> > Subject: Re: CF/LENR & CANR
> >
> > Does this violate Nuclear Physics?
> >
> > 42Mo96 + CF "Catalyst"---> 26Fe56 + 20Ca40 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos + 6.65
> Mev
> >
> > 46Pd106 + CF "Catalyst" ---> 26Fe54 + 24Cr52 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos +
21.3
> > Mev
> >
> > This is just a matter of working on both sides of the Fe Nuclear Binding
> > Energy Peak.
> > There should be Helium released  in so of these too.
> >
> > Regards,   Frederick
> >
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 19:38:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA11262;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:33:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:33:08 -0700
Message-ID: <003401bed8a9$bbf4ae40$4d441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fw: CF/LENR & CANR
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:31:44 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"-4pmZ1.0.ql2.Zlcdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29330
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 Sparber' <fjsparber earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:11 PM
Subject: RE: CF/LENR & CANR


> Of course I'll buy quadruple beta decay.  I don't care if the second
reaction is
> a single step. Hell, that doesn't make any difference.  But the quadruple
beta
> decay doesn't happen in the same process as the fission.  In fact, I'll
even
> propose neutrinoless quadruple beta decay so we don't have to worry about
the
> energy loss to neutrino escape.  We then would have an actual energy gain
in the
> overall process, and could capture that energy gain.  We still have two
> problems.  The first regards the nuclear matrix elements for this path.
They
> are not real favorable, and the probability of this reaction following
this mode
> is likely to produce less than one decay in the entire universe during the
> entire life of the universe.  However, that is merely a matter of
statistics.
> The real, insurmountable problem is that you still need starter fluid to
make
> the first reaction go.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick Sparber [SMTP:fjsparber earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:56 PM
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> Cc: Brodzinski, Ronald L
> Subject: Re: CF/LENR & CANR
>
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Brodzinski, Ronald L <ron.brodzinski pnl.gov>
> > To: 'Frederick Sparber' <fjsparber earthlink.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 6:34 PM
> > Subject: RE: CF/LENR & CANR
>
> IOW, You will buy "Double Beta Decay", But NOT Quadruple Beta Decay? :-)
>
> Fred
> >
> >
> > > In a word, Yes!  You are mixing strong and weak reactions.  Leptons
are
> > not
> > > emitted directly in the "fission" process.  Your leptons would have
zero
> > kinetic
> > > energy.  In reality, the reaction would have to go something like:
> > >
> > > 42Mo96 + ? --> 22Ti56 + 20Ca40 - ??MeV
> > >
> > > followed by 22Ti56 --> 23V56 --> 24Cr56 -->25Mn56 --> 26Fe56 + 4e +
4nu
> +
> > ??MeV
> > >
> > > In theory, you get back the energy you put in during the beta decays,
> and
> > still
> > > gain 6.65 MeV.  Unfortunately, approximately 14 MeV is carried away by
> the
> > > neutrinos, and you'll play hell getting that back.  Furthermore, the
> first
> > > reaction doesn't go on the promise of getting the energy back later
on.
> > It
> > > requires the energy be put in at the gitgo to light the fire.  Hence,
it
> > takes
> > > more than a "catalyst" to make the reaction go.
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Frederick Sparber [SMTP:fjsparber earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:03 PM
> > > To: vortex-l; Brodzinski, Ronald L
> > > Subject: Re: CF/LENR & CANR
> > >
> > > Does this violate Nuclear Physics?
> > >
> > > 42Mo96 + CF "Catalyst"---> 26Fe56 + 20Ca40 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos +
6.65
> > Mev
> > >
> > > 46Pd106 + CF "Catalyst" ---> 26Fe54 + 24Cr52 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos +
> 21.3
> > > Mev
> > >
> > > This is just a matter of working on both sides of the Fe Nuclear
Binding
> > > Energy Peak.
> > > There should be Helium released  in so of these too.
> > >
> > > Regards,   Frederick
> > >
> >
> >
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 21:22:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA15673;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:21:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:21:23 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CF/LENR & CANR
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 04:20:47 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37a0839a.100738621 mail-hub>
References: <000701bed89d$664add40$4d441d26 fjsparber>
In-Reply-To: <000701bed89d$664add40$4d441d26 fjsparber>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 VAA15628
Resent-Message-ID: <"9oe6Z1.0.nq3.3Ledt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29331
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:03:11 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:

>Does this violate Nuclear Physics?
>
>42Mo96 + CF "Catalyst"---> 26Fe56 + 20Ca40 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos + 6.65 Mev
>
>46Pd106 + CF "Catalyst" ---> 26Fe54 + 24Cr52 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos + 21.3
>Mev
[snip]
Hi Frederick,

Given that proton addition and neutron addition each usually yield about
5-8 MeV excess, a useful rule of thumb might be that if neutron addition
doesn't result in fission, then proton addition probably won't either
(however the result for deuteron addition could be very different, as
deuterons generally give about 10 MeV excess).

(This is assuming that your catalyst is the CF mediated addition of a
proton or a deuteron to an existing nucleus).


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 27 22:42:07 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA00531;
	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:38:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:38:58 -0700
Message-ID: <004801bed8c3$b26c0ac0$4d441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <000701bed89d$664add40$4d441d26 fjsparber> <37a0839a.100738621@mail-hub>
Subject: Re: CF/LENR & CANR
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:37:01 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"SzTod.0.98.nTfdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29332
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 bigpond.net.au>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: CF/LENR & CANR

Robin wrote:


> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:03:11 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>
> >Does this violate Nuclear Physics?
> >
> >42Mo96 + CF "Catalyst"---> 26Fe56 + 20Ca40 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos + 6.65
Mev
> >
> >46Pd106 + CF "Catalyst" ---> 26Fe54 + 24Cr52 + 4e + 4 Antineutrinos +
21.3
> >Mev
> [snip]
> Hi Frederick,
>
> Given that proton addition and neutron addition each usually yield about
> 5-8 MeV excess, a useful rule of thumb might be that if neutron addition
> doesn't result in fission, then proton addition probably won't either
> (however the result for deuteron addition could be very different, as
> deuterons generally give about 10 MeV excess).
>
> (This is assuming that your catalyst is the CF mediated addition of a
> proton or a deuteron to an existing nucleus).

Well... when you push a deuteron into a Mo or Pd lattice where each has 6.4
to 6.8E22 atoms/cm^3,
and there are over 43 electrons/deuteron, it seems to me that since QM says
that the electron is at the deuteron nucleus a good portion of the time,
then if it drifts into a Mo or Pd nucleus during that interval it should
react.

Bear in mind that neutron induced fission only occurs in One Natural Isotope
(U235). :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 01:14:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA28027;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:12:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:12:12 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:12:06 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Solar Eclipse
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728090717.61A-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"rojA1.0.rr6.Rjhdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29333
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vo,
Solar eclipse on Aug 11 viewable from Cornwall. What's best method of
viewing it? Government medical officer said watch on TV (!) but they are
too scared to give any reasonable advice these days - do you think that a
once in 70 year event, in a beautiful part of the country in the height of
summer is going to be watched on TV? Christ! I better not go out today in
case I get hit by a bus!
Remi.
P.S. busy helping someone to win a contract, haven't done any work on my
stuff for some time. Still can't get materials.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 03:06:06 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA13688;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 03:01:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 03:01:37 -0700
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:01:05 -0400
From: Susan J Seddon <Soojay compuserve.com>
Subject: Solar Eclipse
Sender: Susan J Seddon <Soojay compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199907280601_MC2-7E96-A813 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id DAA13664
Resent-Message-ID: <"a0IcL.0.jL3.1Kjdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29334
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Remi

<Solar eclipse on Aug 11 viewable from Cornwall. What's best method of
viewing it?>

Ideally by back-projection onto a white background until totality, then you
can look at it directly, but be aware of time passing and revert to
projection again.  

I think tv is definitely the only way to watch the "diamond ring" effect. 
I still have slight retinal damage from when I was a child and caught the
sun in binoculars for a split second.  I'm glad the UK networks are
stressing the dangers but I'm afraid there will still be accidents.

There are viewers on sale but not all of them are safe.  Use only the ones
with a British Standards kite mark or the new fangled E.U.  "CE" approval. 
If they cost less than a couple of quid, the chances are they're dodgy even
if they carry the kitemarks.  

Take care.

- Soo

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 04:14:08 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA25779;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 04:13:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 04:13:22 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:13:18 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Solar Eclipse
In-Reply-To: <199907280601_MC2-7E96-A813 compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728120724.4020A-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"d9u-k1.0.jI6.INkdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29335
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Thanks Soo,

yes, you told me the good part - I can view totality directly! I think
sunspot maximum was last year so there should still be good prominences. 
Also the photosphere is meant to be massive and some bizarre colour. My
parents apparently get to see this kind of thing regularly in the tropics,
are eclipses less frequent at higher latitudes. Another note, I saw in my
diary that it is also a new moon, does this have a lot to do with it? The
earth eclipsing the moon and vice verca. I think welders goggles to see
diamond ring. They did the same at the Trinty test. Sorry to hear you did
your eyesight in.
Remi.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 05:22:53 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA06961;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 05:19:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 05:19:22 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:19:19 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Sandy Kidd Gyroscopic levitator movie posted ! (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728131747.5359B-100000 paddington>
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 FAA06943
Resent-Message-ID: <"3U-Wq2.0.hi1.ALldt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29336
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Stefan and All, 

Okay, we will tell you the science of what Tony and I are getting up to
(Not the nitty gritty). I did some analysis of his setup and applied
Newtonian Mechanics. The analysis I show you here is for a near zero
reactive propulsion system.  Newton's Law seems to contadict itself. The
URL is

http://www.city.ac.uk/~remi/gyros/CompMass.htm
(or go via new Index
http://www.city.ac.uk/~remi/Index.htm
and the second paper
)

Any trouble accessing this, let me know. Any comments please email.

No, Sandy Kidd is not nutballs. I've seen Tony's system working.
To quote Sir Arthur Eddington and bring him up to date and less arrogant:

'Don't believe any slight effect until you have theory BUT do believe any
effect if massive and theory can't explain it.'

(He said don't believe any experiment until you have theory).
Remi.

 On Wed, 28 Jul 1999,
Stefan Hartmann wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> I got a new movie in RealVideo(G2)-format from
> "Kai Hackemesser" <kaha gmx.de>
> 
> about the Sandy Kidd Gyroscopic levitator 
> device.
> It defies the 3rd Newton action-reactio law.
> 
> It can be seen at:
> http://mars.spaceports.com/~over/movies/kiddgyro.ram
> in streaming mode,
> otherwise you can also download it at:
> 
> http://mars.spaceports.com/~over/movies/kiddgyro.rm
> 
> or from:
> 
> http://www.wal3.de/temp/Kreiselmaschine.rm
> 
> You need the free realVideo G2 player from
> www.real.com
> It is about 3.3 MB big and it is a 80 KBits/sec stream,
> so better download it before playing, if you don´t have
> a 2 B-channel ISDN or DSL or cable modem Internet access at least.
> 
> Enjoy !
> 
> Regards, Stefan.
> 
> 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 06:16:43 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA25719;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:15:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:15:48 -0700
Message-ID: <379F02D1.725B1BD6 groupz.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:17:05 -0400
From: steven opelc <sno groupz.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Sandy Kidd Gyroscopic levitator movie posted ! (fwd)
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728131747.5359B-100000 paddington>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"4QRg33.0.nH6.3Amdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29337
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Isn't it getting lighter since engine is using up gasoline..??

scale of type shown is extremely sensitive......steve...



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 06:17:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA26744;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:17:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:17:03 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990728201633.00f48784 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:16:33 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: electron's location
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3c364869a70 [207.8.127.102]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990727022626.00f3bbb8 mail.eden.com>
 <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]>
 <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"zNbFF1.0.jX6.FBmdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29338
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:54 PM 7/27/99 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>...I published roughly ten years ago--to wit: that the electron
>is moving through a particulate medium, the aether, and that because of its
>enormous velocity (about 10^16 revolutions per second for the hydrogen
>electron), it is slicing out a cavitation channel in that medium....

...the shape of the channel that an orbiting electron slices
>out in the aether varies in a cyclical manner, with the wavelength w.

Interesting theory.  Maybe it's right.  

Can it explain electron diffraction patterns?  The 2-slit electron
diffraction pattern is perhaps the most challenging.  An electron source
illuminates a screen with two closely-spaced slits in it.  Behind the
screen is a detector array that can record the location of arriving
electrons.  Close one of the slits and turn on the source.  The detector
will record a simple distribution of electrons with a peak under the open
slit, tailing off uniformly in both directions.  Open the 2nd slit.  The
distribution now changes to the well-known 2-slit diffraction pattern with
a peak centered between the two slits and regularly-spaced maxima at
locations which, for small angles, satisfy the condition nl/a = x/D where n
is an integer, l is the De Broglie wavelength of the electron, a is the
distance between the slits, x is the distance between maxima at the
detector location, and D is the distance between the slit screen and the
detector plane.

What I find mind-boggling about this experiment is that the act of opening
the 2nd slit causes electrons to STOP arriving at certain locations on the
detector plane, where they DID arrive before the 2nd slit was opened!
Furthermore, you can't appeal to destructive interference of waves to
explain the minima because the pattern is unchanged if we fire electrons
towards the two slits one at a time!



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 Jul 28 06:42:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA03234;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:42:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:42:12 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990728204149.00f50090 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:41:49 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Space Shuttle
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"fSp4Y2.0.So.qYmdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29339
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Texans from San Antonio to Dallas (including me) were treated to a
fantastic display last night at 10:03 PM CST as the Shuttle passed overhead
on its last orbit before landing in Florida.  It was about 40 miles high at
the time and in the throes of re-entry.  With the naked eye you saw an
incandescent orange-white dot at the head of a bright glowing trail of
ionization that it painted across the entire sky in about 2 minutes.  With
10x binos, I could just make out the elongated shape of the shuttle,
pitched up at about a 45 degree angle.  Wow!

Scott

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 07:44:41 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA19569;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:30:04 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:30:04 -0700
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:29:36 -0400
From: Susan J Seddon <Soojay compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Solar Eclipse
Sender: Susan J Seddon <Soojay compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199907281029_MC2-7EA0-F11C compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id HAA19540
Resent-Message-ID: <"kpi4G.0.gn4.hFndt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29340
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Remi,

<are eclipses less frequent at higher latitudes.>

I'm not sure.  A check through total eclipses in the last decade doesn't
seem to favour any particular area.  There were totals visible in N. and S.
America, Asia, Russia, Alaska, Antarctica, Australia.  It's an interesting
thought though, I might ask in the Science Forum.

Yes, you can only have a solar eclipse during New Moon when the Moon is
inbetween the Earth and the Sun and lunar eclipses when the Earth is in the
middle of the two.

I'd like to get a photograph of crowds of people wearing goggles.....like
those old nuclear test photos you see sometimes.  Feynman is alleged to
have taken one from inside the truck he watched the detonation from,
because he thought everyone looked so daft.

Have you managed to get accommodation in Cornwall then?  It's not full up
yet?

- Soo

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 08:08:09 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA25367;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:49:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:49:05 -0700
Message-ID: <19990728144901.18583.rocketmail web601.yahoomail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerry Wayne Decker <jwdatwork yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Sandy Kidd Gyroscopic levitator movie posted ! (fwd)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"mXCJy1.0.HC6.WXndt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29341
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Folks!

Years ago, we got a letter from Beyond 2000 wanting a
set of the KeelyNet disks.  The letter said of the
information posted that Beyond 2000 had seen, there
was more than enough for 2 years of fascinating TV
reports and they wanted a set of all the files.  They
read the file called KIDD1.ASC and wrote back saying
they were going to interview Sandy Kidd and broadcast
the segment.  I got a videotape of the broadcast which
is the same one that Discover replayed as shown in
this file.

At the time, I believe the conclusion was that the
lifting effect was caused by linear friction where the
bucket of scrap metal that was used to counterbalance
the device was ratcheting downwards due to the
unstable rotation of the device causing it to jerk
upwards.

Kind of a creeping effect from the successive jerks,
analogous to a kinemassic/inertial drive but not
exactly the same thing. 

This could be tested with an encoder or rpm wheel
driven by the rope as it would show a jerking motion
as opposed to a smooth transport and pin down the
cause of the lift.  You will note it goes so high and
then stops and Kidd has to start it in the first
place, much like engaging the first tooth of a gear
though in this case it is release tension so the
jerking effect will take over and provide apparent
'lift'.

It is a neat effect at any rate though needs a lot
more testing before claiming weight loss or any kind
of gravity reduction. >>>  Jerry W. Decker / KeelyNet

--- Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Stefan and All, 
> 
> Okay, we will tell you the science of what Tony and
> I are getting up to
> (Not the nitty gritty). I did some analysis of his
> setup and applied
> Newtonian Mechanics. The analysis I show you here is
> for a near zero
> reactive propulsion system.  Newton's Law seems to
> contadict itself. The
> URL is
> 
> http://www.city.ac.uk/~remi/gyros/CompMass.htm
> (or go via new Index
> http://www.city.ac.uk/~remi/Index.htm
> and the second paper
> )
> 
> Any trouble accessing this, let me know. Any
> comments please email.
> 
> No, Sandy Kidd is not nutballs. I've seen Tony's
> system working.
> To quote Sir Arthur Eddington and bring him up to
> date and less arrogant:
> 
> 'Don't believe any slight effect until you have
> theory BUT do believe any
> effect if massive and theory can't explain it.'
> 
> (He said don't believe any experiment until you have
> theory).
> Remi.
> 
>  On Wed, 28 Jul 1999,
> Stefan Hartmann wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > I got a new movie in RealVideo(G2)-format from
> > "Kai Hackemesser" <kaha gmx.de>
> > 
> > about the Sandy Kidd Gyroscopic levitator 
> > device.
> > It defies the 3rd Newton action-reactio law.
> > 
> > It can be seen at:
> >
> http://mars.spaceports.com/~over/movies/kiddgyro.ram
> > in streaming mode,
> > otherwise you can also download it at:
> > 
> >
> http://mars.spaceports.com/~over/movies/kiddgyro.rm
> > 
> > or from:
> > 
> > http://www.wal3.de/temp/Kreiselmaschine.rm
> > 
> > You need the free realVideo G2 player from
> > www.real.com
> > It is about 3.3 MB big and it is a 80 KBits/sec
> stream,
> > so better download it before playing, if you don´t
> have
> > a 2 B-channel ISDN or DSL or cable modem Internet
> access at least.
> > 
> > Enjoy !
> > 
> > Regards, Stefan.

===


=================================
Please respond to jdecker keelynet.com
as I am writing from my work email of
jwdatwork yahoo.com.........thanks!
=================================
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 08:12:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA29167;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:01:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:01:05 -0700
Message-ID: <379F1B64.3B02D385 bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:01:56 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Solar Eclipse
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728090717.61A-100000 paddington>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zfs8R.0.b77.nindt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29342
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Cornwall RO wrote:
> 
> Vo,
> Solar eclipse on Aug 11 viewable from Cornwall. What's best method of
> viewing it? Government medical officer said watch on TV (!) but they are
> too scared to give any reasonable advice these days - do you think that a
> once in 70 year event, in a beautiful part of the country in the height of
> summer is going to be watched on TV? Christ! I better not go out today in
> case I get hit by a bus!
> Remi.
> P.S. busy helping someone to win a contract, haven't done any work on my
> stuff for some time. Still can't get materials.

There's an excellent web page at:

http://www.earthview.com/

that tells you all you need to know about viewing an eclipse. 
Particularly read:

http://www.earthview.com/tutorial/effects.htm

where you will find that one of the most interesting phenomenon does
not occur in the sky: it's called shadow bands, undulating waves of
light and dark across the surface of the earth during the onset of
the eclipse.

There's an awful lot to experience during an eclipse.  Check out
this site so you don't miss anything.

Regards,
Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 10:21:48 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA14712;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:19:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:19:25 -0700
Message-ID: <379F3BB4.DEE91C1E bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:19:48 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Solar Eclipse
References: <199907281029_MC2-7EA0-F11C compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VCfB03.0.gb3.Skpdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29344
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Susan J Seddon wrote:
> 
> Remi,

<snip>

> Have you managed to get accommodation in Cornwall then?  It's not full up
> yet?

I'm sure they'd find room for one more Cornwall, eh?

A friend travelling on foot in your fine country came upon the
George & Dragon pub late one evening.  When the lady(?) resident
finally answered his persistent knockings, he asked if he could
trouble her to open so that he might have a meal.

"We locked up over an hour ago," was her terse response.

"Well, could I at least use your phone," my desperate friend
queried.

"Go AWAY!"

"Madam. . ."

"WHAT DO YOU WANT?"

"I was just wondering if I could have a word with George."

Of course, he assumed a partnership.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 10:22:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA05510;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:51:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:51:14 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19990728094416.009d9c00 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:50:53 -0700
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: Solar Eclipse
In-Reply-To: <199907281029_MC2-7EA0-F11C compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"MPpvx.0.0M1.2Kpdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29343
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I haven't researched that specific question, but the lunar excursions go
above and below the poles of the earth as far as shadow casting are
concerned.  Hence, there is no favored path crossing center line.

Considering other geometric factors, however, the poles probably are the
most probable places (high latitudeds) to see them.  The reason is because
the width of the shadow is larger due to the relatively inclined surface of
the earth, which isn't normal to the solar shadow "rays" as you go to high
latitudes.  Hence, at a specific point (town) on the surface, the
probability of an eclipse passing overhead increases.  Put another way, the
shadow might be 200 miles in diameter near the equator, and may form an
eclipse ellipsoid that has a latitudinal long axis of 400 miles at very
high latitudes, hence, it is sweeping a larger shadow and the probability
of seeing the totality is greater.

The length of the arc swept can also be longer at high latitude due to the
earth's curvature, so I would say that on any given eclipse, the total area
exposed to the totality is potentially much larger at high latitudes.

rt



At 10:29 AM 7/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Remi,
>
><are eclipses less frequent at higher latitudes.>
>
>I'm not sure.  A check through total eclipses in the last decade doesn't
>seem to favour any particular area.  There were totals visible in N. and S.
>America, Asia, Russia, Alaska, Antarctica, Australia.  It's an interesting
>thought though, I might ask in the Science Forum.
>
>Yes, you can only have a solar eclipse during New Moon when the Moon is
>inbetween the Earth and the Sun and lunar eclipses when the Earth is in the
>middle of the two.
>
>I'd like to get a photograph of crowds of people wearing goggles.....like
>those old nuclear test photos you see sometimes.  Feynman is alleged to
>have taken one from inside the truck he watched the detonation from,
>because he thought everyone looked so daft.
>
>Have you managed to get accommodation in Cornwall then?  It's not full up
>yet?
>
>- Soo

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 10:51:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA23647;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:50:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:50:41 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:50:34 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Sandy Kidd Gyroscopic levitator movie posted ! (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <379F02D1.725B1BD6 groupz.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728184703.14551B-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"wRYbx3.0.Pn5.mBqdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29345
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Steven,
Can't say about Sandy's stuff wothout seeing it first hand (I made that
mistake with Tony's pm machine last week) but I've seen Tony Cuthbert's
machine, analysed it. People like Prof Laughton, Prof Salter are fine
minds and believe we are making progress and a chap at Brit. Aerospace i
can't name. We also cannot disclose too much.

Try this webpage:
www.city.ac.uk/~remi/Index.htm

go through link to second paper. Refresh the site if its been cached
before.
Remi.
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, steven
opelc wrote:

> Isn't it getting lighter since engine is using up gasoline..??
> 
> scale of type shown is extremely sensitive......steve...
> 
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 10:52:47 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA24285;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:51:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:51:28 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:51:23 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990728204149.00f50090 mail.eden.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728185104.14551C-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"_-mMj1.0.tw5.VCqdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29346
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gee woweeeee!

On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Scott Little wrote:

> Texans from San Antonio to Dallas (including me) were treated to a
> fantastic display last night at 10:03 PM CST as the Shuttle passed overhead
> on its last orbit before landing in Florida.  It was about 40 miles high at
> the time and in the throes of re-entry.  With the naked eye you saw an
> incandescent orange-white dot at the head of a bright glowing trail of
> ionization that it painted across the entire sky in about 2 minutes.  With
> 10x binos, I could just make out the elongated shape of the shuttle,
> pitched up at about a 45 degree angle.  Wow!
> 
> Scott
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 10:59:39 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA28114;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:57:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:57:33 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:57:25 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Solar Eclipse
In-Reply-To: <199907281029_MC2-7EA0-F11C compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728185223.14551D-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"cSH9D3.0.1t6.CIqdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29347
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Susan J Seddon wrote:

> Have you managed to get accommodation in Cornwall then?  It's not full up
> yet?
> 
> - Soo

Er, as a twenty something I'm allowed to attend raves! It's a secret
location at a lovely mansion - invitation only! That way with an address
we don't get nicked by the police for having a good time!

Apparently the mystics are all geared up (is that a pun?) for this one
because there's something called the Celtic Cross soon after and it's all
a millenium cosmic type lah di dah wind for the big one, the year 2000!
Remi. 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 11:02:50 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA30191;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:59:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:59:58 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:59:51 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Solar Eclipse
In-Reply-To: <379F1B64.3B02D385 bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728185937.14551E-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"zbfSI3.0.YN7.TKqdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29348
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Cheers Terry, cheers all.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 11:10:39 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA02832;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:07:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:07:56 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:07:51 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Sandy Kidd Gyroscopic levitator movie posted ! (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <19990728144901.18583.rocketmail web601.yahoomail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728190253.14551F-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bw_801.0.Ai.yRqdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29349
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

All,
These gyros are not 'antigravity' in the sense of shielding or cancelling
the field. They are also not freenrg. The energy of rotation goes to
linear energy. They seem to be pulling themselves up by their own
bootstraps. I can't find an analogy or easy way of picturing what goes on,
yet. I trust the simple analysis in the website.

Also the reverse is true, start, speed up, rotation speed goes down,
deaccelerate, rotation speed goes back up. This need much more thought to
see if some relativity principle is not being violated here, or if it is
why.

FACTS: we get linear motion.
FACTS: we trust standard Newtonian analysis and that leads to these
predictions.

I will do my best under Tony's discretion to disclose more in the name of
open Science.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 11:15:28 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA06018;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:13:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:13:58 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:13:52 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728185104.14551C-100000 paddington>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728190942.14551G-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"cJm6D1.0.xT1.cXqdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29350
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Seriously,
That 45 deg angle has got to be an optical illusion. Have you ever watched
aircraft and been confused if it's rising or coming towards you (kind of
rolling) etc. You're projecting your 3D world on distant objects which
look almost 2D. 45 deg angle at Mach 25? I'm not going to make jokes about
women drivers, so, er, I won't.
Remi.

 > On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Scott Little wrote:
> > > Texans from San Antonio to Dallas (including me) were treated to a
> > fantastic display last night at 10:03 PM CST as the Shuttle passed overhead
> > on its last orbit before landing in Florida.  It was about 40 miles high at
> > the time and in the throes of re-entry.  With the naked eye you saw an
> > incandescent orange-white dot at the head of a bright glowing trail of
> > ionization that it painted across the entire sky in about 2 minutes.  With
> > 10x binos, I could just make out the elongated shape of the shuttle,
> > pitched up at about a 45 degree angle.  Wow!
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 12:14:43 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA23893;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:13:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:13:06 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19990728120649.009ed190 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:11:57 -0700
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728190942.14551G-100000 paddington>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728185104.14551C-100000 paddington>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ejhUJ.0.Er5.1Prdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29351
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

No it doesn't.  The re-entry orientation has the shuttle at a very high
angle of attack because the heat shield tiles are on the bottom.  Also, the
large exposed surface area results in maxiumum drag.  Keep in mind that the
atmosphere way up there is very thin, so there isn't as much aerodynamic
drag as there would be at mach 25 at lower altitudes, where the shuttle
would burn up at those speeds.  Also, it is possible to hear multiple shock
fronts at greater than mach 2, though it was probably too high for Scott to
hear them.

The SR71, when flying over Beale at mach 2.0 + ???? undisclosed and
probably a bit above 3.5 at 70,000 ft+ altitude sends out a double sonic
boom clearly audible at ground level,  ie, loud enough to run out of the
building to wonder what happened.  But in daylight, you can't see the bird
as it is so high up there as to be invisible.  They alternately dump some
kerosene into the afterburners to send out a smoke plume on and off like
sky writers to let you see if you can see it.  Without binoculars, the
answer is no.


rt


At 07:13 PM 7/28/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Seriously,
>That 45 deg angle has got to be an optical illusion. Have you ever watched
>aircraft and been confused if it's rising or coming towards you (kind of
>rolling) etc. You're projecting your 3D world on distant objects which
>look almost 2D. 45 deg angle at Mach 25? I'm not going to make jokes about
>women drivers, so, er, I won't.
>Remi.
>
> > On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Scott Little wrote:
>> > > Texans from San Antonio to Dallas (including me) were treated to a
>> > fantastic display last night at 10:03 PM CST as the Shuttle passed
overhead
>> > on its last orbit before landing in Florida.  It was about 40 miles
high at
>> > the time and in the throes of re-entry.  With the naked eye you saw an
>> > incandescent orange-white dot at the head of a bright glowing trail of
>> > ionization that it painted across the entire sky in about 2 minutes.  With
>> > 10x binos, I could just make out the elongated shape of the shuttle,
>> > pitched up at about a 45 degree angle.  Wow!
>> > 
>> > Scott
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 12:21:44 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA26889;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:20:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:20:01 -0700
Message-ID: <00da01bed936$59697f20$4d441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: NCPV Home Page
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:18:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED8FB.A61A87A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"TVQF42.0._Z6.WVrdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29352
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_0005_01BED8FB.A61A87A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

18.8% efficient  thin-film polycrystalline (Copper Indium Gallium
DiSelenide) Solar Cell. 175 watts/meter^2 ?

 http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pvmenu.cgi?site=ncpv&idx=0&body=whats_hot.html

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED8FB.A61A87A0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="NCPV Home Page.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="NCPV Home Page.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pvmenu.cgi?site=3Dncpv&idx=3D0&body=3D=
whats_hot.html

[DOC#8#9#10]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/ncpvlogo.html

[DOC#8#9#11]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/menu.htm

[DOC#8#12]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/recordcell.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=3Dhttp://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pvmenu.cgi?site=3Dncpv&idx=3D0&body=3Dwhat=
s_hot.html
Modified=3D2087B64B35D9BE0175

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED8FB.A61A87A0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 12:30:39 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA31584;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:29:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:29:43 -0700
Message-ID: <00e701bed937$bce1dce0$4d441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: What are Biofuels
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:28:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01BED8FD.066D3B60"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"5BjV13.0.Jj7.derdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29353
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BED8FD.066D3B60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>From Cow Chips to Kilowatts

 http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/what_are.html

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BED8FD.066D3B60
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="What are Biofuels.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="What are Biofuels.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/what_are.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/what_are.html
Modified=4064FE8637D9BE01F7

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BED8FD.066D3B60--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 12:33:22 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA32732;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:31:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:31:52 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:31:46 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
Reply-To: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990728120649.009ed190 pop3.oro.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728202059.14551I-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"6w8Bt3.0.H_7.egrdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29354
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Okay,
I just didn't think that the angle was *that* high. I know that also they
can't use aerosurfaces to keep that pitch so they have little rockets keep
it at that pitch which automatically throttle down as the wings give some
lift. How long is the tract from re-entry to landing? I know they do some
'S' loops to cut it down a bit. 

Anyway, how can one see something *directly overhead* and determine that
it's pitched? At about 400,000ft I guess one can work out its azitmuth to
see around it, not the underside. Surely it appears like a line overhead
and nearer the horizon you'd see the true pitch. In between a varying
angle but not 45deg if overhead. 
Remi.


On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Ross
Tessien wrote:

> No it doesn't.  The re-entry orientation has the shuttle at a very high
> angle of attack because the heat shield tiles are on the bottom.  Also, the
> large exposed surface area results in maxiumum drag.  Keep in mind that the
> atmosphere way up there is very thin, so there isn't as much aerodynamic
> drag as there would be at mach 25 at lower altitudes, where the shuttle
> would burn up at those speeds.  Also, it is possible to hear multiple shock
> fronts at greater than mach 2, though it was probably too high for Scott to
> hear them.
> 
> The SR71, when flying over Beale at mach 2.0 + ???? undisclosed and
> probably a bit above 3.5 at 70,000 ft+ altitude sends out a double sonic
> boom clearly audible at ground level,  ie, loud enough to run out of the
> building to wonder what happened.  But in daylight, you can't see the bird
> as it is so high up there as to be invisible.  They alternately dump some
> kerosene into the afterburners to send out a smoke plume on and off like
> sky writers to let you see if you can see it.  Without binoculars, the
> answer is no.
> 
> 
> rt
> 
> 
> At 07:13 PM 7/28/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >Seriously,
> >That 45 deg angle has got to be an optical illusion. Have you ever watched
> >aircraft and been confused if it's rising or coming towards you (kind of
> >rolling) etc. You're projecting your 3D world on distant objects which
> >look almost 2D. 45 deg angle at Mach 25? I'm not going to make jokes about
> >women drivers, so, er, I won't.
> >Remi.
> >
> > > On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Scott Little wrote:
> >> > > Texans from San Antonio to Dallas (including me) were treated to a
> >> > fantastic display last night at 10:03 PM CST as the Shuttle passed
> overhead
> >> > on its last orbit before landing in Florida.  It was about 40 miles
> high at
> >> > the time and in the throes of re-entry.  With the naked eye you saw an
> >> > incandescent orange-white dot at the head of a bright glowing trail of
> >> > ionization that it painted across the entire sky in about 2 minutes.  With
> >> > 10x binos, I could just make out the elongated shape of the shuttle,
> >> > pitched up at about a 45 degree angle.  Wow!
> >> > 
> >> > Scott
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 12:37:35 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA03788;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:36:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:36:17 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:36:11 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990728120649.009ed190 pop3.oro.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728203223.15829A-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"qOimM.0.5x.mkrdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29355
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross, 
what's the difference between a boom and a bang? A bang is percussive to
me. I don't think I've heard one (thunderstorm?), only on tv where the low
f are clipped. I know that high speed rifle bullets 'crack'. Also why
should one hear multiple effects, the shockwave passes once. Is that
echoes? 
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 12:43:53 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA07189;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:42:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:42:10 -0700
From: BriggsRO aol.com
Message-ID: <a1b98328.24d0b6d1 aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:41:05 EDT
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 24
Resent-Message-ID: <"LGG-U2.0.Fm1.Iqrdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29356
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 7/28/99 6:42:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, little eden.com 
writes:

<< I could just make out the elongated shape of the shuttle,
 pitched up at about a 45 degree angle.  Wow!
  >>
Was the pitch angle 45 degrees from the path of motion -  like in a 45 degree 
angle of attack?  Amazing!!  I wonder what kept the old tub from burning up 
or breaking up.
I've never read or heard much about the landing program but that seems steep.

Bob

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 13:03:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA12791;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:00:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:00:11 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19990728125816.009e8590 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:59:54 -0700
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728203223.15829A-100000 paddington>
References: <4.1.19990728120649.009ed190 pop3.oro.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"LHdgK2.0.n73.B5sdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29357
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

boom bang, all the same to me.

multiple shocks form multiple concentric cones.  A lot is going on.  planes
form multiple shock front cones, due to air properties and to bounce of the
collapse and the surface geometries.

rt


At 08:36 PM 7/28/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Ross, 
>what's the difference between a boom and a bang? A bang is percussive to
>me. I don't think I've heard one (thunderstorm?), only on tv where the low
>f are clipped. I know that high speed rifle bullets 'crack'. Also why
>should one hear multiple effects, the shockwave passes once. Is that
>echoes? 
>Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 13:08:41 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA15731;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:07:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:07:29 -0700
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199907282007.PAA20023 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728203223.15829A-100000 paddington> from Cornwall RO at "Jul 28, 99 08:36:11 pm"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:07:23 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Eu_JW.0.dr3.0Csdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29358
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> why should one hear multiple effects, the shockwave passes
> once. Is that echoes? 

Like a boat through water, waves are produced at points of
discontinutiy, the major ones being the bow and the aft.

So you can sometimes distinquish the bow and aft shock waves
as a very quick double boom.  There are likely many smaller
boomlets from various discontinutites along the airframe,
but too close and too small in comparison to the bow and aft
shockwaves to be individually distinquished by the human ear.

-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com  --  651-633-8928 -
 - 4234 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 13:57:53 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA07561;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:55:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:55:53 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990729035529.00f186fc mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 03:55:29 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <a1b98328.24d0b6d1 aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"5cAvX.0._r1.Pvsdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29359
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:41 PM 7/28/99 EDT, BriggsRO aol.com wrote:

>Was the pitch angle 45 degrees from the path of motion -  like in a 45
degree 
>angle of attack?  Amazing!!  I wonder what kept the old tub from burning up 
>or breaking up.

That's the way it is designed to come in.  As Ross said, all the tiles are
on the bottom.  BTW, it's not "flying" during this portion of the re-entry,
that comes later when there's some decent air pressure.  It's maintained at
that attitude by servo-controlled thrusters.

I could see the angle of attack because I was about 100 miles south of the
flyover line.  From my perspective, the path nearly crossed Polaris so the
apparent elevation was about 30 degrees, which is our latitude.



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 Jul 28 14:10:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA12372;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:09:15 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:09:15 -0700
Message-ID: <19990728211003.13975.rocketmail web601.yahoomail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerry Wayne Decker <jwdatwork yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Sandy Kidd Gyroscopic levitator movie posted ! (fwd)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"kIIAs.0.D13.x5tdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29360
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gnorts...

http://www.spiritweb.org/KeelyNet/Gravity/gravity5.asc.html

"...He has  worked  out  that, by setting  gyroscopes 
at particular angles, a lifting force that defies
gravity is produced."

I note Kidd never used the term antigravity in this
report but I think there is another one where he does
state that, still looking...
-------------------------
Gyroscopes being used as propulsion devices;

http://www.gyros.freeserve.co.uk/

-------------------------
--- Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk> wrote:
> All,
> These gyros are not 'antigravity' in the sense of
> shielding or cancelling
> the field. They are also not freenrg. The energy of
> rotation goes to
> linear energy. They seem to be pulling themselves up
> by their own
> bootstraps. I can't find an analogy or easy way of
> picturing what goes on,
> yet. I trust the simple analysis in the website.
> 
> Also the reverse is true, start, speed up, rotation
> speed goes down,
> deaccelerate, rotation speed goes back up. This need
> much more thought to
> see if some relativity principle is not being
> violated here, or if it is
> why.
> 
> FACTS: we get linear motion.
> FACTS: we trust standard Newtonian analysis and that
> leads to these
> predictions.
> 
> I will do my best under Tony's discretion to
> disclose more in the name of
> open Science.
> Remi.
> 
> 

===


=================================
Please respond to jdecker keelynet.com
as I am writing from my work email of
jwdatwork yahoo.com.........thanks!
=================================
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 14:31:58 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA22629;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:28:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:28:25 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3c2d891808a [207.8.127.102]>
In-Reply-To: <37a01425.6641988 mail-hub>
References: <v04011700b3beb0a3865d [207.8.127.138]>
 <v04011700b3be64abc4a1 [207.8.127.138]>
 <3.0.5.32.19990723142509.00c918b0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
 <v04011700b3beb0a3865d [207.8.127.138]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:52:56 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: More Excerpts
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id OAA22500
Resent-Message-ID: <"ipyf8.0.FX5.sNtdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29362
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:34:37 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>>At 03:11 PM 7/23/1999 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>>   Second, it can form a covalent bond with one of the surrounding Pd
>>>>>atoms, slip through as bump on the Pd, then break the bond to appear in
>>>>>another void.  My guess is that this is the main source of the high
>>>mobility.
>>>>
>>>>***{No. The covalent radius of Pd is 1.376 Å (measured) while the covalent
>>>>radius of D is .742 Å, whereas the entry hole is a mere .206 Å. --MJ}***
>
>Hi Mitchell,
>
>I believe that .742 Å is the distance between the nuclei of the
>deuterium molecule, and as such is nearer to twice the radius.
>(For the covalent radius of H I have 0.32 Å).

***{Good point. I divided the covalent bond length of Pd by 2, but somehow
neglected to do likewise for the D-D bond. If I had done so, the result
would have been .74164/2 = .37082 Å. In any case, the conclusion stands:
the hole is too small, even when we take account of the possibility that
the D forms a covalent bond with the Pd, since the largest radius that can
pass through the hole is .206 Å, not .371 Å. Moreover, as I noted earlier,
palladium hydride is merely a name chemists have given to a palladium
lattice that has been loaded with hydrogen, and says nothing whatever about
whether this is a compound in the traditional sense at all. In my view, it
is *not* a compound: the hydrogen atoms are merely wedged into the lattice,
that's all. If the holes were larger, the hydrogens would diffuse out, and
escape into the atmosphere, thereby proving beyond dispute that this is not
a compound. Thus I am being generous when I assume that a covalent bond
exists between the wedged-in hydrogens and the adjacent palladium atoms.
Logic says otherwise, because the outer shell of Pd is full: it contains
the full complement of electrons allowed to the n-shell, which is 18
electrons, and thus is pretty much a happy camper in the presence of an
electron donor compound such as hydrogen, though it will react with very
aggressive electron acceptors (e.g., chlorine). In such cases of actual
electron transfer, however, the result is an ionic bond, not a covalent
bond, and the ionic bond radius of hydrogen when it acts as an electron
acceptor (valence -1) goes from .37 Å (covalent) to 1.54 Å, which is an
*increase* of almost 300%!. The reason: with two electrons in the orbit,
their mutual repulsion causes the orbit to expand. Similarly, when Pd acts
as an electron donor, the reduced mutual repulsion causes its outer orbit
to shrink a bit, from 1.37 Å (covalent) to .8 Å (ionic). Result: even in
the unlikely event of an electron transfer from Pd to H, the resulting bond
length would be 1.54 + .8 = 2.34 Å, which is an increase, not a decrease,
when compared to the covalent bond length of 1.37 + .371 = 1.741 Å. Bottom
line: the claim that a neutral hydrogen atom can move into the Pd lattice
after first forming an ionic bond with the Pd is simply not reasonable.
[And doubly so in the case of the Mizuno cell, where the Pd cathode would
begin to repel a hydrogen from the very instant that it accepted an extra
electron, thereby forcibly preventing it from entering the lattice. (Are
you listening, Ed Storms? ;-)] --Mitchell Jones}***

>[snip]
>>>>***{No. The principle of continuity states that "no thing may come into
>>>>existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing." It is one of the
>>>>necessary supports to the structure of human knowledge...
>
>This is only true, if said disappearances and reappearance are
>independent. If they are linked through probability however, then it is
>no longer so.

***{Incorrect. The concept of probability presupposes the validity of the
principle of induction--i.e., that things will behave as they have behaved
in the past--and the principle of induction presupposes the validity of the
principle of continuity. As I noted, if the principle of continuity is
invalid, then there is no basis for belief that there *is* a past, because,
for example, one's supposed memories of that past may be simply sensations
leaping into existence out of nothing. (And there are other, more complex,
ways of arguing for the same conclusion.) The point here is that when you
talk about "independent events" or "the past," or about events that are
"linked through probability," you assume the existence of the world and of
yourself. But, if the principle of continuity is invalid, you have no basis
for belief in either. --Mitchell Jones}***

  (The consequence would be that there would be an
>uncertainty in all knowledge).

***{There is a difference between uncertainty and nihilism, Robin. Nihilism
is the destruction of all basis for belief in anything, including
probabilities; and it is nihilism, not uncertainty, that follows
immediately from a denial of the principle of continuity. You can't make
statements such as "Under these circumstances in the past, event A resulted
in 90% of cases, therefore it will result in 90% of such cases in the
future," unless you have already accepted the existence of a world in which
things behave as they behaved in the past. But if things may leap into
existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing, then your sensations--all
of them, including those originating in sight, sound, touch, smell, taste,
memory, emotion, imagination, cognition, etc.--may simply be leaping into
existence out of nothing. Result: you lose the ability to infer from
sensation to source. The fact that you have a sensation does not mean it
came from anywhere. Result: you lose all basis for belief that a world
exists where things behave as they behaved in the past. Result: you lose
the ability to say that anything is necessary, or even "probable." Result:
you do not achieve "uncertainty," but nihilism. All basis for belief in
anything collapses. The entire structure of knowledge is pulled down.
Bottom line: any doctrine--e.g., "quantum mechanics"--which posits that
things can come into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing
constitutes a denial of the possibility of knowledge, and, as such, refutes
itself. --Mitchell Jones}***

>Note that this could well rest upon continuity at a deeper level, i.e.
>at that of the ZPE, quantum vacuum, or aether. IOW it may be possible
>that particles as such are continually created and disappear again,
>while the "memory" of the particle still exists as a template in the
>underlying continuum, resulting in the very likely recreation of an
>identical particle in almost the same place, and with almost the same
>momentum.
>[snip]

***{Any way you slice it, Robin, the conclusion remains the same: quantum
mechanics is a wrecking ball aimed directly at the structure of human
knowledge. If you accept the deadly premise of quantum mechanics and begin
to work out its implications, you will find that it pulls down everything,
including itself. Such a conclusion is inescapable and unarguable.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 14:32:33 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA22596;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:28:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:28:21 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3c3999215db [207.8.127.102]>
In-Reply-To: <37a43079.13896356 mail-hub>
References: <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]>
 <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:26:36 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: electron's location
Resent-Message-ID: <"FDCit.0.hW5.pNtdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29361
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:48:11 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>[snip]
>>***{Robin's picture is not "quantum mechanical," and yours isn't, either.
>>Both of you are assuming that the electron's motion is *continuous*--which
>>means: you are assuming that when it moves from A to B, it sequentially
>>occupies every intervening position on some pathway from A to B. Robin was
>>very explicit in his acknowledgment that his model was classical in nature.
>
>Actually, I think that the mathematics of QM describes a classical
>situation, the nuances of which simply haven't been appreciated yet.

***{Robin, there is no "mathematics of QM." A mathematical construct which
has been designed to summarize a set of experimentally measured data points
has no allegiance to a philosophy, and has no preferences regarding how the
data points are to be explained. It cares not a whit whether we say, for
example, that electrons pass briefly through the space between preferred
orbits, or that they do not pass through that space. This means that the
proponents of classical mechanics have fully as much right to use the
mathematical tools claimed by "quantum mechanics" as do the proponents of
"quantum mechanics." --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>You, however, simultaneously invoke "quantum mechanics" while referring to
>>the electron as "zooming in," as behaving like a "jittery comet," etc. It
>>is as if you see no incompatibility between "quantum mechanics" and the
>>notion that motion in the microcosm is continuous. If this is correct, then
>>what criterion do you use to distinguish between classical mechanics and
>>quantum mechanics?
>
>None, I think they are one and the same.

***{Robin, I sympathize, but the fact that modern proponents of QM and CM
use essentially the same mathematical tools does not imply that there is no
difference between the two approaches. The problem is that level headed
people, who take a commonsensical approach to physics, tend to be naive. It
is hard for them to comprehend that anyone could be so stupid, or so evil,
as to actually put forth the kind of ridiculous philosophical nonsense that
is the essence of the so called "Copenhagen interpretation." Result: they
contemptuously dismiss the grotesque word salads that attempt to convey
that interpretation, and look for differences between QM and CM elsewhere.
Result: they fail to find them, and conclude that the two approaches are
one and the same. Well, *they aren't the same*. The only way to understand
"quantum mechanics" is to immerse yourself in the rotating murk known as
the "Copenhagen interpretation." That's where the essence of quantum
mechanics is to be found, and is the only place where it is to be found.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>Also, how would you explain discrete spectral lines and
>>the photoelectric effect, using Robin's model? --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>I suspect that stable orbits are those in which the electron is in phase
>with itself, after one complete "orbit". Note that for a flat ellipse,
>with constantly changing DB wavelength, this is not as obvious, but I
>suspect that it works out the same as for a circle (if not, then I will
>give up on the notion).
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 16:23:09 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA28482;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:19:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:19:29 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Sandy Kidd Gyroscopic levitator movie posted ! (fwd)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:18:55 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <379f8f76.169330294 mail-hub>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728131747.5359B-100000 paddington>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728131747.5359B-100000 paddington>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 QAA28466
Resent-Message-ID: <"5TRkw2.0.yy6.00vdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29363
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:19:19 +0100 (BST), Cornwall RO wrote:
[snip]
>> about the Sandy Kidd Gyroscopic levitator 
>> device.
>> It defies the 3rd Newton action-reactio law.
>> 
>> It can be seen at:
>> http://mars.spaceports.com/~over/movies/kiddgyro.ram
>> in streaming mode,
>> otherwise you can also download it at:
[snip]
Does anyone know if the loss of weight due to fuel consumption has been
taken into account?


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 16:58:23 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA04475;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <bc5ed668.24d0f219 aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:54:01 EDT
Subject: Don Ernst of Thermacore
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54
Resent-Message-ID: <"Nznhw1.0.q51.xYvdt" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29364
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Fred,

You wrote that thirty years ago, you worked with Don Ernst, then at RCA 
Lancaster.

It's a small world.  I heard Don give an informal presentation about 
Thermacore's Mills-type electrolytic excess heat cell to a group of some 40 
people at MIT on December 3, 1992.  Don began by saying that he hadn't done 
the experiments and wasn't a technical person, but he seemed to know what he 
was talking about.  I didn't realize that he had lots of hands-on technical 
experience in his background.

So, a question, partly rhetorical.  If he had several months to examine the 
matter, could Don Ernst tell the difference between 18 watts of electrical 
current in and 68 watts of heat out?

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 17:17:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA32472;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:15:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:15:02 -0700
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au 
X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: CPE-24-192-27-67.vic.bigpond.net.au [24.192.27.67]
X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered directly.
From: rvanspaa bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: electron's location
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:14:25 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <37a39c22.172574553 mail-hub>
References: <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]> <v04011700b3c23586f45b@[207.8.127.102]> <v04011701b3c3999215db@[207.8.127.102]>
In-Reply-To: <v04011701b3c3999215db [207.8.127.102]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 RAA32346
Resent-Message-ID: <"n1CMJ2.0.Hx7.5qvdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29365
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:26:36 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
[snip]
>>Actually, I think that the mathematics of QM describes a classical
>>situation, the nuances of which simply haven't been appreciated yet.
>
>***{Robin, there is no "mathematics of QM." A mathematical construct which
>has been designed to summarize a set of experimentally measured data points
>has no allegiance to a philosophy, and has no preferences regarding how the
>data points are to be explained. It cares not a whit whether we say, for
>example, that electrons pass briefly through the space between preferred
>orbits, or that they do not pass through that space. This means that the
>proponents of classical mechanics have fully as much right to use the
>mathematical tools claimed by "quantum mechanics" as do the proponents of
>"quantum mechanics." --Mitchell Jones}***

So you managed to say in 9 lines what I had already said in 2 ;).
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 17:33:53 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08194;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:32:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:32:54 -0700
Message-ID: <013001bed962$18ef2220$4d441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <bc5ed668.24d0f219 aol.com>
Subject: Re: Don Ernst of Thermacore
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:31:23 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"kIOva3.0.Z_1.s4wdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29366
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: <Tstolper aol.com>
To: <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 4:54 PM
Subject: Don Ernst of Thermacore

Tom wrote:


> Fred,
>
> You wrote that thirty years ago, you worked with Don Ernst, then at RCA
> Lancaster.
>
> It's a small world.  I heard Don give an informal presentation about
> Thermacore's Mills-type electrolytic excess heat cell to a group of some
40
> people at MIT on December 3, 1992.  Don began by saying that he hadn't
done
> the experiments and wasn't a technical person, but he seemed to know what
he
> was talking about.  I didn't realize that he had lots of hands-on
technical
> experience in his background.
>
> So, a question, partly rhetorical.  If he had several months to examine
the
> matter, could Don Ernst tell the difference between 18 watts of electrical
> current in and 68 watts of heat out?

Y
If we are talking about the same Don Ernst, you can bank on it, Tom. Since
Thermacore is in the heat pipe business,and heat pipe designs require
exacting calorimetry, he would have to have the necessary expertise.

If you want to see the list of patents (Thermacore)with Donald M. Ernst's
name
 on them, go to www.patents.ibm.com       and pull up inventors and
companies
plug in Ernst Donald.

US 5,273,635 is particularly interesting.   :-)

Regards,   Frederick
>
> Tom Stolper
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 18:35:05 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA29055;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:33:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:33:57 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: freenrg-l eskimo.com
Subject: INE '99 Symposium (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.990728183158.16486D-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id SAA28957
Resent-Message-ID: <"RG2QC3.0.p57.4-wdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29367
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:59:04 -0700
From: Hal Fox <halfox uswest.net>
Reply-To: halfox mail.slkc.uswest.net
To: HalFox slkc.uswest.net
Subject: INE '99 Symposium

Date:  28 July 1999
From:  Hal Fox <halfox slkc.uswest.net>
Organization:  Institute for New Energy 

Dear Members of INE and Energy Friends,

The INE-99 Symposium on New Energy will be held in the Salt Palace in
downtown Salt Lake City, Utah on Friday and Saturday, August 27-28,
1999.  We have extended until August 15, 1999 the reduced cost of $100. 
After August 15, 1999, the conference fee will be $150.  This payment
will also include a copy of the Journal of New Energy INE-99 Symposium
Proceedings.  

This Conference is being Cosponsored by:
Alternative Energy Institute, Inc.
Phone/Fax: 530-546-5612
www.altenergy.org

Dr. Patrick Bailey, president of the Institute for New Energy, will be
the Conference Chairman.

Please visit the INE Website for further information that will be posted
as this conference agenda becomes completed:  Web Page: 
www.padrak.com/ine/

There are three special topics in this year's event that are important
to the development of new energy sources:  Hadronic Mechanics, New
Maxwell Electromagnetic Equations, and several New Science Papers.

1.  Hadronic Mechanics:
Prof. Ruggero Santilli will discuss his life's work on Hadronic
Mechanics and how his theory explains the actions within the nuclei and
how important this understanding is to some of the new energy
developments.  New energy experiments proposed.

2.  New Maxwell Electrodynamic Equations:  
Tom Bearden and Prof. Lawrence B. Crowell (tentative) will introduce the
New Maxwell Electromagnetic Equations that are expected to greatly
extend the electromagnetic technologies into new fields of endeavor,
especially new energy sources.  Proof that space energy is available and
can be tapped?

3.  New Science Papers:  
a.  Dr. S-X Jin and Hal Fox will present the latest analytical work on
how high-density charge clusters can be used to stabilize high-level
radioactive wastes with applications to new forms of energy
development.  One million times more effective than current technology.
b.  Paul Rowe (tentative) discovered the "Rowe Effect" in which protons
(hydrogen) are created from space energy by explosions and arcs.
c.  Dr. Ed Price will report on a new super-strong magnetic material.
d.  Bill Ramsay will report on gravity-wave fluctuations (torsion
fields?).
e.  Moray King will present the latest information on zero-point energy.
f.  Sue Benford (tentative) has shown that Spontaneous Human Combustion
is probably an internal human-body nuclear reaction.
g.  Dr. Panos T. Pappas (tentative) shows that the excess potassium
produced by humans (and other organisms) comes from a sodium-oxygen
nuclear reaction within body cells.
h.  Thomas Valone will outline some of the questions that must be
answered for the field of new energy to properly expand and be
academically acceptable.
i.  Mark McLaughlin (Alternative Energy Institute), The goals and
objectives of AEI.
j.  Prof. Xingliu Jiang from China (tentative) is expected to present a
paper on his work with low-energy nuclear reactions.
k.  David Faust will present a special report on the government-funded
study of the Russian Kirlian photography.

The above list is subject to modification and change.  Latest changes
will be posted on the INE Web Page.

Note:  All of these important topics have a direct application to the
understanding of new energy phenomena.  New Energy progress will be more
rapid and academic acceptance will be accelerated as we couple new
scientific discoveries with new theories properly supported by provable
mathematical models.   

IMPORTANT:  NEW MAXWELL ELECTRODYNAMIC EQUATIONS - 
A ONCE-IN-A-HUNDRED-YEAR DISCOVERY AND ANNOUNCEMENT
The INE-99 Symposium has been selected (thanks to Tom Bearden) as the
first audience to hear about the most important advance in
electromagnetics in almost 100 years.  Thirty topics not explained by
the Maxwell-Heaviside equations are explained by the new equations. 
Following the conference, a special issue (now in process) of the
Journal of New Energy will be devoted to a series of over 30 papers
from  Dr. Myron W. Evans and eighteen co-authors from eleven countries
who have participated in the development of the New Maxwell
Electromagnetic Equations.  If you have any interest in being among the
first to understand, use, and profit by the expected tremendous new
advances in electromagnetics (including new-energy technologies), you
won't want to miss this conference.

NOTICE TO SPEAKERS:
Abstracts of presentations to be made at the conference are due August
15, 1999.  Papers to be published must be provided at the conference to
be included in the Conference Proceedings. 

MOTELS (Call directly; make your reservations early)

Quality Inn City Center,  154 W 500 S
(801) 521-2930,  Toll Free 800-521-9997
5 blocks from Salt Palace; shuttle service to Salt Palace, or within
free bus zone; full American breakfast; 2 good restaurants, American &
Mexican; swimming pool; self-regulated air cond.;  Airport shuttle
service
Corporate Rooms:  $58 single, $62 double    Standard Rooms: $49 single,
$52 double
****
Deseret Inn,  50 W 500 S,  (801) 532-2900
3 « blocks from Salt Palace; within free bus zone; no breakfast; no
amenities except TV; clean; ask for best air conditioning   Rooms:
$29.95 single,  $32.95 double
****
Some other hotels/motels downtown are:
Shilo Downtown Hotel, 206 S West Temple   $109 Aug 26, $69 weekend rate
Aug 27-28
(801) 521-9500 or Toll Free 800-222-2244
***
Marriott Hotel, 75 S West Temple,   $145 corporate rate, $155 standard
rate
(801) 531-0800 or Toll Free 800-228-9290
***
Doubletree Hotel, 255 S West Temple, $89,   (801) 328-2000 or Toll Free
800-222-8733            

Hampton Inn, 425 S 300 W, $69    (801) 741-1110

Contact Hal Fox at:  Voice 801-466-8680; Fax 801-466-8668; mail:
Trenergy, Inc. 3084 E. 3300 So., Salt Lake City, UT  84109.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 19:28:09 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA17112;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:26:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:26:37 -0700
From: BriggsRO aol.com
Message-ID: <c5f906f4.24d1159c aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:25:32 EDT
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 24
Resent-Message-ID: <"GjnWV1.0.EB4.Tlxdt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29368
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 7/28/99 12:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk writes:

<< Also why
 should one hear multiple effects, the shockwave passes once. Is that
 echoes?  >>
Remi,

You can get a shock wave from the bow and the stern but it would seem that 
they would be quite close, nearly like a single sound.  The second one must 
be some sort of multi-path transmission: echo, multiple refraction or some 
such.  The time difference would be a clue.

Bob Briggs
 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 28 23:53:17 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA29659;
	Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:50:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:50:18 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:50:05 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990729035529.00f186fc mail.eden.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990729074624.17785A-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"WL8Rp3.0.LF7.fc_dt" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29369
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott,
Well, we've got enough there to do a calculation. I thought your eyes
were deceiving you and you were only seeing what you wanted to believe :)

Anyway, with a head craned well back looking vertically up, its easy to
lose sense of direction. When you said 45deg angle, I imagine you'd
rotated your head/self 45 deg to the path because that would explain it.

It's always good to double check claims and procedures - but you know
that.
Remi.

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Scott Little wrote:

> At 03:41 PM 7/28/99 EDT, BriggsRO aol.com wrote:
> 
> >Was the pitch angle 45 degrees from the path of motion -  like in a 45
> degree 
> >angle of attack?  Amazing!!  I wonder what kept the old tub from burning up 
> >or breaking up.
> 
> That's the way it is designed to come in.  As Ross said, all the tiles are
> on the bottom.  BTW, it's not "flying" during this portion of the re-entry,
> that comes later when there's some decent air pressure.  It's maintained at
> that attitude by servo-controlled thrusters.
> 
> I could see the angle of attack because I was about 100 miles south of the
> flyover line.  From my perspective, the path nearly crossed Polaris so the
> apparent elevation was about 30 degrees, which is our latitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Jul 29 03:48:05 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA04495;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 03:47:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 03:47:16 -0700
Message-ID: <000d01bed9b7$ec7cd880$20441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Snookered By Thermoelectric Effects?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 04:45:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"5S4h-2.0.961.q43et" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29370
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Activity-Fugacity Thermodynamics, and Thermodynamics of  the 
Peltier-Thomson Effects add up to an Electrolysis Cell sucking  heat out 
of the Power supply and acting as a Heat Pump with C.O.P.s of about 3.5, 
depending on the type and temperature of the Power Supply.

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 05:09:09 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA17956;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:08:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:08:20 -0700
Message-ID: <003a01bed9c3$40db0c20$20441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Donald M. Ernst's  (Theramacore Patent 5,273,635)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:06:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"l6u6s3.0.UO4.qG4et" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29371
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

In US Patent 5,273,635 Ernst et al,  stipulate a pressurized Electrolysis
Cell.
www.patents.ibm.com    US Inventors and Companies; Ernst Donald M.

>From what has been posted on vortex, there were 18 watts electrical input
and
68 watts heat output, for this device. Not Bad.

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 05:30:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA23457;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:29:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:29:58 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990729192934.00f1c158 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:29:34 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990729074624.17785A-100000 paddington>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990729035529.00f186fc mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"nAVrk3.0.Mk5.5b4et" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29372
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:50 AM 7/29/99 +0100, Cornwall RO wrote:

>Anyway, with a head craned well back looking vertically up, its easy to
>lose sense of direction.

Not when the object is leaving a beautiful, straight trail that indicates
its path.  I saw this:


   ionization trail                / /
==================================/ /         travel------>
                                 / / 

not this:
                               _______
===============================_______
                              

(Angle exaggerated by ASCII drawing...but, hopefully, you get the picture).



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 Jul 29 05:33:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA24807;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:32:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:32:55 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990729193231.00f22920 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:32:31 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "vortex-l" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Snookered By Thermoelectric Effects?
In-Reply-To: <000d01bed9b7$ec7cd880$20441d26 fjsparber>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3XG0x1.0.X36.sd4et" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29373
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:45 AM 7/29/99 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:

>Activity-Fugacity Thermodynamics, and Thermodynamics of  the 
>Peltier-Thomson Effects add up to an Electrolysis Cell sucking  heat out 
>of the Power supply and acting as a Heat Pump with C.O.P.s of about 3.5, 
>depending on the type and temperature of the Power Supply.

Yan Kucherov of ENECO wrote a paper about thermoelectric effects in CF
cells of certain designs.  As I recall, he hypothesized that some apparent
excess heat signals could be due to this heat pumping effect.



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 Jul 29 05:49:16 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA29455;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:48:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:48:33 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990729084046.0087fe10 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:40:46 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728190942.14551G-100000 paddington>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990728185104.14551C-100000 paddington>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"k-dMu3.0.4C7.Ws4et" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29374
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 07:13 PM 7/28/99 +0100, Cornwall RO wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Scott Little wrote:
 -- [interesting material on observation of shuttle zipped] ----



   Given how interested in space  vorts continue to be,
therefore, it may be of interest that Forward Engineering
[ISSN #1525-7398  Journal of Cutting Edge Technology 
and Scientific Observation] has a website at

     http://world.std.com/~mica/fe.html 

Like the Cold Fusion Times, Forward Engineering has its cover page
at the website, and in this issue features scientific
matters of interest to those following space technology.

    Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 05:49:36 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA29502;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:49:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:49:00 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990729084017.00873090 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:40:17 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Snookered By Thermoelectric Effects?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990729193231.00f22920 mail.eden.com>
References: <000d01bed9b7$ec7cd880$20441d26 fjsparber>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"1KXxx.0.uC7.xs4et" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29375
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 07:32 PM 7/29/99 -0500, Scott Little wrote:

>At 04:45 AM 7/29/99 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>>Activity-Fugacity Thermodynamics, and Thermodynamics of  the 
>>Peltier-Thomson Effects add up to an Electrolysis Cell sucking  heat out 
>>of the Power supply and acting as a Heat Pump with C.O.P.s of about 3.5, 
>>depending on the type and temperature of the Power Supply.
>
>Yan Kucherov of ENECO wrote a paper about thermoelectric effects in CF
>cells of certain designs.  As I recall, he hypothesized that some apparent
>excess heat signals could be due to this heat pumping effect.


  There may be false negatives, as well as false positives,
due to failure to take into account heat and mass transfer
[e.g.such as in the electrolysis gas stream].  

  These issuessuggest the importance of different controls 
(such as chemical AND thermal AND with adequate cooling and 
equilibrium curves)and one advantage of a multiring calorimeter.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 05:56:40 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA32428;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:55:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:55:41 -0700
Message-ID: <005201bed9c9$df306fe0$20441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990729193231.00f22920 mail.eden.com>
Subject: Re: Snookered By Thermoelectric Effects?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:53:39 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"py3-N2.0.cw7.Dz4et" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29376
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>; vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Snookered By Thermoelectric Effects?

Scott wrote:


> At 04:45 AM 7/29/99 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>
> >Activity-Fugacity Thermodynamics, and Thermodynamics of  the
> >Peltier-Thomson Effects add up to an Electrolysis Cell sucking  heat out
> >of the Power supply and acting as a Heat Pump with C.O.P.s of about 3.5,
> >depending on the type and temperature of the Power Supply.
>
> Yan Kucherov of ENECO wrote a paper about thermoelectric effects in CF
> cells of certain designs.  As I recall, he hypothesized that some apparent
> excess heat signals could be due to this heat pumping effect.

Are you sure it wasn't Dr. Willie Kucherkokoff, of Christine Jorgenson fame?

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 06:15:22 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA05003;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:14:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:14:24 -0700
Message-ID: <37A053F6.8D28661F bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:15:34 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
References: <3.0.1.32.19990729035529.00f186fc mail.eden.com> <3.0.1.32.19990729192934.00f1c158@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"CH4y12.0.4E1.mE5et" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29377
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 
> At 07:50 AM 7/29/99 +0100, Cornwall RO wrote:
> 
> >Anyway, with a head craned well back looking vertically up, its easy to
> >lose sense of direction.
> 
> Not when the object is leaving a beautiful, straight trail that indicates
> its path.  I saw this:
> 
>    ionization trail                / /
> ==================================/ /         travel------>
>                                  / /
> 
> not this:
>                                _______
> ===============================_______

Damn good observation, Scott.  From:

http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_overview.html

(about 2/3rds of the way through)

The orbiter's angle of attack is  kept at a high value (40 degrees)
during most of this phase to protect the upper surfaces from extreme
heat. It is modulated at  certain times to ''tweak'' the system and
is ramped down to a new value at the end of this phase for orbiter
controllability. Using  bank angle to adjust drag acceleration
causes the orbiter to turn off course. Therefore, at times, the
orbiter must be rolled back  toward the runway. This is called a
roll reversal and is commanded as a function of azimuth error from
the runway. The ground  track during this phase, then, results in a
series of S-turns.

<end>

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 06:54:33 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA17898;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:53:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:53:39 -0700
Message-ID: <007601bed9d1$f5f94960$20441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: CNN - NASA probe flys by asteroid - July 29, 1999
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:50:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED997.07BBF480"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"nY9q8.0.VN4.Zp5et" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29378
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_0005_01BED997.07BBF480
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9907/29/flyby.01.ap/

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED997.07BBF480
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="CNN - NASA probe flys by asteroid - July 29, 1999.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="CNN - NASA probe flys by asteroid - July 29, 1999.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9907/29/flyby.01.ap/

[DOC#32]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://ads.enliven.com/tools/igen.dll?cid=3D125201;nuid=3D-6573=
48011;session=3D-1200566565;sid=3D25800;type=3Diframe;click=3Dhttp://cnn.=
com/event.ng/Type=3Dclick&RunID=3D18739&ProfileID=3D401&AdID=3D12067&Grou=
pID=3D26&FamilyID=3D1352&TagValues=3D434.435.550.594.598.745&Redirect=3D

[InternetShortcut]
URL=3Dhttp://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9907/29/flyby.01.ap/
Modified=3DC04D6B9DD1D9BE017E

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED997.07BBF480--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 09:58:49 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA25083;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:57:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:57:50 -0700
Message-ID: <37A08851.BDCC0FE7 bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:58:57 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Project Santa Maria
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QYwrC.0.r76.DW8et" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29379
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Joe Firmage has launched his new web site at:

http://www.isso.org/issoclient/frameset.asp

for the International Space Sciences Organization.

Under "RESEARCH", he lists Project Santa Maria which itemizes the
new paradigm in physics.  One item should interest this list:

"5. Progress in establishing a connection between the
electromagnetic zero-point field and inertia. reference:

Bernhard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda. Presented at Space Technology and
Applications International Forum, January 31 - February 4, 1999,
Albuquerque, NM."

Regards,
Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 13:31:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA30353;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:30:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:30:17 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: paddington.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:30:10 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi paddington
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990729192934.00f1c158 mail.eden.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990729212953.450A-100000 paddington>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Fj4o51.0.BQ7.PdBet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29380
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Okay, you know what you saw.

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Scott Little wrote:

> At 07:50 AM 7/29/99 +0100, Cornwall RO wrote:
> 
> >Anyway, with a head craned well back looking vertically up, its easy to
> >lose sense of direction.
> 
> Not when the object is leaving a beautiful, straight trail that indicates
> its path.  I saw this:
> 
> 
>    ionization trail                / /
> ==================================/ /         travel------>
>                                  / / 
> 
> not this:
>                                _______
> ===============================_______
>                               
> 
> (Angle exaggerated by ASCII drawing...but, hopefully, you get the picture).
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Jul 29 13:39:19 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00793;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:38:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:38:05 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b3c63a721ac7 [207.8.127.150]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990728201633.00f48784 mail.eden.com>
References: <v04011700b3c364869a70 [207.8.127.102]>
 <3.0.1.32.19990727022626.00f3bbb8 mail.eden.com>
 <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]>
 <3.0.1.32.19990726220141.00f27674 mail.eden.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:34:03 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: electron's location
Resent-Message-ID: <"R-F8F1.0.JC.jkBet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29381
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>At 12:54 PM 7/27/99 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>...I published roughly ten years ago--to wit: that the electron
>>is moving through a particulate medium, the aether, and that because of its
>>enormous velocity (about 10^16 revolutions per second for the hydrogen
>>electron), it is slicing out a cavitation channel in that medium....
>
>...the shape of the channel that an orbiting electron slices
>>out in the aether varies in a cyclical manner, with the wavelength w.
>
>Interesting theory.  Maybe it's right.
>
>Can it explain electron diffraction patterns?  The 2-slit electron
>diffraction pattern is perhaps the most challenging.  An electron source
>illuminates a screen with two closely-spaced slits in it.  Behind the
>screen is a detector array that can record the location of arriving
>electrons.  Close one of the slits and turn on the source.  The detector
>will record a simple distribution of electrons with a peak under the open
>slit, tailing off uniformly in both directions.  Open the 2nd slit.  The
>distribution now changes to the well-known 2-slit diffraction pattern with
>a peak centered between the two slits and regularly-spaced maxima at
>locations which, for small angles, satisfy the condition nl/a = x/D where n
>is an integer, l is the De Broglie wavelength of the electron, a is the
>distance between the slits, x is the distance between maxima at the
>detector location, and D is the distance between the slit screen and the
>detector plane.

***{It is important to be aware that the minima (i.e., the nodes where
crests meet troughs) obey the same relationship as the maxima. See below.
--MJ}***

>
>What I find mind-boggling about this experiment is that the act of opening
>the 2nd slit causes electrons to STOP arriving at certain locations on the
>detector plane, where they DID arrive before the 2nd slit was opened!
>Furthermore, you can't appeal to destructive interference of waves to
>explain the minima because the pattern is unchanged if we fire electrons
>towards the two slits one at a time!

***{Let's begin with an analogy. Suppose that a hollow rubber ball, 1 foot
in diameter, is moving in a straight line at a constant speed s, away from
the shore of a calm lake. Suppose further that as the ball moves it expands
to a diameter of 3 feet, then shrinks back to 1 foot, then expands back to
3 feet again, over and over. Result: it will send out waves over the water,
with a wavelength w,  such that w = Tv, where T is the period of the cycle
and v is the velocity of propagation of the waves across the water.
Clearly, if there is a long fence sticking up out of the water, running
across the middle of the lake, and there are two slits in the fence of
width w, then the result will be the creation of standing waves on the
other side of the fence in the typical diffraction pattern. At the nodes,
the waves from different slits will be w/2 out of phase, and will cancel,
providing a straight, bump-free path across the surface of the water. At
the antinodes, crests will meet crests and troughs will meet troughs,
providing a straight, maximally bumpy path across the water. Result: if the
diffraction pattern produced by the ball remains present on the surface
after the ball passes through one of the slits, it will have the effect of
diverting the ball down one of the lines of nodes. Result: if there is a
second fence behind and parallel to the first, then balls that pass through
a slit will tend to impact the second fence where a line of nodes
intersects it.

In the case of an electron or photon moving through the aether, w = Tv =
h/ms, and similar considerations apply when s is constant--to wit: a three
dimensional standing wave pattern is set up behind the slits, and because
that pattern has not dissipated by the time the moving particle passes
through a slit, it affects the trajectory of the moving particle, causing
it to pass down a line of nodes and inpact the screen where a line of nodes
intersects it, giving the observed mathematical relationships. All we have
to postulate in order to explain the observed result, in short, is (a) that
the aether exists, (b) that it is a medium through which waves propagate at
speeds greater than that of light, and (c) that when it has been set into
vibration, it takes awhile for it to settle down.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>
>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 Jul 29 13:54:52 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA05655;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:53:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:53:44 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990729164704.024ec0f0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:47:04 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Information on Cydonia [off topic: ancient water vorticies on
  Mars]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"DDePd2.0.DO1.OzBet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29382
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



   Given how interested in space  vorts continue to be,
it may be of interest that Forward Engineering
[ISSN #1525-7398  Journal of Cutting Edge Technology 
and Scientific Observation] has a small website at

     http://world.std.com/~mica/fe.html 

Forward Engineering has its cover page at the website, 
and covers scientific matters of interest to those 
following space science & technology, SETI, and 
exo- and astrobiological issues.  The issue covers
the recent AGU meeting in Boston, and the topics
involving lunar and Martian water-ice.

    Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 16:36:12 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA06468;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:14:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:14:24 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19990729142133.009c6c90 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:24:34 -0700
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: <c5f906f4.24d1159c aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"xbISS.0.-a1._8Det" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29383
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The shock cones have different included angles.  The booms would be nearly
at the same time if you were close to the craft as it passed by.  But, as
the cones expand, the separation distance between them increases significantly.

With the SR71, the second bang comes about a half second after the first
boom.  They are both of about the same amplitude.  The altitude you are at
changes the sound you hear significantly.  ie, where I live, at 3,100 ft,
the booms are very loud.  Whereas when you hear them down in the valley
near sea level, they are much more muffled due to the denser atmosphere and
increase in water vapor content.  Temperature inversion could have
something to do with it as well.

rt



At 10:25 PM 7/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 7/28/99 12:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
>R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk writes:
>
><< Also why
> should one hear multiple effects, the shockwave passes once. Is that
> echoes?  >>
>Remi,
>
>You can get a shock wave from the bow and the stern but it would seem that 
>they would be quite close, nearly like a single sound.  The second one must 
>be some sort of multi-path transmission: echo, multiple refraction or some 
>such.  The time difference would be a clue.
>
>Bob Briggs
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 18:11:56 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA19633;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:08:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:08:54 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990729205951.0087c3e0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:59:51 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: OOP [Optimal Operating Point] Analysis - v.12-14
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"kTTIW1.0.do4.biFet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29384
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


  Dear Vorts:

 Because of the feedback previously, and the general interest,
the near final draft manuscript (version 12-14) "FURTHER CONFIRMATION
OF OPTIMAL OPERATING POINT BEHAVIOR", Mitchell Swartz 
is available to vorts who have an interest in cold fusion
and why there was irreproducibility, and/or how analysis of
the electrical input power phase space in which these systems 
are driven may help some of these systems which use active 
materials, and sufficient loading.  This is a continuation of 
what was presented at ICCF7; expanded with more corroborating 
data, and info, not previously shown.

  My favorite quote about the paper is by our Horace Heffner,
who has been advancing his resonance model, perhaps supported by
the optimal operating (OOP) points.
"This is a really amazing paper!  It is one case where data stew
is an epicurean delight, and an ingenious way to blend numbers 
not obtained for analysis in this manner.  It may help show the 
way to improving cell operation and improving replication success 
rates, but also breaks new ground in showing commonality between 
the experiments addressed."


  If interested, please send email back with this
header, and the URL (or a zip file) will be returned
where the assembled page is up for comments, feedback, 
criticism, suggestions prior to publication.
[If interested, there will also be entry to a thread going 
involving cold fusion which has had some interesting and 
informative comments on this and other matters, but no promise 
if it will last.  ;-)X ]


      Mitchell Swartz


   

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 19:15:14 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA15378;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:13:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:13:41 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990729211828.008aa8c0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:18:28 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: electron's location
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"xw1zG3.0.Cm3.LfGet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29385
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

OK, Mitchell, your aether model does at least qualitatively explain some
(all?)  of the wavelike behavior of small particles.  I'll keep it in mind
so I can view future problems in light of it.  I'll let you know if it
looks particularly applicable to anything.

Meanwhile, you'll probably see me resorting to QM from time to time to
solve problems since it performs so well and is so thoroughly documented
and accepted.  I don't consider it "poison" at all.  Yes, it's difficult to
understand but I view that as my problem, not it's problem.  I work with
guys who are extremely facile with QM.  Their secret:...a superb grasp of
mathematics.


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 22:26:01 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA00065;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:24:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:24:56 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b3c6dd6747c8 [207.8.127.150]>
In-Reply-To: <37a39c22.172574553 mail-hub>
References: <v04011701b3c3999215db [207.8.127.102]>
 <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]>
 <v04011700b3c23586f45b [207.8.127.102]>
 <v04011701b3c3999215db [207.8.127.102]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:55:25 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: electron's location
Resent-Message-ID: <"wUeQZ.0.v.dSJet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29386
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:26:36 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>[snip]
>>>Actually, I think that the mathematics of QM describes a classical
>>>situation, the nuances of which simply haven't been appreciated yet.
>>
>>***{Robin, there is no "mathematics of QM." A mathematical construct which
>>has been designed to summarize a set of experimentally measured data points
>>has no allegiance to a philosophy, and has no preferences regarding how the
>>data points are to be explained. It cares not a whit whether we say, for
>>example, that electrons pass briefly through the space between preferred
>>orbits, or that they do not pass through that space. This means that the
>>proponents of classical mechanics have fully as much right to use the
>>mathematical tools claimed by "quantum mechanics" as do the proponents of
>>"quantum mechanics." --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>So you managed to say in 9 lines what I had already said in 2 ;).

***{I guess I missed your point, perhaps because the phrase "the
mathematics of QM" is a bit of a "hot button" for me. As you may have
noticed, the grandiose claims of QM types are a pet peeve of mine, and I
seldom pass up an opportunity, real or imagined, to take a swipe at them.
:-) --Mitchell Jones}***

>[snip]
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 29 22:26:14 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA00095;
	Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:24:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:24:58 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b3c6e0f81ea3 [207.8.127.150]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990729211828.008aa8c0 mail.eden.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:22:29 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: electron's location
Resent-Message-ID: <"0SrzE.0.O1.gSJet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29387
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>OK, Mitchell, your aether model does at least qualitatively explain some
>(all?)  of the wavelike behavior of small particles.  I'll keep it in mind
>so I can view future problems in light of it.  I'll let you know if it
>looks particularly applicable to anything.
>
>Meanwhile, you'll probably see me resorting to QM from time to time to
>solve problems since it performs so well and is so thoroughly documented
>and accepted.  I don't consider it "poison" at all.  Yes, it's difficult to
>understand but I view that as my problem, not it's problem.  I work with
>guys who are extremely facile with QM.  Their secret:...a superb grasp of
>mathematics.

***{As I just pointed out to Robin--unnecessarily, as it turned out--there
is no "mathematics of QM." A mathematical construct which has been designed
to summarize a set of experimentally measured data points has no allegiance
to a philosophy, and has no preferences regarding how the data points are
to be explained. It cares not a whit whether we say, for example, that
electrons pass briefly through the space between preferred orbits, or that
they do not pass through that space. This means that the proponents of
classical mechanics have fully as much right to use the mathematical tools
claimed by "quantum mechanics" as do the proponents of "quantum mechanics."
(Indeed, much of the mathematical content claimed by QM was shamelessly
plundered from the classical discipline known as "wave mechanics.") Bottom
line: whether you do CM or QM doesn't depend on the mathematics you use,
but upon how you *interpret* the mathematics that you use. Since you have
already made it clear that you do not accept the QM notion of entities
leaping into existence out of nothing and vanishing into nothing, I would
say that you are basically a CM guy, even when you have recourse to math
which the QM people (falsely) claim, and I would encourage you to learn as
much math from them as you can. As long as you are careful to screen out
the poison--i.e., the continuity violations--you will benefit greatly
thereby. --Mitchell Jones}***

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 30 07:17:45 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA23359;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:16:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:16:35 -0700
Message-ID: <002d01beda9e$55da2440$fa441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Thermal Diode Effect in OU Electrolysis Cells?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:14:18 -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 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"HaZL02.0.qi5.2FRet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29388
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott wrote:
>
>Yan Kucherov of ENECO wrote a paper about thermoelectric effects
>in CF cells of certain designs. As I recall, he hypthesised that some
>apparent excess heat signals could be due to this heat pumping effect.
>
It seems to me that if there is heat available from circuitry in the power
supply, the electron gas (current) can literally drag-pump it up a
thermal gradient into the electrolysis cells.(Low or high voltage arc)

The cell cathode,and anode, under the right conditions (surface
gases?)should then act as
a "thermal diode", and retain this "pumped heat" in the cell.

Water-cooling of the electrical lead wires in a cell that is showing OU
output,
(like the Thermacore Ni cathode cell) would determine if this heat
pump-thermal diode
effect is occurring.

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 30 08:46:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA22614;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:45:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:45:31 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990730104904.007a1a90 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:49:04 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: OOP [Optimal Operating Point] Analysis - v.12-14
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990729205951.0087c3e0 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"fYsuw.0.GX5.RYSet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29389
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz writes:

	If interested, please send email back with this header, and the
	URL (or a zip file) will be returned where the assembled page is
	up for comments, feedback,  criticism, suggestions prior to
	publication.

In other words, Mitch, you are holding the paper secret. You playing a CETI
fan-dance strip-tease routine with it -- now we see the data, now we don't.
You will not give the URL to people like me who openly criticize you work.
This is the third time you have played this stupid game on vortex. If you
do not have the guts to post the paper on a web page or copy it here, you
should shut up about it. This forum is intended for people who openly share
results and observations, like Scott Little and me. It is not meant for
extended multi-year games of peek-a-boo in which you almost, but not quite,
tell people what you are doing . . . but never enough to allow replication.

You have never revealed substantive information about your experiments, so
no one can replicate or verify your claims (which change with every telling
anyway). Since you cannot be replicated, you are not doing science in the
modern sense. It is more like medieval alchemy, and probably just about as
effective.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 30 09:51:39 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA15977;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:49:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:49:44 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990730124013.0087fe20 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:40:13 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: OOP [Optimal Operating Point] Analysis - v.12-14
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990730104904.007a1a90 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990729205951.0087c3e0 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"q2AeN2.0.Zv3.eUTet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29390
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:49 AM 7/30/99 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Mitchell Swartz writes:
>
>	If interested, please send email back with this header, and the
>	URL (or a zip file) will be returned where the assembled page is
>	up for comments, feedback,  criticism, suggestions prior to
>	publication.
>
>In other words, Mitch, you are holding the paper secret. You playing a CETI
>fan-dance strip-tease routine with it -- now we see the data, now we don't.



 As usual, Jed Rothwell is inaccurate to suit HIS own purposes.


  If the paper was offered - and it was, 
       if the paper was discussed - and it was,
       if vorts ideas were added and referenced in the paper - and they are,
    and if it was reoffered - and it was,
then only [?myopic ?barker] Jed Rothwell would claim it was "secret".

 Nonsense - proven again by Mr. Rothwell.  LOL.
  Q.E.D.


 The rest of Mr. Rothwell's typical ad hominems and false statements
are redacted.  Hopefully, there will be some serious scientists 
here who will read the peer-reviewed literature which 
apparently Mr. Rothwell abhors.


  One can only hope that Mr. Rothwell's accuracy of 
Japanese scientific literature is better than his repeated lack
of diligence, precision and accuracy about this and other
matters seen here in vortex.


   Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 30 12:37:43 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA13035;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:36:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:36:00 -0700
Message-ID: <000c01bedaca$f15856e0$cc441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Peltier, Seebeck ,and Thomson  Effects
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:34:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEDA90.38A16680"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"aAnhr3.0.bB3.VwVet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29391
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_0005_01BEDA90.38A16680
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://schottky.ucsd.edu/~felix/peltier.html

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEDA90.38A16680
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Peltier Effect.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Peltier Effect.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://schottky.ucsd.edu/~felix/peltier.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://schottky.ucsd.edu/~felix/peltier.html
Modified=20FA6EC0CADABE01AB

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEDA90.38A16680--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 30 12:46:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA16913;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:45:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:45:02 -0700
Message-ID: <000e01bedacc$2652d9a0$cc441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re Silicon power station
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:42:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01BEDA91.6F48AEE0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Resent-Message-ID: <"StYBD1.0.784.-2Wet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29392
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_0012_01BEDA91.6F48AEE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



 http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/aug98/901497656.Ph.r.html

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BEDA91.6F48AEE0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Re Silicon power station.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Re Silicon power station.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/aug98/901497656.Ph.r.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/aug98/901497656.Ph.r.html
Modified=60C56C10CCDABE0106

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BEDA91.6F48AEE0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 30 13:07:28 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA24669;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:06:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:06:06 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990730160637.0079aac0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:06:37 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: OOP [Optimal Operating Point] Analysis - v.12-14
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990730124013.0087fe20 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.6.32.19990730104904.007a1a90 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990729205951.0087c3e0 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"2MSSY3.0.F16.jMWet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29393
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

M.S. writes:


>  If the paper was offered - and it was . . .

Offered my foot! Put it right here, if it "offered." Publish the damn URL,
right here, or keep quiet about it.

It is damn nonsense to be discussing this thing behind people's backs, and
to make a fetish-secret of the URL. Either tell us, or don't, but do not
pretend there is an open discussion when you deliberately lock out most of
the participants. It is as if Scott and I were to discuss Mizuno but refuse
to show any data, photos, graphs, or details about the actual experiment.
The readers here would object loudly if *we* covered up the way you do,
Mitch. Nobody complains about you because they gave up years ago. We all
know you will reveal nothing, despite your hypocritical pontifications
about openness. It is irritating, it is rude, antisocial . . . but I guess
there is no point in complaining.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 30 13:54:34 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14660;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:49:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:49:48 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990730164151.008812f0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:41:51 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Jed Rothwell's nonsense belongs OFF-vortex
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990730160637.0079aac0 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990730124013.0087fe20 world.std.com>
 <3.0.6.32.19990730104904.007a1a90 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990729205951.0087c3e0 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"846993.0.wa3.h_Wet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29394
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 04:06 PM 7/30/99 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>M.S. writes:
>>  If the paper was offered - and it was,
>> if the paper was discussed - and it was,
>> if vorts ideas were added and referenced in the paper - and they are,
>>  and if it was reoffered - and it was,
>>then only [?myopic ?barker] Jed Rothwell would claim it was "secret".

>
>"Offered my foot! Put it right here, if it "offered." Publish the damn URL,
>right here, or keep quiet about it."



 Mr. Rothwell should take his ad hominems and vile fabrications
back to his Brittancia junior encyclopedia[e] upon which he does rely.


  The draft of the paper is available to anyone who contacts
me by email.  [please use the above subject, thanks]

 Those interested in HOW cold fusion works can get the paper,
and if interested they can read more in the Cold Fusion Times 
      http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
and in the peer-reviewed science and engineering literature.
There control experiments AND good science separate 
true signal from the (?over-unity) near endless noise and 
unwarranted attacks on cold fusioneers which Jed Rothwell 
spills.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 30 13:54:38 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA16420;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:52:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:52:55 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990730164309.008833a0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:43:09 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: OOP [Optimal Operating Point] Analysis - v.12-14
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990730160637.0079aac0 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19990730124013.0087fe20 world.std.com>
 <3.0.6.32.19990730104904.007a1a90 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990729205951.0087c3e0 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"wFdV33.0.S04.b2Xet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29395
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 04:06 PM 7/30/99 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>M.S. writes:
>>  If the paper was offered - and it was,
>> if the paper was discussed - and it was,
>> if vorts ideas were added and referenced in the paper - and they are,
>>  and if it was reoffered - and it was,
>>then only [?myopic ?barker] Jed Rothwell would claim it was "secret".

>
>"Offered my foot! Put it right here, if it "offered." Publish the damn URL,
>right here, or keep quiet about it."

 More dumb nonsense by Mr. Rothwell, who should
take his ad hominems and fabrications off-vortex and 
back to his Brittancia junior encyclopedia[e] upon 
which he does rely.


  The draft of the paper is available to anyone who contacts
me by email.  [please use the above subject, thanks]

 Those interested in HOW cold fusion works can get the paper,
and if interested they can read more in the Cold Fusion Times 
      http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
and in the peer-reviewed science and engineering literature.
There control experiments AND good science separate 
true signal from the (?over-unity) near endless noise and 
unwarranted attacks on cold fusioneers which Jed Rothwell 
spills.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 30 15:39:03 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA20548;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:37:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:37:54 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990730184107.00c56560 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:41:07 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: More Excerpts
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3beb0a3865d [207.8.127.138]>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990723171036.00c98920 spectre.mitre.org>
 <v04011700b3be64abc4a1 [207.8.127.138]>
 <3.0.5.32.19990723142509.00c918b0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
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 PAA20524
Resent-Message-ID: <"cAqy_1.0.y05.1bYet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29396
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:34 AM 7/26/1999 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>***{I repeat: the "deuterium bump" is *way* too large to fit in the holes,
>and that is not a matter which you can overcome with a mere wave of the
>hand, or, what is the same thing, by labeling it as "irrelevant".
>Practically speaking, "palladium deuteride" is just a name chemists use to
>describe a palladium lattice that has been loaded with deuterium. The two
>elements have little or no true chemical affinity for one another, and it
>is simply not reasonable to expect the deuterium to magically shrink from a
>radius of .742 Å to .206 Å in response to an attraction which is virtually
>nonexistent. Thus if you want to demonstrate that it does so, you are going
>to have to supply a specific argument to that effect. --Mitchell Jones}***

     Specific argument to that effect, as requested.  First, you may define
PdH to mean an alloy of palladium and hydrogen (the usual is PdHx, where x
is the fractional hydrogen loading).  But covalent PdH means just that, a
chemical compound of hydrogen and palladium where some electrons are
shared.  Second, the stability of covalent PdH,or chemical affinity of
hydrogen for palladium under "normal" conditions has little or no relation
to what happens with a current flowing.  Third, palladium is a transition
metal, which has "missing" electrons in inner orbitals.  This is important
because it allows Pd to share electrons, in this case with hydrogen,
without becoming significantly larger.  Finally, the two electrons shared
between the two atoms would lead you to believe that the shape of the
"bump" is similar to that of one half of an H2 molecule sliced through the
center perpendicular to a line between the two nucleii.  Not.  The fact the
"shared" orbit is in an inner orbital (Is it the 3d orbital of the Pd?)
draws the hydrogen nucleus much closer to the palladium atom. The electron
density from the shared electrons is mostly around the Pd atom, and the
charge is balanced by the electrons in the 4d orbitals.

     I feel stupid... Did anyone ever look at how close the deuterium
nucleii could be if two adjacent or diagonally adjacent lattice sites had
covalent PdD in them?  I suspect it is much closer than either d+ ions or
the deuterium atoms in covalent D2 get.

>***{However you slice the apple, the weight remains the same: you cannot
>reasonably claim, as you did, that "the location of every atom is spread
>over the entire volume of the condensate." That which has "lost its
>identity" ceases to exist, and, in the process, ceases to have a location.
>--Mitchell Jones}***
 
    Sorry, you just don't have the Tao of Quantum Mechanics right yet.  The
normal way to look at things in QM is that the ONLY thing that exists is
the results of experiments.  For a simple example take the case of a gamma
ray that turns into an electron positron pair, which then turns back into a
gamma ray.
By your definition when that happens the "first" gamma ray ceases to exist,
and the gamma ray you observe is a different gamma ray.  But, depending on
how you detect that gamma ray, and whether or not you have some way to
affect the produced pair present, you can't know "which" gamma you see.
Worse than that, the state you observe (depending on how you set up the
experiment) might only correspond to an intermediate state between pair
production and non-pair production.  (Not a superposition of two states, a
true intermediate state that is neither fish nor fowl.)

>***{I know. That's why if the proponents of QM were to admit the existence
>of the unstable transitional states, their house-of-cards would collapse
>straightaway: the denial of the intermediate states is the foundation on
>which "quantum mechanics" was built. Mechanics, after all, is the study of
>motion, and if all motion is continuous, then (1) a particle cannot get
>from A to B without passing through every point on some spatial pathway
>from A to B, and (2) a particle cannot go from spin "up" to spin "down"
>without its axis of rotation occupying, however, briefly, every possible
>orientation on some pathway from the first position to the second. Since
>the continuous nature of motion was implicitly recognized by classical
>mechanics and is explicitly denied by "quantum mechanics," it follows that
>if discontinuous motion can be proven to be impossible, then "quantum
>mechanics" collapses, and the new form of mechanics that rises in its
>place, by whatever name, will be built upon and consistent with the
>classical mechanical tradition.

     Gee, I thought that all the physicists who don't believe in QM died
years ago.  What is your background?

>The implication of the above is straightforward: the only form of mechanics
>that can possibly be valid is *continuum mechanics*--i.e., the form of
>mechanics that results when the various claims of classical mechanics and
>"quantum mechanics" have been reinterpreted in ways that do not clash with
>the principle of continuity--and students of physics need to recognize up
>front that any teacher or professor who says otherwise is peddling
>intellectual poison and cannot be trusted.

     Who is peddling intellectual poison?  One ugly experiment has to be
allowed to destroy a beautiful theory.  Continuum mechanics is not
consistant with many, many experiments.  There are some alternatives to QM
that have not been disproven--but that is because they produce the same
predictions for all pratically possible experiments.  Or at least all
experiments that were possible until just a few years ago.  There have been
some very wild results--consistant with QM of course--that hint at the
possibility of choosing between some alternate theories.  Note that these
experiments have already killed several "interpretations" of QM, including
Copenhagen and Many Worlds.  In every case, not only have the experiments
been consistant with QM, but where there were two alternatives, one closer
to "normal" expectations, and one very bizzare, the bizzare result has
occured.  That's what the discussion of QM, causality, and relativity was
about.  Causality and simple relativity have bitten the dust.  General
relativity survives, but with non-zero C. (The cosmological constant that
Einstein called the greatest error he ever made.  I should be so lucky. ;-)

                                        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 Jul 30 19:03:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA18739;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:00:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:00:36 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990730215141.008941b0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 21:51:41 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Possible false positives in cold fusion from vertical flow
  calorimetry
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"pXbWy2.0.ja4.4Zbet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29397
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



  Possible false positives in cold fusion can result
from vertically directed flow calorimetry if failure to use
adequate thermal controls are ignored.
  It appears highly probable that some of the "kilowatts" 
reported early in cold fusion -- that could not
be repeated -- were in part due to this amplificaton effect.

   The vertical flow calorimetry (VFC) amplification effect
may occur when Bernard instability can create additional mass
transport which adds to total heat transport, thereby yielding
false derivations of the "excess heat" generated.  
  

  The apparent gain of a sample derived by such vertical flow calorimetry
 (VFC) may be correctable as  

 Apparent gain =
     Real Gain/ (1-[fraction of heat transported by Bernard instability])
 
[Swartz, M, " Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric 
  Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996) 
and SWARTZ, M., "IMPROVED CALCULATIONS INVOLVING ENERGY RELEASE USING A 
 BUOYANCY TRANSPORT CORRECTION", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996)]

 Excerpt of the papers is at http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html

  Research data using vertical flow calorimetry at relatively low
flow rates without adequate joule (thermal) controls using a 
step function (or impulse response), and cooling curve of the 
system, is not as useful as is data from studies which included
those controls, or also used horizontal flow.

  Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com)




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 30 20:09:51 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA04519;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:08:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:08:59 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990730225928.00898ec0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:59:28 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Responding to Jed Rothwell's False statments (part 2)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jjlt63.0.S61.BZcet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29398
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


At 10:49 AM 7/30/99 -0400, Jed Rothwell posted his typical
inaccurate horse----.

  Jed Rothwell:
>"You have never revealed substantive information 
>  about your experiments ...."


THE TRUTH:  
  This is another fabrication by Jed Rothwell who 
ought get a library card and actually READ the peer-reviewed 
(and other literature INCLUDING his own Infinite Energy 
which had some of our publications on page 117 of Gene Mallove's
issue 24, volume 4, 1999).

  Those who dont have access to Infinite Energy, and/or who want the
more complete bibliography [including the papers which demonstrate
why some of Jed's setups were non-trivial on the bogosity index  ;-)X
can obtain them at http://world.std.com/~mica/jetrefs.html

   Specifically, the JET Energy Technology info released in
peer-reviewed (and other publications) is here:
   http://world.std.com/~mica/jetrefs.html#r&d

   Publications on Catastrophic Desorption, Phonons, Phusons, 
Quantum Electronics and Nuclear Selection Theory are here
   http://world.std.com/~mica/jetrefs.html#nuclear

   Publications on Quasi-1-Dimensional Isotope Loading,  
and Optimal Operating Point  Behavior (excepting the prepublication
paper which was offered to which Jed began his confabulation)
are here: http://world.std.com/~mica/jetrefs.html#oop

   Publications on Quality Control and Assurance that show
where Jed may have had false positives by failing to
appreciate noise power and/or vertical flow calorimetry are
here: http://world.std.com/~mica/jetrefs.html#q/c

  Dr. Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 30 20:43:58 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA14686;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:43:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:43:11 -0700
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Reply-To: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: M Swartz
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990730234322.16595B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"se1kV1.0.Nb3.F3det" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29399
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Dear Vo.,

	Went to Mitchell Swartz's site... a LOT of cool stuff there....
nice simple background as well as listing of press and more...

	One ought to go there AND:  I asked for the paper and Mitch said
he would send it... simple as that.

	In the mean time I will say usually Mitch responds to questions I
ask in very short order.
	I have to consider him a valuable resource in the field of CF, and
a good resource for many types of experimentalist issues on other
topics.... nerves, plasma, polymers... and the list goes on.

			JHS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 00:00:32 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA22282;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:57:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:57:46 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3c82ee4d01c [207.8.127.183]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990730184107.00c56560 spectre.mitre.org>
References: <v04011700b3beb0a3865d [207.8.127.138]>
 <3.0.5.32.19990723171036.00c98920 spectre.mitre.org>
 <v04011700b3be64abc4a1 [207.8.127.138]>
 <3.0.5.32.19990723142509.00c918b0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <v04011700b3bd0e2e7b62 [207.8.127.173]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:55:09 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: More Excerpts
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id XAA22261
Resent-Message-ID: <"IdpHn2.0.4S5.fvfet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29400
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>At 10:34 AM 7/26/1999 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>***{I repeat: the "deuterium bump" is *way* too large to fit in the holes,
>>and that is not a matter which you can overcome with a mere wave of the
>>hand, or, what is the same thing, by labeling it as "irrelevant".
>>Practically speaking, "palladium deuteride" is just a name chemists use to
>>describe a palladium lattice that has been loaded with deuterium. The two
>>elements have little or no true chemical affinity for one another, and it
>>is simply not reasonable to expect the deuterium to magically shrink from a
>>radius of .742 Å to .206 Å in response to an attraction which is virtually
>>nonexistent. Thus if you want to demonstrate that it does so, you are going
>>to have to supply a specific argument to that effect. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>     Specific argument to that effect, as requested.  First, you may define
>PdH to mean an alloy of palladium and hydrogen (the usual is PdHx, where x
>is the fractional hydrogen loading).  But covalent PdH means just that, a
>chemical compound of hydrogen and palladium where some electrons are
>shared.  Second, the stability of covalent PdH,or chemical affinity of
>hydrogen for palladium under "normal" conditions has little or no relation
>to what happens with a current flowing.  Third, palladium is a transition
>metal, which has "missing" electrons in inner orbitals.

***{I gather that you have simply *inferred* that the electron
configuration of Pd ought to be 2-8-18-17-1. Unfortunately, measurements
indicate that the shell structure of Pd is 2-8-18-18. The first three
shells are full: nothing else anywhere in the periodic table has more than
2 in the k-shell, or more than 8 in the l-shell, or more than 18 in the
m-shell. Hence there are no missing electrons in inner orbitals. Bottom
line: the oddity about Pd is that it does *not* exhibit the electronic
configuration upon which your argument depends.--Mitchell Jones}***

 This is important
>because it allows Pd to share electrons, in this case with hydrogen,
>without becoming significantly larger.  Finally, the two electrons shared
>between the two atoms would lead you to believe that the shape of the
>"bump" is similar to that of one half of an H2 molecule sliced through the
>center perpendicular to a line between the two nucleii.  Not.  The fact the
>"shared" orbit is in an inner orbital (Is it the 3d orbital of the Pd?)
>draws the hydrogen nucleus much closer to the palladium atom. The electron
>density from the shared electrons is mostly around the Pd atom, and the
>charge is balanced by the electrons in the 4d orbitals.

***{I repeat: my references, including the *Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics* and several chemistry textbooks, show all of the inner orbits to
be full. While your expectation that the structure should be 2-8-18-17-1 is
plausible, it is also flatly wrong. --MJ}***

>
>     I feel stupid... Did anyone ever look at how close the deuterium
>nucleii could be if two adjacent or diagonally adjacent lattice sites had
>covalent PdD in them?  I suspect it is much closer than either d+ ions or
>the deuterium atoms in covalent D2 get.
>
>>***{However you slice the apple, the weight remains the same: you cannot
>>reasonably claim, as you did, that "the location of every atom is spread
>>over the entire volume of the condensate." That which has "lost its
>>identity" ceases to exist, and, in the process, ceases to have a location.
>>--Mitchell Jones}***
>
>    Sorry, you just don't have the Tao of Quantum Mechanics right yet.

***{How could you have gotten the impression that I am trying to conform my
words to the dictates of QM? (A build-up of earwax, perhaps? :-) For the
record: my loathing for the "Tao of Quantum Mechanics" knows no bounds, and
you may rest assured that any resemblance between anything I say and the
"Copenhagen interpretation," or any of the modern variants thereupon, is
purely coincidental. --Mitchell Jones}***

 The
>normal way to look at things in QM is that the ONLY thing that exists is
>the results of experiments.

***{Which, of course, is as utterly preposterous as is the doctrine of
behaviorism in psychology. According to behaviorism, mentalistic
phenomena--thoughts, ideas, imagination, emotions, expectations, etc.--do
not exist. Only behavior that can be observed is real: speech, movements,
writing ("marks on paper"), etc. By this doctrine, the mind does not exist.
And, similarly, for the really hopeless QM types, the microcosm does not
exist, either. To them nothing is real but the readings of their
instruments, and any thinking devoted to the unseen doings of entities in
the microcosm is as "unscientific" as are similar thoughts about unseen
events in another person's stream of consciuousness. In my view, such
notions are beyond idiocy. It would make as much sense to claim that a bird
ceases to exist when he flys out of view, or that the engine of your car
ceases to exist when you close the hood. --Mitchell Jones}***

For a simple example take the case of a gamma
>ray that turns into an electron positron pair, which then turns back into a
>gamma ray.
>By your definition when that happens the "first" gamma ray ceases to exist,
>and the gamma ray you observe is a different gamma ray.  But, depending on
>how you detect that gamma ray, and whether or not you have some way to
>affect the produced pair present, you can't know "which" gamma you see.
>Worse than that, the state you observe (depending on how you set up the
>experiment) might only correspond to an intermediate state between pair
>production and non-pair production.  (Not a superposition of two states, a
>true intermediate state that is neither fish nor fowl.)
>
>>***{I know. That's why if the proponents of QM were to admit the existence
>>of the unstable transitional states, their house-of-cards would collapse
>>straightaway: the denial of the intermediate states is the foundation on
>>which "quantum mechanics" was built. Mechanics, after all, is the study of
>>motion, and if all motion is continuous, then (1) a particle cannot get
>>from A to B without passing through every point on some spatial pathway
>>from A to B, and (2) a particle cannot go from spin "up" to spin "down"
>>without its axis of rotation occupying, however, briefly, every possible
>>orientation on some pathway from the first position to the second. Since
>>the continuous nature of motion was implicitly recognized by classical
>>mechanics and is explicitly denied by "quantum mechanics," it follows that
>>if discontinuous motion can be proven to be impossible, then "quantum
>>mechanics" collapses, and the new form of mechanics that rises in its
>>place, by whatever name, will be built upon and consistent with the
>>classical mechanical tradition.
>
>     Gee, I thought that all the physicists who don't believe in QM died
>years ago.  What is your background?

***{My only background of relevance to this discussion is the reasons by
which I support my opinions, and precisely the same is true of you.
Anything else is just bluff and bluster, and is an utter waste of time.
--MJ}***

>
>>The implication of the above is straightforward: the only form of mechanics
>>that can possibly be valid is *continuum mechanics*--i.e., the form of
>>mechanics that results when the various claims of classical mechanics and
>>"quantum mechanics" have been reinterpreted in ways that do not clash with
>>the principle of continuity--and students of physics need to recognize up
>>front that any teacher or professor who says otherwise is peddling
>>intellectual poison and cannot be trusted.
>
>     Who is peddling intellectual poison?  One ugly experiment has to be
>allowed to destroy a beautiful theory.  Continuum mechanics is not
>consistant with many, many experiments.

***{As I pointed out in the material that you snipped, science is based on
the presumed validity of the principle of continuity--i.e., on the idea
that no thing can leap into existence out of nothing or vanish into
nothing. Result: you cannot overcome the principle of continuity by citing
experimental evidence. If you disagree, then you need to explain how you
can know that things such as laboratories, instrumental readouts, and
experiments exist. After all, if things can leap into existence out of
nothing, then maybe the sensations which you think indicate the presence of
a laboratory are just leaping into existence out of nothing. How can you
deny that possibility, given that you insist it is possible for things to
leap into existence out of nothing? --Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

>
>                                        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  Sat Jul 31 01:37:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA01033;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:34:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:34:57 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: euston.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:34:54 +0100 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi euston
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Electron spin etc.
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990731092612.4220C-100000 euston>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"5-nN32.0.3G.nKhet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29401
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vo,

I remember seeing an article about super excited atoms. This showed the
correspondence principle. An atom at q state > 10000 and size 1um was
shown to have a wave packet orbiting the nucleus. Of course the orbit
decayed and that packet gets centered over the nucleus.

Question. In atoms are e- really moving? They have spin right? Einstein-de
Haas experiment etc.

I know about the Heseinberg Uncert Prin ultimately explaining why we all
don't just disappear: atoms too big, excess radiated, spirals in; atom too
small, uncertainity in poss low, mv high, spirals out.

I'm not comfortable with something charged spining around and not
emitting.  Why doesn't the zpe get continuously tapped? 

Sorry for naive questions.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 07:46:04 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA21315;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 07:44:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 07:44:17 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990731094840.0094ab10 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:48:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Electron spin etc.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990731092612.4220C-100000 euston>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"m7czp.0.vC5.0lmet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29402
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:34 AM 7/31/99 +0100, Cornwall RO wrote:

>I'm not comfortable with something charged spining around and not
>emitting.  Why doesn't the zpe get continuously tapped? 

Hi Remi,  You might be interested to know that Puthoff has shown that the
electron DOES radiate but that it is continually ABSORBING an equal flux of
energy from the ZPF (H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a
Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987)).

In this paper, he assumes that the electron travels in a circular orbit at
the Bohr radius and everything works out beautifully.  Most of the
criticism that has been levelled at this paper centers around the "fact"
(MJ would say "poisonous lie" here) that QM predicts a completely different
location probability distribution for the electron.


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 09:04:12 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03482;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:03:07 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:03:07 -0700
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <37A31F95.67F7 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:08:53 -0700
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Item in Park's APS What's New for Jul 30, 1999
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"sRztm3.0.Ks.xunet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29403
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 31, 1999

Vortex,

Robert L.Park has an uncopyrighted, online, independant, astringent,
weekly opinionated newsletter under the APS banner covering subjects he
sees fit to cover in physics and beyond (like money budget funding and
connected politics all the time). Review of his past newsletters reveals
he has covered cold fusion fairly consistantly but skeptically over the
years since 1989. I mistakenly mentioned earlier that he ignored cold
fusion. And yes, he has admitted on inquiry that he is (in an earlier
incarnation -- he says) the same Park that had studied palladium at
Sandia in the 1960's.

The newsletter for July 30, 1999 has, as item 5, mentions Science
covering the matter of 
DOE funding for Miley's transmutation work. I include the whole newslett
so that Park's writing style can be gleaned from the other items.

'Science' is available at their website. And I believe, except for the
current week's issue, everything is avsailable online.  

 > WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 30 Jul 99   Washington, DC
> 
> 1. PHYSICAL REVIEW: IT'S A BEST SELLER AMONG CANNIBALS.  Science
> literacy is expanding into hitherto unreachable segments of
> society.  In the best-selling novel "Hannibal," FBI agent Clarice
> Starling cross-checks new subscriptions to Hannibal Lecter's
> favorite journals.  The only one listed by name is Physical
> Review. The House Appropriations Committee may be a harder sell.
> 
> 2. FY2K SCIENCE BUDGET: CANNIBALIZED BY THE APPROPRIATORS?  The
> House has already passed bills cutting science at DOE by 3% from
> FY 99 levels.  At DOD, science is up 6%.  Today, the House
> Appropriations Committee takes up the VA-HUD Bill.  As reported
> out of subcommittee, it calls for a 10% cut in NASA and a 1% cut
> in NSF, compared to FY 99. In a letter to Subcommittee Chair
> James Walsh (R-NY), APS President Jerome Friedman warns, "Without
> sustained progress in science and technology, I fear that the
> projected surpluses...will never materialize.... We must not
> sacrifice science on the alter of political expediency."
> 
> 3. CTBT: HELMS "FLOCCINAUCINIHILIPILIFICATES" THE TEST BAN.  A
> month ago, all 45 Democratic senators wrote to Senator Jesse
> Helms (R-NC), chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, urging
> him to hold hearings on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
> Helms' sarcastic response was to coin a new word for arrogant
> obstructionism.  He suggested they write instead to President
> Clinton urging him to submit the ABM and Kyoto Protocols to the
> Senate.  Although polls indicate that 82% of Americans support
> CTBT, the White House seems to have given up on the treaty.
> 
> 4. BURP ERROR!  MAYBE HOCKEY PLAYERS HAVE GILLS.  Perhaps dizzy
> from hyperventilating, WN's calculation last week seriously
> understated how much oxygenated water athletes must drink to
> boost their blood oxygen level 1% (WN 23 Jul 99).  The oxygen
> content of tap water is only 8 mg/liter. If that were doubled, as
> Oxyl'Eau claims, athletes would still need to drink--gasp!--146
> liters in a 60-minute game to boost their oxygen intake by 1%.
> 
> 5. DOE: SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT "LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS."
> Science magazine reports that DOE is reviewing its decision to
> spend $100,000 to study the use of cold fusion to neutralize
> radioactive waste.  According to the proposal from a nuclear
> engineer at the University of Illinois, "the discovery seems
> certain" and a follow-on scale up to pilot-plant levels is next.
> DOE, however, may have already paid for such a study.  As WN
> reported two years ago (WN 13 Jun 97), Dr. Norm Olson at Battelle
> Pacific Northwest appeared with reporter Michael Guillen on ABC
> Good Morning America to say he was taking a "Patterson cell" back
> to Hanford to test it out.  Maybe DOE could just check with Norm.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 10:27:02 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA20318;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:26:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:26:09 -0700
Message-ID: <37A3331E.8BEEC5C1 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:32:14 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: DOE's NERI awards and Miley's grant review
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"r4Vpa2.0.Kz4.n6pet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29404
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

July 31, 1999

Vortex,

David Malakoff of Science reported in the July 30, 1999 issue that DOE
was reviewing a grant of $100,000.00 made to Miley of the University of
Illinois on: "Scientific Feasibility Study of Low Energy Nuclear
Reactions (LENRs) for Nuclear Waste Amelioration".

DOE's NERI initiative budget of  $19,000,000.00 was doled out to forty
five proposals, one of which was Miley's $100,000.00. This NERI (Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative) is another feed trough to encourage research
programs to boost a "sagging" nuclear (fission and fusion) industry. And
for the $19,000,000.00, well over 45 aplicants made propopsals more than
once for research programs. Only the Miley grant, on objections to its
resemblance to cold fusion efforts, was picked for review. There seems
to some finger pointing to how the application should have been routed.
The issue seems to be turning into a ignorant political football with an
opinion to be issued next month by three reviewers. The antennas of the
polarized cold fusion critics are out its full length.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 11:08:59 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA27467;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 11:07:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 11:07:34 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3c8d7ad7dec [207.8.127.126]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990731094840.0094ab10 mail.eden.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990731092612.4220C-100000 euston>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:06:02 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Electron spin etc.
Resent-Message-ID: <"9OJrt3.0.4j6.cjpet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29405
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 09:34 AM 7/31/99 +0100, Cornwall RO wrote:
>
>>I'm not comfortable with something charged spining around and not
>>emitting.  Why doesn't the zpe get continuously tapped?
>
>Hi Remi,  You might be interested to know that Puthoff has shown that the
>electron DOES radiate but that it is continually ABSORBING an equal flux of
>energy from the ZPF

***{If by "radiate" he means photons, then why can't we just use hydrogen
filled cylinders to heat our homes in the winter? If the photons are not of
ir frequency, that is a mere complication, and should be solvable by use of
appropriate absorbing materials. (If the photons are in the rf range,
aluminum foil should get the job done, for example.) Bottom line: what
prevents such a ZPF driven heating effect? Indeed, what prevents our
universe--which is mostly hydrogen--from exploding? (If orbiting electrons
were to radiate at the rate observed for conventional electric currents
which have been accelerated, all the orbiting electrons in the universe
would radiate away their energy in about 10^-5 seconds! That would be a
*really* big bang!)  --Mitchell Jones}***

 (H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a
>Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987)).

***{Is this paper available on the internet? I would like to read it. (Why
not post his paper on your website? Perhaps we can get a discussion going.)
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>In this paper, he assumes that the electron travels in a circular orbit at
>the Bohr radius and everything works out beautifully.  Most of the
>criticism that has been levelled at this paper centers around the "fact"
>(MJ would say "poisonous lie" here) that QM predicts a completely different
>location probability distribution for the electron.
>
>
>Scott Little
>EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
>512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX)
>little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 13:35:25 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA31505;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:33:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:33:32 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990731153826.00958100 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:38:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Electron spin etc.
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b3c8d7ad7dec [207.8.127.126]>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990731094840.0094ab10 mail.eden.com>
 <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990731092612.4220C-100000 euston>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"vPqGr3.0.Bi7.Rsret" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29406
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 01:06 PM 7/31/99 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>***{If by "radiate" he means photons, then why can't we just use hydrogen
>filled cylinders to heat our homes in the winter?

Same reason we're not instantly fried by zero-point radiation.  H atoms are
in equilibrium with the ZPF, they neither raise or lower its average
intensity.    Most folks consider being in the ZPF alone to being in the
dark...i.e. in the absence of radiation.

> (H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a
>>Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987)).

>***{Is this paper available on the internet?

You can download it from:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v35/i10/p3266_1


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 13:57:57 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03405;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:56:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:56:57 -0700
Message-Id: <199907312053.QAA28384 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Senator Smith's letter to DOE
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:53:47 -0000
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: "Eugene 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 NAA03363
Resent-Message-ID: <"FXKi-.0.3r.OCset" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29408
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear Colleagues:

This is a wonderful letter received from  US Senator Bob Smith,  which he 
has personally signed and sent to the US DOE.  It is introduced by 
another short letter by his state director, who has had lengthy 
discussions with me about cold fusion and low energy nuclear  reactions 
research.

Best wishes,

Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief
Infinite Energy Magazine
Cold Fusion Technology, Inc.
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Ph:  603-228-4516
Fax: 603-224-5975

editor infinite-energy.com
www.infinite-energy.com


*******

BOB SMITH
New HAMPSHIRE
1-800- 922-2230
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
opinion smith.senate.gov

SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ETH ICS

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STAES SENATE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2903
			
July 30, 1999

Dr. Eugene Mallove
Editor-in-Chief
Infinite Energy Magazine
PO Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Dear Dr. Mallove:
Enclosed is a copy of the letter Senator Smith sent to the Department of 
Energy regarding the grant we discussed. If the DOE gets enough inquiries 
on this matter, perhaps they will reconsider and do the right thing.

With best regards, I am
Yours truly,
Mark F. Aldrich
State Director

********  Senator Smith¹s letter

BOB SMITH
New HAMPSHIRE
opinion smith.senate.gov
http://www.senate.gov/-smith/

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

CHAIRMAN,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ETH ICS


UNITED STAES SENATE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2903
	
 Mr. John C. Angell
Assistant Secrctary for Congressional Affairs
U.S. Department of Energy
Forrestall Building, Room 7B138
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20585-0800

Dear Assistant Secretary Angell:

My office was recently contacted by Dr. Eugene Mallove, Editor-in-Chief, 
Infinite Energy Magazine and Director of New Energy Research Laboratory 
located in Bow, New Hampshire. He is extremely concemed about an article 
in the July issue of Science Magazine [ July 23, 1999] which states that 
the Departnent of Energy is taking extraordinary measuress to review a 
grant made to George Miley, a nuclear engineer at the University of 
Illinois.

It is my understanding that George Miley¹s academic credentials are well 
regarded and that his proposal was already subjected to peer review. What 
seems to have precipitated this unprecedented additional review is that 
his proposal is similar to work being done by scientists who are 
investigating "cold fusion." I am aware that there are some experts who 
view "cold fusion" as pseudo science and that DOE  is concemedthat its 
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative dollars are spent wisely. But to not 
investigate a potential method of transforming radioactive waste into 
harmless byproducts, seems extremely short-sighted and perhaps the 
outcome of inherent bias at DOE  toward conventional fusion technology.

I would encourage DOE to reconsider its placing of additional impediments 
in the way of this research project. Miley's research might be of great 
benefit to the problem of nuclear waste disposal, or it might prove that 
results seen in similar experiments were merely from accidental 
contamination. Either way, the research he proposes could be valuable. 
This grant represents an opportunity for DOE to show it is not closed to 
new ideas and approaches.

Please keep me apprised of your agency's decision on this matter. I have 
directed my Projects Director, Mark Aldrich, to be the point of contact. 
He can be reached in my Manchester office at 603-634-5000.

Sincerely,

Bob Smith, U.S.S

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 13:58:28 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03383;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:56:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:56:56 -0700
Message-Id: <199907312053.QAA28371 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: MIT, Video-Games, CF
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:53:44 -0000
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: "Eugene 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: <"q-puG3.0.nq.NCset" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29407
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

All,

A reply to another MIT alum having problems with MIT.

Gene


>This is a short followup to my prior message to you 6 months ago and it will
>be the last message.  I just though you would be interested what happened
>to an alumni since my prior message... 
>
>     MIT has recently had major PR problems - A front page Wall Street
>     Journal article titled "Bose and Arrows" described how MIT alienated
>     one of its most famous alumni - the developer of the Bose speakers.
>     Mr. Bose donated more than $6 million to MIT.  Yet, MIT, in a
>     contentious dispute with Mr. Bose' son, sought a licensing fee of
>     $1.25 million on technology.  MIT scaled this back to $70,000 because
>     MIT admitted the first offer revealed MIT's lack of experience in
>     setting these fees - a PR and alumni disaster .

(Mark's letter  reproduced in full  below)

Dear Mark,

I am outraged at MIT's behavior in your case and in so many others. I  
intend to write something about this in a future issue of Infinite Energy 
and I will pass these thoughts along to other MIT alumns.   I  quit the 
MIT News Office in 1991 after four years of distinguished service, 
protesting outrageous scandals against cold fusion researchers and  
general news reporters by certain MIT faculty.   My book Fire from Ice: 
Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor was NEVER mentioned 
in Tech Talk, even though later that year it was one of only two books 
nominated by John Wiley & Sons for  Pulitzer Prize.  Every two-bit MIT 
professor's book from the economics of peanut farming to tiddlywinks is 
mentioned in Tech Talk -- all they have to do is ask for such mention.    
Needless to say,  my accusations about scientific fraud that DID occur at 
MIT against cold fusion in 1989 under DOE contract, were never published 
in Tech Talk.  This may have to change as official legal investigations 
proceed.

I myself have had severe problems trying to make MIT fly straight and be 
ethical in the matter of cold fusion (low energy nuclearreactions) -- to 
no avail. They  insist on covering up egregious scientific miscounduct,  
i.e. fraud, and continue to receive tens of millions of dollars for the 
technically and morally bankrupt hot fusion lab.  This matter is being 
looked into right now by several appropriate Federal legal authorities, 
but given MIT's range of influence peddling, I anticipate they may be 
able to escape sanctions eventually. We shall see. 

 A coincidence that you and the Wall Street Journal should mention Amar 
Bose. Dr. Bose himself told me personally about eight years ago that 
based on his numerous problems with the MIT adminstration, he had no 
intention of giving them the HUGE benefaction that he had once intended.  
This is sad for MIT and its students, but it is one more example of what 
a propaganda mill surrounds the incompetent and unethical MIT 
Administration.

If you want to find out about the HeavyWatergate Scandal that surrounded 
and continues to surround MIT, read  issue #24 of Infinite Energy 
magazine, published on the 10th anniversary of the cold fusion 
announcement.

You may pass this letter along to anyone you wish.

Sincerely,

Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief,   MIT S.B. 1969, S.M. 1970
Infinite Energy Magazine
Cold Fusion Technology, Inc.
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Ph:  603-228-4516
Fax: 603-224-5975

editor infinite-energy.com
www.infinite-energy.com







>This is a short followup to my prior message to you 6 months ago and it will
>be the last message.  I just though you would be interested what happened
>to an alumni since my prior message... 
>
>     MIT has recently had major PR problems - A front page Wall Street
>     Journal article titled "Bose and Arrows" described how MIT alienated
>     one of its most famous alumni - the developer of the Bose speakers.
>     Mr. Bose donated more than $6 million to MIT.  Yet, MIT, in a
>     contentious dispute with Mr. Bose' son, sought a licensing fee of
>     $1.25 million on technology.  MIT scaled this back to $70,000 because
>     MIT admitted the first offer revealed MIT's lack of experience in
>     setting these fees - a PR and alumni disaster .
> 
>     Unfortunately MIT's PR problems continue....MIT promotes violent
>     video games and refuses to mention that an MIT grad is producing
>     positive alternatives to violent video games. John Dvorak, an editor
>     at the leading computer magazine, PC Magazine, wrote in the "DOOM
>     Factor" that violent games played an important role in "the death and
>     injuries cause by the two boys who went crazy and shot up their
>     school.  Many have tried to downplay the game's role, but they're
>     dead wrong." Senator Hatch and Lieberman agree, both saying that
>     violent video games, such as Doom and Quake, encourage violence.  A
>     military expert said that they are killing simulators.
> 
>     Yet MIT promotes these games. MIT's 10/31/97 online paper, praised
>     Quake "your guns have kickback. You can selectively target enemy body
>     parts..  enemies thrash around in death throes before dying.. it was
>     exciting to witness a chunk of bloody meat hit the wall!" (Nintendo
>     gave MIT $3 million and a 2 page June-Aug 99 Technology Review ad
>     hawks a game - "Racking up the Kills"). Our company, Analytical
>     Software makes non-violent CD-ROMs such as "America's National Parks
>     and Forests" (sold at BarnesandNoble.com and Best Buy) which
>     challenges young people to ski, kayak, hike and camp and not to engage
>     in blood sports.  We also make CD-ROMs on space, travel and
>     birdwatching.
> 
>     When MIT's editors plugged a $180 CD-ROM on National Parks maps, we
>     asked them to mention our $15 CD-ROM which competes with violent $25
>     games.  MIT's editors said they wouldn't cover competing software,
>     and they didn't care that retail software averaged $25 - they would
>     only cover the $180 CD.  MIT shouldn't peddle violent software without
>     mentioning competitive and positive alternatives.
> 
>     MIT even refused to publish the following letter, so I would
>     appreciate it if you would consider sending a similar letter to the
>     Technology Review.
> 
>     ----------------------Letter to the Editor------------------------
>     Why do MIT editors promote violent software?
>     After 13 murders at a Colorado high school by killers who were
>     violent video game addicts, why do MIT's editors plug these gun
>     simulators for young teens.  Senator Lieberman said video games, such
>     as Quake, encourage violence and military officers agreed.  However,
>     MIT's 10/31/97 online paper, praised Quake "your guns have kickback.
>     You can selectively target enemy body parts...  enemies thrash around
>     in death throes before dying...  it was exciting to witness a chunk of
>     bloody meat hit the wall!" (Nintendo gave MIT $3 million and a 2 page
>     June 99 Technology Review ad hawks a game - "Racking up the Kills").
>     Our company makes non-violent CD-ROMs such as "America's National
>     Parks and Forests" (sold at BarnesandNoble.com and Best Buy) which
>     includes videos and photos which challenges young people to hike, ski,
>     kayak and not engage in blood sports.   For space or travel CDs call
>     972-303-4433.
> 
>     When MIT's editors plugged a $180 CD-ROM on National Parks maps, we
>     asked them to mention our $15 CD-ROM which competes with violent $25
>     games.  MIT's editors said they wouldn't cover competing software,
>     and they didn't care that retail software averaged $25.  They would
>     only cover the $180 CD.  MIT shouldn't peddle violent software without
>     mentioning competitive and positive alternatives.
> 
>     Mark Haley, B.S. MIT 74
>     Analytical Software Inc.
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 15:41:46 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA21947;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:40:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:40:23 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19990731153354.009cb520 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:40:06 -0700
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: MIT, Video-Games, CF
In-Reply-To: <199907312053.QAA28371 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3EoCc3.0.rM5.Mjtet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29409
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>Dear Mark,
>
>I am outraged at MIT's behavior in your case and in so many others. I  
>intend to write something about this in a future issue of Infinite Energy 
>and I will pass these thoughts along to other MIT alumns.   I  quit the 
>MIT News Office in 1991 after four years of distinguished service, 
>protesting outrageous scandals against cold fusion researchers and  
>general news reporters by certain MIT faculty.   My book Fire from Ice: 
>Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor was NEVER mentioned 
>in Tech Talk, even though later that year it was one of only two books 
>nominated by John Wiley & Sons for  Pulitzer Prize.  Every two-bit MIT 
>professor's book from the economics of peanut farming to tiddlywinks is 
>mentioned in Tech Talk -- all they have to do is ask for such mention.    
>Needless to say,  my accusations about scientific fraud that DID occur at 
>MIT against cold fusion in 1989 under DOE contract, were never published 
>in Tech Talk.  This may have to change as official legal investigations 
>proceed.

Has Tech Talk ever published the fact that MIT holds several Cold Fusion
Patents?  Each patent these days costs about $10,000 and I think they have
3 if I recall, so that means they spent ~$30,000 over a period of years
following all the negative talk.

It boggles my brain that all this talk is going on and MIT remains on the
"High Ground".  The reason is, I never read that their leaders are
confronted with the fact that they have invested in patents in this
technology that they treat as bogus.  You can't have it both ways on that
one.  Either you are confident that CF is bogus or you aren't.  If you are,
fine, then say so and act in a manner that is in accord with such a belief.
 If you aren't certain it is bogus, then fine too.  Say you don't think it
is real, but admit that you have invested in patents just in case it is.

Their actions are well in accord with the business world, which would deny
any validity while research was going on.  But their actions are totally in
discord with the acedemic society where you are to publish what you learn
and say what you think.  

rt


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 15:58:11 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA26240;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:57:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:57:28 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: MIT, Video-Games, CF
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:03:26 -0400
Message-ID: <19990731230326656.AAA173 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"yqLRd.0.wP6.Oztet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29410
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Gene,

For what it is worth, I ran a search the other day on one of the MIT
technology news service databases, for the words "cavitation" and
"sonoluminescence".  Not one article came up, while almost _every_ other
scientific publication in the last ten years has written numerous articles
on those subjects.  MIT seems to be pretty selective about what it considers
newsworthy reality:)  Not a wise policy, in my humble opinion.  Could be
considered indicative of the quality of education that the students are
receiving, too.  Why would any student would want to be associated with an
institution that has it's head completely buried in the sand, I don't know.
If I were Mr. Bose, I'd consider some alternatives as to where I donated my
money.

Knuke

Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 16:10:37 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA29348;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:09:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:09:47 -0700
X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: MIT, Video-Games, CF
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:15:45 -0400
Message-ID: <19990731231545953.AAA122 mail.lcia.com@lizard>
Resent-Message-ID: <"tWGOC3.0.UA7.x8uet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29411
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross wrote:
>Their actions are well in accord with the business world, which would deny
>any validity while research was going on.  But their actions are totally in
>discord with the acedemic society where you are to publish what you learn
>and say what you think.  
>
>rt

Unfortunately Ross, the business world now OWNS the established academia in
this country.  It is no longer a matter of publishing what you learn, and
saying what you think. It has become a matter of learning what they tell
you, and thinking what you are allowed to think.  This has even filtered
down to the lower grade levels of education.  Businesses will donate land or
money toward a school, provided that they choose the textbooks, put their
advertising all over the place, put their own people on the board of
directors, and on and on.  Businesses have just exercised too much influence
over the lives of the people that they purport to serve.  I could give you
too many real-world examples of this, some of them almost unbelievable. 

Knuke


Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1121 Dustin Drive
The Villages, Florida 32159
(352)259-1276
knuke LCIA.COM
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 19:04:17 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA23458;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:02:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:02:47 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b3c93c585566 [207.8.127.9]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990731153826.00958100 mail.eden.com>
References: <v04011700b3c8d7ad7dec [207.8.127.126]>
 <3.0.5.32.19990731094840.0094ab10 mail.eden.com>
 <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990731092612.4220C-100000 euston>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 20:43:30 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Electron spin etc.
Resent-Message-ID: <"rwjO41.0.Lk5.6hwet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29412
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

[snip]

>
>> (H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a
>>>Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987)).
>
>>***{Is this paper available on the internet?
>
>You can download it from:
>
>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v35/i10/p3266_1

***{I checked out the URL. Unfortunately, their free access policy ended a
month ago, and I am unwilling to pay them $100 to read the paper. Bad luck,
I guess. Thanks anyway. --Mitchell Jones}***

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 31 21:26:24 1999
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA17673;
	Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:24:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:24:14 -0700
From: tv juno.com
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:24:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Electron spin etc.
Message-ID: <19990731.212452.-230861.0.tv juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-3,5-14
X-Juno-Att: 0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"WwZGP1.0.3K4.klyet" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/29413
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>> (H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a
>>>Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266
(1987)).

The ZPF is supposed to randomly move charges (electrons) around in
conductors.

Does it also cause random movements of the charges in semiconductors ?

What about the charge displacements in ferroelectric materials ?

The spins in ferromagnetics ?

Tim
( tv juno.com )