From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 2 00:50:21 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03887 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 00:49:53 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA03860 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 00:49:26 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0szfdA-000MNVC; Mon, 2 Oct 95 09:49 EET Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 09:49:43 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Scott, You wrote about a possible case in which "the only contradiction in this saga is between the statements of Potapov and the truth". This has to be completed with the increasing number of deceived(?) customers including now some Japanese and the concern Energiya- which confirmed o/u 1.6-1.95 in one document and 5.30-5.65 in an other, being on Potapov's part. Why? I want call to your attention to the fact that you was the one who has discovered --in my opinion--how does the machine work that's by supercavitation at the contact of the central jet coming through the famous bypass line with the vortex. Despite this achievement, you haven't made the corrections suggested by Potapov after your first test and you hadn't combined these with the natural consequences of the mode of function. The machine doesn't function in any way, it functions only in one way, the correct one, that's with maximum flow in the bypass. A simple principle with a somewhat tricky implementation. An other subject: when tent calorimetry was founded, my e-mail was out and I couldn't participate at the discussions. Later I considered it as unnecessary because a tent can be disassembled in 5 minutes. I understand that t.c. is wonderful when you are focused on measurements and not on generation of heat. From the point of view of engineering, t.c. means to take a device intended for heating 100 sq.m and close it in a tent of 5 sq.m. It will be suffocated because the quantity of radiated heat is proportional to the difference environmental temperature-radiator temperature. Inside the tent it will be very hot and the consume will decrease. The system is a tandem heat generator-heat consumer and you cannot generate more than you consume. Therefore you have work at a high load which permits the system to demonstrates its capacity. It is necessary to have long active and short idle periods of the machine. I know a lot of technical devices for which underload is as detrimental as overload (the same is true for humans). We have to generate as many heat as possible with a given motor pump. All the best from Peter! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 2 02:28:51 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13638 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 02:28:50 -0700 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA13628 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 02:28:45 -0700 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id FAA27693; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 05:27:28 -0400 Date: 02 Oct 95 05:26:11 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Credibility, tents and Delovoi Mir Message-ID: <951002092611_100433.1541_BHG63-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Scott, Delovoi Mir ("Business World") is a Moscow firm which is both a newspaper and a business. They've acted as Potapov's agents in Moscow and claim many satisfied customers. It was they who rented us the bypass-free machine for the St Pete tests. If it doesn't work we can ask them how to make it do so. Can't we! Peter, The argument against null-balance tent calorimetry is that it cannot provide a sufficient thermal load. OK, I take the point, but this is going to be a big tent in a cold room. The other argument is that it is concentrating on measurement and not on producing heat. But what else can we do? Nobody will tell us how to make it go. Potapov said he had told us, and despite heroic efforts it didn't. Nobody will show us a working demonstration of the machine, nobody will even SELL us a working machine. My visit to the other side of the "communications curtain" was intended to solve these problems. I'm not saying that it is Potapov's fault that it hasn't yet done so, but it bloody well wasn't MINE either! You say that Potapov will tell us if we sign up a very big way. But are you seriously suggesting that we should do that without even being allowed to see a working machine? I didn't ask to know exactly how you have to configure the thing, a 'black box' test would have been enough to convince me and others that he has what he says he has. Have we been invited to see such a test? As it happens, I do think he has something. But a piece of paper from Energiya - impressive though it is - proves precisely nothing. The document doesn't show how they tested the thing. For all I know, they read the label on the motor to give them the input power, and then took the number of watts at which the individual radiator segments are rated as being the output. Don't laugh, I heard nonsense of that kind being talked while I was in St Petersburg. I do appreciate that Energiya are hardly likely to do that, but they don't actually say what the COP represents. Does it represent input power to the motor compared with output power from the radiators? A total energy balance? A mechanical input power to output thermal power based on what the efficiency of the motor is supposed to be? Does this account for the wild differences in their two reports? My efforts are to cut through the swirling mists which surround this thing. Efforts are being made through contacts with Energiya personnel to find out exactly how they tested the thing. Contacts with Delovoi Mir may well help with configuring it. I respect your opinions, I think your ideas are helpful. But simply to go on saying, "Look, we know it is o-u," isn't any good. Let it be spelled out to us how to make it work. Failing that, let it at least be spelled out to us what we are expected to do before we are thought of as being worthy of being told. That way we can make our choice as to whether we want to do that. Failing any form of coo[eration whatsoever from Potapov, we are making every possible effort to find out whether the thing works or not, and if not how to make it do so. That is the only way, whether we look at this as scientists, engineers, or business people. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 2 04:29:43 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24581 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 04:29:37 -0700 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24562 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 04:29:31 -0700 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA08146; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 07:28:14 -0400 Date: 02 Oct 95 07:26:38 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: Sensible approach Message-ID: <951002112637_100060.173_JHB83-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris said: "I respect your opinions, I think your ideas are helpful. But simply to go on saying, "Look, we know it is o-u," isn't any good. Let it be spelled out to us how to make it work. Failing that, let it at least be spelled out to us what we are expected to do before we are thought of as being worthy of being told. That way we can make our choice as to whether we want to do that. Failing any form of cooperation whatsoever from Potapov, we are making every possible effort to find out whether the thing works or not, and if not how to make it do so. That is the only way, whether we look at this as scientists, engineers, or business people." I agree completely with this attitude, and can only hope that Chris can return to St Pete, (or anywhere else for that matter) and witness a complete unit running with full instrumentation. Its not a lot to ask of an honest outfit. Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 2 07:01:47 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17489 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 07:01:12 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA17358 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 07:00:19 -0700 Received: from net-1-149.austin.eden.com (net-1-149.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.149]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id IAA03913 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 08:58:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 08:58:20 -0500 Message-Id: <199510021358.IAA03913 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: My Potapov tests X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:49 AM 10/2/95, Peter said: >Dear Scott, >You wrote about a possible case in which "the only contradiction >in this saga is between the statements of Potapov and the truth". >This has to be completed with the increasing number of deceived(?) >customers. Yes, include them too. >Despite >this achievement, you haven't made the corrections suggested >by Potapov after your first test and you hadn't combined these >with the natural consequences of the mode of function. Peter, I totally agree that I didn't cover all of Yusmar operating parameter space but I did meet what I thought were the substantive requirements that Potapov suggested: I used the correct washer sizes (and several other sizes, too). I didn't use a closed loop. How could that possible matter since the Yusmar supposedly works when driving _any_ conceivable system of radiators? I achieved inlet pressures and flow rates that covered the range of suggested values in the Yusmar operating manual. I didn't use a smaller motor, as Yuri suggested. My measurement had sufficient accuracy to detect O-U performance of the Yusmar even with the large tare presented by my oversized motor. Surely, a smaller motor is not somehow required to make the device switch from unity to over-unity. What else did he suggest? Maybe I did quit too soon. I certainly got tired of running the thing. If you can point out some significant failure on my part to follow Dr. P's suggestions, then I will fire the thing up again...it's still set up back in the lab waiting to make hot water. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 2 12:06:10 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02711 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 12:06:06 -0700 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM (GAV.GAT.COM [192.5.166.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA02548 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 12:05:36 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510021905.MAA02548 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 12:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 12:06:16 -0800 To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: Central Vortex Jet Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: We have established from hydrodynamic theory and from pressure difference measurements on Yusmars with bypass tubes that the bypass tube injects a water jet down the axis of the vortex. We know that the center of the vortex is a point of relatively low pressure. Peter Gluck has complained a number of times that the bypass flow was not adjusted properly in tests by Little and by Malove et al. The St. Petersberg Yusmar installation lacks a bypass tube. In the past I suggested that a valve be placed in the bypass loop to vary the central jet flow during tests. However, the bypass flow also depends on the Yusmar exit conditions or "washerology", which complicates this approach. I think that the best way to vary the central jet flow in a controlled manner is to derive it directly from the pump outlet line. In this case the pressure driving the jet is relatively constant. The jet flow can be regulated by a valve in the line between the pump and the injection point at the axis of the Yusmar. For completeness the installation should also permit varying the diameter of the jet at the Yusmar injection point by means of inserts of differing bores. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 2 14:07:05 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA03981 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:06:46 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA03550 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:05:15 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA15919; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 17:04:01 -0400 Date: 02 Oct 95 16:55:08 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: up the wrong bypass! Message-ID: <951002205507_100060.173_JHB79-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael Schaffer said: "We have established from hydrodynamic theory and from pressure difference measurements on Yusmars with bypass tubes that the bypass tube injects a water jet down the axis of the vortex. We know that the center of the vortex is a point of relatively low pressure." I am now more confused than ever!!! What exactly does the bypass tube bypass? I was under the impression that it drew water from the centre of the vortex at the back of the vortex chamber, and bypassed the main vortex to be injected at the outlet of the whole kit and kaboodle. At least there is a positive pressure drop from the upstream end of the vortex down to the outlet, which allows flow along the bypass tube towards the outlet. If, as you now state, the bypass somehow injects water axially into the core of the vortex in the general direction of flow, then it is bypassing the vortex itself, and is merely a parallel inlet into the main Yusmar tube, filling up the low pressure core with axially flowing water. I can visualise the creation of shear between the axial "bypass" jet and the circulating vortex stream which might create cavitation at the interface. The whole thing could be critical as to the ratio of axial flow v swirling flow, and it is pathetic that we have not been given these vital parameters. From my own experience you can spend a lifetime fiddling with such adjustments of jet diameter and inlet pressure without hitting on the critical ratio. I wonder how critical the settings really are. Regards to all, Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 2 14:35:26 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11392 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:35:23 -0700 Received: from vaxk.gat.com (GAK.GAT.COM [192.5.166.12]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA11331 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:35:09 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510022135.OAA11331 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:36:08 -0800 To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: up the wrong bypass! Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Norman Horwood wrote: "I was under the impression that it drew water from the centre of the vortex at the back of the vortex chamber, and bypassed the main vortex to be injected at the outlet of the whole kit and kaboodle. At least there is a positive pressure drop from the upstream end of the vortex down to the outlet, which allows flow along the bypass tube towards the outlet." On July 6 I posted "Numbers" on Vortex-L, where among other things I demonstrated quantitatively that the pressure in the vortex is high at the wall and low on axis, and hence the flow in the bypass tube would be from the sidewall tap back to the axial injection point. My July 1 post, "Vortex and "Bypass" Tube," made the same suggestion from qualitative reasoning without all the math. Later, Scott and Gene both confirmed this by measuring pressures in the bypass tube. "If, as you now state, the bypass somehow injects water axially into the core of the vortex in the general direction of flow, then it is bypassing the vortex itself, and is merely a parallel inlet into the main Yusmar tube, filling up the low pressure core with axially flowing water." My point precisely. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 2 15:37:54 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA28129 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 15:37:51 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA28091 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 15:37:41 -0700 Received: from net-1-149.austin.eden.com (net-1-196.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.196]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id RAA03108 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 17:37:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 17:37:35 -0500 Message-Id: <199510022237.RAA03108 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: bypass (e.g. recirculation) X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Norman said: >I am now more confused than ever!!! > >What exactly does the bypass tube bypass? Nothing. It really should have been called a recirculation tube. I suggested this way back when we were discovering that the tube's function was to return water that was about to exit the tail end of the device back into the center of the main vortex chamber...but the original name stuck. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 3 00:52:29 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02289 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 00:52:07 -0700 Received: from roimar.imar.ro (roimar.imar.ro [193.226.4.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA02251 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 00:51:54 -0700 Received: by roimar (MX V3.1C) id 8764; Tue, 03 Oct 1995 09:22:34 0200 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 09:22:30 0200 From: itimc roimar.imar.ro To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Message-ID: <009974FA.3A3DB920.8764 roimar> Subject: vortex center Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Scott and All, I really regret that I wasn't able to answer yesterday, have received your letter too late. Usually I'm arriving at the Institute at 7:15 or earlier and have to leave at 18:15 in order to catch my favourite TV program-"Questions for a Champion" in French, very refreshing intellectually. Unfortunately, I have no e-mail at home but I have a good computer now and will make arrangements to be able to respond day and night. Your letter could be very important if you take it as a challenge and you will start experiments again if it could be demonstrated that you made some great fatal errors reported to Potapov's advises. In my opinion you made them (one is sufficient to transform a Yes in a No). But it is not your fault: a) You had very few information; b) You have received a Yusmar-1 as a Yusmar-2, which is 3 times more productive and you have ordered the pump and its motor as for the greater device, a very serious disadvantage from the start. More precisely, it have made the success impossible! You have adjusted the piping- bypass and outlet- to the oversized pressure pipe of the oversized pump- it is enough to be terminated from the point of view of the experiment. Potapov has emphasized many times that you MUST have an closed small loop- circuit for the desired hydrodynamics. Is he right or you, saying it's not relevant? I'll bet he is. You can work with the Yusmar-in-air setup or with the Yusmar and pump under water with the circuit closed in the vessel; what's equally important you have to attach a sufficient number of radiators in a natural mode. There is no other calorimetry than measuring the heat-up speed with the small circuit and flow times tempe- rature difference with the great circuit. And no isolated parts no other limitation of the production of heat; for the first stage "Damn the torpedoes (losses) full speed ahead!". Till the bypass tube isn't hot, no measurements at all, they just can only confuse and deceive you. And find the proper washers. I remember with nostalgia that for one of our successful researches ( a dirty problem, how to avoid the incrustation of the S-PVC reactor walls) we have worked almost five years continuously and have found a good solution by serendipity; in those times we couldn't buy a license. The Japanese company "Shin-Etsu" had one, described in patents-and nobody could reproduce it, because a patent without know-how is of small value. And after 17 years of successful comercial use, I cannot explain exactly how our method works, or how other methods work. Forget history, future is vital and I am ready to demonstrate my statement that you haven't followed Potapov's logical ideas and that it is perfectly justified for you to start a new series of experiments. I am awfully sorry that I cannot attend. Will wait till later for your answer and will try to respond. Best regards, Peter PS1: It's morning and I have received 5 fine messages which made me glad, it's a good day. Thank you Mike for giving the good answers and thank you Norman for asking the good question! And you, Scott for your help! Yes, if we understand that the CENTRAL VORTEX JET IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE in this Potapov device and affair, we have the only and unique chance to get the solution and to get overunity. Mike's idea-direct injection is something which has to be tried and there are immediately two possibilities: a) the same pump; b) an other pump- for independent control of flow/pressure. (Next year I will work supplementary as professor of Management of Technology at the local polytechnical university and this includes creativity in management-a basic principle is to answer with yes to any idea, later you can find critics) We have to take care for this air/vacuum problem, anyway but the idea is bright. PS2: I didn't understood that the St. Pete Yusmar installation has no recirculation tube, I thought that only the "certified" tube received from Delovoi Mir lacks it. In this case it is a contradiction with the scheme appended to the commercial offer of Delovoi Mir on which the presence of this line is evident and, what's worse, in my understanding the installation is a kind of "perpetuum stabile" , exactly the opposite of what we are striving for. PS3. Simple solutions are the best, why we cannot ask directly Professor Dr. Vladimir P. Nikitski , deputy designer general, Energiya Concern, Kaliningrad Fax (095) 187-98-77: Dear Sir, You are a great authority in your field and your institution is known and recognized worldwide ..etc. You have supported and helped the Potapov device as being overunity and this is a very daring statement in direct contradiction with the present paradigm of the science. Can you please tell more (obviously not secret data but facts) about this surprising news. We have to tell you that our experiments didn't confirm yet..etc., etc., (just a sketch of the fax) What can we lose? If he answers, it is a point. If not, also. Tell him that a fax in Russian is OK I'll translate it immediately. Scott? Mike? Yours sincerely, Peter From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 3 01:09:35 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04572 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 01:09:34 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04538 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 01:09:26 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id EAA14158; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 04:08:11 -0400 Date: 03 Oct 95 04:06:54 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: bypass > re-circulation Message-ID: <951003080654_100060.173_JHB59-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott said: "It really should have been called a recirculation tube." Fine, thank you all for putting me straight. Afraid I missed all your detailed explanations during my long drawn out move - still not complete!!! However, if the re-circ. tube connects the outlet back into the vortex core, apart from some pre-heating effect from having traversed the vortex once, what is the difference between this circuit and a simple offtake from the main inlet from the pump into the core, if the object is simply to fill the core to some extent to create the shear interface? You would have a more stable and predictable inlet pressure (the pump delivery pressure) and you could fit a simple control valve to tune the flow. I can now see the reason for "tuning" the inlet orifice diameter, as it has to be of a size to cover the core of the vortex without overlapping the rotating water. Too large a dia. and you get feedback into the re-circ. from the vortex, too small and you miss the maximum effect of the shear between the inner dia. of the core and the incoming central jet. A similar argument holds for the pressure into the re-circ. circuit - too high and you probably swamp the cavitation; too low and you have too weak cavitation. I can see also the direction of further development, probably with multi-concentric re-circ injection tubes, gradually injecting the central core-filler at intervals along the axis of the main tube after the earlier water has been accelerated by the main vortex. If it really works it is very cute - and it deserves to work. Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 3 07:53:34 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04036 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 07:53:27 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA03892 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 07:52:53 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t08hV-000MNXC; Tue, 3 Oct 95 16:52 EET Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 16:52:08 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: Belarus, Yusmar Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear All, I got today information re. Yusmars in Belarus from my friend Professor Veniamin (Ben) Filimonov. Probably you have noted that Chris's document no. 1, a letter from Energiya is addressed to Yuri and to a L. A. Radyno from the YURLE -K company from Minsk. The addressee, Eng. Leonard Radyno is an associate of Potapov who bought a sub-license for the heaters and is manufacturing them on great scale at the Bobruysk Machine Building Plant. (you remember the report?) The name YURLE comes from combining YURi and LEonard. He is not an co-inventor, the patent belongs to Yuri. Eng. Radyno is collaborating in the best terms with Potapov and the business is prosperous. Why? Both are collaborating with Energiya in testing, research and development of Potapov devices. Ben will try to send me the Belarussian patent of the heaters ASAP. Note. Chris, I forgot to tell you yesterday that the "wild differences" between the two reports of Energiya are bound to time (1994/1995) and to different types of Yusmars( 1 vs 2 and 4). Colleagues, what about the paper "Vortex Cavitation"? Best wishes to all, Peter  From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Sep 26 08:25:42 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01977 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 08:25:26 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA01796 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 08:24:36 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0sxbrP-000MOiC; Tue, 26 Sep 95 17:23 EET Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 17:23:55 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, I have received the documents from Chris Monday afternoon. Thank you Chris for the kindness and promptness! ................................................................. No. 1. Rockets-Cosmical Corporation "ENERGIYA" named S. P. Korolev 141070, town Kaliningrad, Lenin Street 4a Telegraph ; Phone 513-36-55; Fax (095) 187-98-77 No. 77-6/33 dated December 1, 1994. SETTLEMENT. A group of experts from the RCC "Energiya" S.P. Korolev has tested 4 types of thermogenerators "Yusmar" which are recommended by the inventor, Yu. S. Potapov for heating civil buildings, cottages, greenhouses and industrial buildings. The testing of the thermogenerators has confirmed their high(er) efficiency compared to other types of heaters (electrical, with gas, with solid fuels) for a simple construction and reliability in function. The high efficiency of the thermogenerators is induced by a complex of physico-chemical and hydraulic processes which take place in the generator; it is possible that this is a case of "synergy' when the resulting effect is significantly greater than the sum of its components. As a device for heating liquids, the Potapov thermogenerators are economical, ecologically clean, have a long functional life (15 years) and do not require special preparation of water. We are not aware of other means with higher performance indicators and better perspectives in use. Deputy General Constructor leader of scientific-technical center Doctor in technical sciences, Professor V. P. Nikitski (Signature) Dec. 1, 1994. My commentary: this was before the Potapov-Sapoghin meeting when a first theoretical explanation was found for the phenomenon/device. ................................................................. No 2. Energiya, the same header as for no 1. LETTER. No. 77-6/2 dated January 13, 1995. To: General Manager of "YURLE-K" LTD (?) L. A. Radyno : President of technical scientific company "VIZOR" Yu. S. Potapov The scientific-technical center of the rockets-cosmical corporation "Energiya" has analyzed the documents presented regarding the testing of the heating system (document dated June 17, 1994, protocol dated August 12, 1994) using as source of heat the device for heating liquids (patent of the Republic Belarus no. 359 from January 12, 1994); the group of experts has performed testing of the system comprising thermogenerator TG2, electrical pump ICG 12.5/50-4-2, pipes and controller of temperature. The tests have confirmed the high efficiency of the device, which in our opinion is explained by a complex of physico- chemical and hydraulic processes which take place in the thermogenerator. It's possible this is a case of SYNERGY when the resulting effect significantly greater than the sum of its components. The high parameters of the thermogenerator are also explained by the unitary quantum theory. It has also to be noticed that the vortexing currents have a very high degree of complexity and are not sufficiently studied till now. Using different regimes of control and setting of limiting washers, we have achieved results of ratios of the obtained heat expressed in kW to the electrical current consumed between 1.6 and 1.95. In a great extent the high performances are confirmed by the researches of Academician B. Titaev and the scientists from the Scientific-productive joint-stock enterprise "Pacific Ocean Technologies" using similar thermal generators. We are ready to elaborate and to present to you for agreement a complex program of research for the processes taking place in the thermogenerators and for establishing the technical conditions for working out, on this basis, of special devices for the cosmical flying machines. Deputy Gen. Constructor. Head of Scientific Technical Center V. P. Nikitski My comments: a) The other addressee, Leonard Ladyno is the Belarussian co- inventor of the Yusmars. I am currently trying to obtain more information about him from my friend Ben Filimonov from Minsk. a) Despite lack of technical data, this is a relevant document. ................................................................. No. 3. Trade House "Business World" 103009 Moscow, Degtiarnyi Lane 6, 1-st store, room 401 Phone/Fax: 972-87-35 COMMERCIAL OFFER. The technical-commercial trade house "Business World" offers for realization four types of heating systems using the newest heat -generators "YUSMAR". The "YUSMAR" thermogenerators are up-dated technical and have no analogs worldwide. This invention is sufficiently simple as construction, needs minimal maintenance in use is ecologically clean, economical, reliable, as confirmed by the testing protocol. The protection of the heating system and thermogenerator is realized by the patents of Moldova, Belarus, Russia, France and other countries. The thermogenerator is intended for the transformation of the energy of the liquid moving in it in thermal energy used for heating of houses, industrial buildings, storehouses and other buildings, in which heating with water is possible. The heated surfaces vary from 100 to 1000 square meters. The heating system (see Appendix) comprises standard items: electrical pump, pipes, thermometers, motor. These are approved by all the authorities regarding ecology, sanitary conditions etc. Besides buying of separate thermogenerators and heating systems we are able to offer you license for manufacturing and selling of thermogenerators. The cost of this is 200,000 $. The buyer of license receives complete technical documentation, technology of manufacturing as well as all the documentation necessary for the organization of the production of thermogenerators. The condition for buying and shipment of the thermogenerators are the following: -entering in to the agreement (contract); -100% prepayment; -shipment of products within 3 months from the payment. The demonstration of the functioning of the thermogenerator is performed each Thursday at 17.00 at the following address: Staropanski Lane no. 1, editorial office of "Business World" ( metro Revolution Square). For all questions please apply to: Degtiarnyi Lane no. 6, room 401 (metro Pushkin) phone/fax 972-87-35 General Manager V. Demidov. ................................................................ ANNEX. Fig. Scheme and diagram of work for the "YUSMAR" system. 1-thermogenerator; 2-pump; 3-electrical motor; 4- thermosensor t-desired limits of temperatures. T0- first period of up-heating of thermal fluid to tmax. T1- period of cooling to tmin T2- period of heating to tmax T1 + T2 = working cycle of the heater. PARAMETER YUSMAR YUSMAR YUSMAR YUSMAR 1 /1M 2 /2M 3M 4M Heated surface, sq.m 100 150 300 1000 Type of el. pump CG 12.5/ CG 25/ CG25/80 2CG200/ 50K-4-2 50K-7-3 K-15-5 30K45-5 Power of el. motor, kW 2.8 5.5 11 45 Voltage in net, V 380 R.p.m, el motor rot/min 2900 Mean consume of el. energy per hour, kW/h 1.0 1.9 3.7 17.5 Pressure, m. col H2O 40 50 80 100 Flow cu.m/hour 12 23 50 200 Working temperature, C 70 Weight ,kg 6.5 10 18 37 Price of thermo- generator, $ 200 300 400 900 Price of system -(1M, 2M, 3M, 4M) $ 700 850 2450 5150 -(1, 2 *) $ 1700 1850 * The systems "YUSMAR-1" and "YUSMAR-2" are using stainless steel pumps. ................................................................. ANNEX. Confirmed by the Director of the Institute of Physics of the Academy of Sciences of Republic Moldova, Doctor in Technical Sciences Ermilov. Dated April 6, 1994, Kishinev. PROTOCOL of testing the system "YUSMAR-1" The measurements have been performed on the heating system with the thermal generator "YUSMAR-1" having the following technical parameters: 1. Volume of liquid in the system: -32 liters 2. Thermal load -7 kw (12 radiators of 0.42 kW, and pipes, generator electrical pump) 3. Power of the electrical motor -4 kW 4. Temperature of environment +2 deg C 5. Pressure (height) -45 meters 6. Flow of liquid -12 cu.m/hour 7. R.p.m of el. motor - 2900 rot/min 8. Yield of el. pump -34% 9. Working time of the system -60 minutes 10.Initial temperature of liquid -+7 deg. C During the testing the temperature of the liquid has attained 68 deg C in 60 minutes. The difference of temperature outlet- return is 4 deg C. It was established that the liquid which goes through the thermogenerator releases heat significantly increasing the COP of the system. Participants at the test; Doctors in Technical Science: YU. V. IVANOV; A. E. GHITLEVICH; YU. S. POTAPOV; K. G. SABEEV; B. M. FOMIN. ................................................................. No. 5. Letter of Potapov in name of the Trade House "Business World" At your request we are sending you the following additional information: 1. The attestation of our products is no. 62797 of February 10, 1995. The electrical pumps correspond to the standard GOST 20791-88. TU 26-06-1567-89 is the standard for the pumps type CG 12.5/50 K-4-2 U2. The pipes are corresponding to GOST 8732-78/B and GOST 8781-74. The electrical motors and the thermometers are also standardized. The protection of the new system and thermogenerator is made by the patent of Republic Moldova 0141 with priority from March 18, 1993, patent for thermogenerator no. 0008 from January 1994, patent of Republic Belarus 359 from January 12, 1994 ;decision for according a patent of Russia for the request no. 93-021742/06 (021254) with priority from April 26, 1993. 2. Given that the heating system is composed of from standardized components, it is complying with all authorities including ecological and sanitary etc. Those who want can obtain copies of the documents attesting the above statement from the manufacturing works. 3. The maximum temperature of the heating fluid depends on the maximum temperature of work allowed for the electrical pump, for example for CG 12.5/50K-4-2-U2 this is 100 deg C. With (a competing method, unreadable,I suppose it is with a fired boiler) in the central heating the temperature falls 20-30 deg. C, e.g at feeding with +90 Cit returns with 70 deg. C. In our case the feeding water has +70 deg. C and at return it can be +66 deg..C and can be automatically controlled according to the wish of the customer. For example boilers with solid or gaseous fuel can be heated, according to the wishes of the customer to any temperature for example +40 deg. C but not over +95 deg. and this is one of the advantages of the individual heating systems not a drawback. (In our case),due to a very small temperature difference at the feeding and the return, the radiators are uniformly heated and are releasing 1.4-1.5 times more heat. in accordance, the temperature of the carrier of heat can be decreased. March 14, 1995 Signature of Potapov. ................................................................ No 6. Registration Certificate no 8 for a patent entitled "Heater device-heater for water" (in Romanian/Moldavian) priority Jan 26, 1994 accorded to Potapov Iurie Semion from Kishinev- home address given- international classification 23-030. Obviously Moldovan patent. (I have seen this document at Potapov during my first visit) ................................................................. The 7-th document is the known "TECHNICAL OPERATION INSTRUCTIONS" I have translated after my first visit at Potapov. Sorry, due to e-mail troubles and other problems I couldn't phone to "Chiminform-Data" Bucharest in order to ask them to try to get the patents at the Romanian Patent Office. Will do it tomorrow. All the best wishes from Peter!  From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Sep 26 22:55:58 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27953 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 22:55:30 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA27850 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 22:55:00 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0sxpSJ-000MOfC; Wed, 27 Sep 95 07:54 EET Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 07:54:55 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, Due to the e-mail problems I wasn't able to answer to Scott's question regarding the absence of the by-pass pipe on the "certified" cavitation tube. I really don't know what means 'certified' in this case; but it is clear that is not a tube 'extracted' from a working thermogenerator. It is good for certain but will work only when the user will make two proper holes in it and will make the correct connections. I am really not the type who has more certainties than knowledge, however in this case I am convinced that the "Yusmar" is working when this by-pass is functional. And only then! By the way, the scheme brought by Chris (see please my translation) has a fine, regular by-pass tube in the usual place. So I feel fine, no problems due to lack of by-pass. Anyway it seems to me that the report and he documentation brought by Chris gives a lot of strongly positive answers: Commercial success of the YUSMARS? Yes! Overunity? Yes! Patents? Yes, yes, yes! By-pass line? Despite the virgin tube, yes! And, horribile dictu, washerology-also yes! My question: has somebody got the Roger E. A. Arndt paper entitled "Vortex Cavitation"? I have announced it a couple of weeks ago. All the best wishes from Peter! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Sep 26 23:36:31 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05997 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 23:36:29 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA05969 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 23:36:21 -0700 Received: from net-1-107.austin.eden.com (net-1-107.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.107]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id BAA29469 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 01:35:04 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 01:35:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199509270635.BAA29469 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Bypass tube, Peter X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter said: >I am really not the type who has more certainties than knowledge, however >in this case I am convinced that the "Yusmar" is working when this by-pass >is functional. And only then! Peter, we have been told that this "certified" tube was used as a demonstration tube by the people who are selling the Yusmar's in Moscow. They "certify" (i.e. promise) that the tube (without bypass) produces over-unity performance!! In other words, we now face a serious contradiction. On the one hand, we have your conviction (fueled by first-hand discussions from Potapov himself) that a bypass is absolutely necessary and, on the other hand, we have Yusmar factory representatives certifying that it is unnecessary! >By the way, the scheme brought by Chris (see please my translation) has >a fine, regular by-pass tube in the usual place. Thanks for this report, I will study the data and respond soon. - Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Sep 28 07:14:55 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15730 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 07:14:42 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA15686 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 07:14:26 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0syJix-000MNVC; Thu, 28 Sep 95 16:14 EET Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 16:14:07 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, Yuri has called today and has sent by fax the copy of a letter from Energiya to him. This updates the information obtained by Chris. It is very similar to document no. 2 from my translation with the following differences: a) First sentence: "The scientific-technical center of the RCC "Energiya" has carried out numerous testing of the device for heating liquids the author of which is academician, doctor of technical sciences, inventor emeritus of the republic Moldova, (gospodin) Yuri Semionovich POTAPOV. b) The group of experts has confirmed the high efficiency of the devices "YUSMAR-2M" and "YUSMAR-4M" with the corresponding pumps ECV 6-16-75 and ECV 12-160-65. c) The COP for different regimes of control was between 5.30 and 5.65. Yuri was very busy due to discussions and tests in cooperation with his Japanese guests who have bought a couple of devices and with research. I am waiting news re. patents from Bucharest and the paper on "vortex cavitation" for tomorrow. All the best to all Vortex comrades! Peter From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Sep 28 14:22:14 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA08164 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 14:22:06 -0700 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA08126 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 14:21:57 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA17277; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 17:20:39 -0400 Date: 28 Sep 95 17:15:25 EDT From: James Diss <100540.2743 compuserve.com> To: "[unknown]" Subject: Re: Motor Tuning. Message-ID: <950928211525_100540.2743_JHB83-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott wrote: >>What motor? What restriction? Did I miss a whole chapter of discussion somewhere!? << Sorry, I was under the impression that somebody would have looked at the motor attached to the Yusmars. Obviously wrong again.... James From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Sep 28 23:08:23 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09324 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 23:08:11 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA09299 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 23:08:05 -0700 Received: from net-1-223.austin.eden.com (net-1-223.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.223]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id BAA01221 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 01:08:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 01:08:00 -0500 Message-Id: <199509290608.BAA01221 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: USA calling UK,...come in, Chris. X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris, I think you've already given some/all of this info...I just want to hear it again, now that Peter and I are focussed on this issue. Please explain precisely what Yusmar equipment you got in St. Pete. Some of the things I'm interested in are: 1. What Yusmar model is it (1, 2, 3, or 4)? 2. Is is just a tube, like we got, or is it a complete system? 3. If it's just a tube, please describe it, particularly any differences you might have noticed from the ones we've already tested. 4. If it's a system, tell us what you can about the configuration, pump motor, radiators, etc. When do you think the tests in St. Pete will commence?...be completed? Are you planning to return at that time to supervise? - Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Sep 29 03:37:26 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21285 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 03:37:03 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA21271 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 03:36:57 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id GAA02480; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 06:35:40 -0400 Date: 29 Sep 95 06:33:53 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Clarification, expansion Message-ID: <950929103352_100433.1541_BHG24-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Scott, "1. What Yusmar model is it (1, 2, 3, or 4)?" Yusmar 1 "2. Is is just a tube, like we got, or is it a complete system?" Just the tube, with no hole for a bypass tube. "3. If it's just a tube, please describe it, particularly any differences you might have noticed from the ones we've already tested." It appears to be exactly the same as the ones I bought from Potapov. It has the restriction at the output end, it has the flat plate (arranged along one diameter) near the output threaded end, it has nothing inside the tube itself. It did show signs of use, and was slightly rusted inside the tube. "4. If it's a system, tell us what you can about the configuration, pump motor, radiators, etc." Nope. "When do you think the tests in St. Pete will commence?...be completed?" They've just sent me an email asking me to fax the boss so that he can send me an invitation (which I need for my visa). They give the visit dates as Oct 26 to Nov 9, so clearly they expect to have everything set up and preliminary testing done by/during that time frame. I'm applying for a visa, which costs L10 ($15) if I apply now, but L80 ($120) if I delay too long. "Are you planning to return at that time to supervise?" Frankly, my feeling at present is that one of the following is possible: (a) It may refuse to work - give excess heat - under any circumstances. That, if made public, would upset Delovoi Mir, who have all these documents to say it is o-u - and who supposedly know how to make it work. (b) It may refuse to work, and then Delovoi Mir tell 'us' how to make it work (and don't mind the inevitable spreading of the details of how the trick is done). (c) It may work anyway. In the event that it does work, then I see it as inevitable that I would need to return. Not because I set myself above Prof Fedorovitch and Dr Sudakov - obviously they are far more competent. But because it would just be regarded in the west as 'another Russian test' with no clear details of how it was done. That means someone from here has to go and study the protocol. Whether it would be worthwhile my going, if it did work and there was a secrecy agreement involved, I'm not by any means certain. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Sep 30 08:54:27 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01557 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 08:54:26 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA01535 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 08:54:18 -0700 Received: from net-1-216.austin.eden.com (net-1-216.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.216]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id KAA23021 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 10:54:14 -0500 Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 10:54:14 -0500 Message-Id: <199509301554.KAA23021 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Yusmar Prediction X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks, Chris, that helps a lot. Since the tube you got is just like the ones we have already tested, I expect either: >(a) It may refuse to work - give excess heat - under any circumstances. or >(b) It may refuse to work, and then Delovoi Mir tell 'us' how to make it >work Your last option, >(c) It may work anyway. is not very probable in view of the futile efforts of Gene and myself. BTW, who is Delovoi Mir? >In the event that it does work, then I see it as inevitable that I would >need to return. Yes, I'm glad you feel this way. If they said it works, I'd be intrigued. If you said it works, I'd be out in the lab trying to get my unit to work! OK, Peter I like contradictions, too. Nothing serves quite as effectively to stimulate creative thinking. Here we have a big one (unless Chris' option (a) is the result, in which case the only contradiction in this entire saga is the between the statements of Potapov and the truth). - Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 2 08:11:27 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01169 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 08:09:38 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA00747 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 08:07:53 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0szmSw-000MNXC; Mon, 2 Oct 95 17:07 EET Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 17:07:37 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, For the start I just want to emphasize that I am very hit and upset by the fact that we cannot claim a final victory in this Potapov affair. This could be well the Armageddon of the overunity battle--that's the last battle between good and evil (or Yes and No). I have dedicated irreversibly the last few years of my professional career to the CF problem and any failure hurts me, any delay is an almost unbearable stress. I do not sympathize anyway with Potapov's and Delovoi Mir's secrecy--but echoing Chris "_what else can they do_"? It seems to be a deal, you pay 200,000 US $ (see Chris' document no. 3) and you have the working Yusmars with all the details. Further you can use, manufacture and sell heaters but no licenses and no secrets. I suppose there are general rules for buying a license with some steps and mutual guarantees, if it doesn't work the money has to be paid back. At one of my former workplaces I have participated at many such deals; we bought licenses for chemical plants from German, English, French, American, Japanese companies; at a certain stage, a group of our specialists has visited the plant of the owner of the license learned some know-how elements and finally the company has helped us to implement the technology. The Yusmar isn't a chemical technology and it _has_ to be very easy and simple _after_ we learn the lesson. Chris wrote: "Potapov said he has told us"- but have really complied with his data? I have offered you a simple working hypothesis-maximum flow through bypass line, but it wasn't or couldn't be tried. It is an essential technical fact: these cavitation tubes are claimed to work long-say 15 years and this is possible only if cavitation is 'far' from the walls; flow through the bypass tube creates cavitation between layers of liquid and this has to be the secret of the longevity of the device. This has to be tried. Chris is speaking about "heroic efforts" and he is more than perfectly right, we all are indebted to our colleagues who have done the tests while we (I) worked only with my computer, but we have to tell it straight heroic efforts are not the best way to go. This a technical problem not a scientific one. The rules of the game are different. As in this tent calorimetry case, it is an natural order: essential problems (Y/N) important problems secondary problems Now at room temperature of 20 deg. a radiator heated at 50 deg. gives 3 times more heat than at a 40 deg tent temperature; that's no more precision, that's killing of the problem! Big or small I consider the tent useless. We have to attain such a spectacular and convincing o/u effect that 10-20% precision should be completely secondary. As in "Energiya's" second report over 500% o/u, for example. BTW, Energiya's documents say about o/u "ratio of the obtained thermal energy, expressed in kW, to the consumed electrical energy", nothing about mechanical energy or efficiency of the motor, which are actually not relevant at a ratio of 2.0 or 5.0 to 1. And it seems credible people have seen the machine working as told, at Energiya. Why should Nikitski lie? If this machine doesn't work, he has to make seppuku and I also. At least in writing, given I have to take care of my family as long I can. BTW, for black box demonstrations- in Chris's document no 3 it is written, grey on white: "The demonstration of the functioning of the thermogenerator is performed each Thursday at 17.00 at the following address: Staropanski Lane no. 1, editorial office of "Business World" (metro Revolution Square)" Who has a friend in Moscow and could ask him/her to go to such a demonstration? Best regards to all! Peter From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 3 11:50:00 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01378 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:49:57 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA01346 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:49:50 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id OAA02422; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 14:48:34 -0400 Date: 03 Oct 95 14:43:11 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Trying to see through the fog. Message-ID: <951003184310_100433.1541_BHG32-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com I must admit that some recent postings here are hardly to be taken lightly. On one side we have people like Michael and Norman, with their knowledge of these hydrodynamic systems, making some very strong points. And we also have the recent comments from Peter. While I'm not much interested in demonstrations in Moscow - uncontrolled, not instrumented, and maybe not even happening - the word from Belarus sounds better. Would this be worth looking at more closely? So ... the Frenchies have copied Auntie BBC's Mastermind, have they? Hmm. Look, I'm not really being negativist. But we have Delovoi Mir - as Potapov's agents - saying that the bypass is not needed. We want AN INSTRUMENTED TRIAL of something which is supposedly selling like hot cakes. I've personally put one hell of an effort into our getting this demonstration, and perhaps those efforts have at least laid the groundwork to ensure that such a test happens. Does anybody feel that thee is something else I could do to help? Or do I go back to posting clean limericks? A lady, while dining in Crewe Found an elephant's - er - trunk in her stew. Hissed the waiter: "Don't shout, And don't wave it about! Or the rest will be wanting one too." Confused of Nottingham. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 3 11:53:29 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02291 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:53:25 -0700 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA02237 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:53:10 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA20790 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 14:51:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 14:51:55 -0400 Message-ID: <951003145154_115286379 mail02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Prof. Nitikski, Energiya: Request for Assistance Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: MEMO DATE: 3 October 1995 TO: Prof. Dr. Vladimir P. Nikitski Deputy Designer General Energiya Concern Kaliningrad FROM: Dr. Harold E. Puthoff, Director Scott R. Little, Chief Engineer Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin Austin, Texas SUBJECT: "Potapov Thermogenerator" We are writing to you in hopes of obtaining further clarification regarding the Potapov Thermogenerator. Given that you are a fellow scientist, and a recognized authority in the energy field at a world-recognized institution, we know we can rely on your assessment of a device of this type. Our interest in the Potapov device is based both on our own theoretical investigations which would indicate the possibility of converting vacuum fluctuation energy into heat by means of a Casimir bubble-collapse mechanism in turbulent fluids (see, for example, Cole and Puthoff, "Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum," Physical Review E, volume 48, pages 1562-1565, August 1993), and the reported experimental "over-unity-efficiency" claims concerning the Potapov thermogenerator. We have in our laboratory one of the Potapov devices (YUSMAR-1). However, after extensive testing (3 months) in which we measured heat output by calorimetry, as compared with electrical input by calibrated wattmeter, we have been unsuccessful in obtaining evidence for over-unity performance. A similar study by another group in New Hampshire, led by Eugene Mallove, editor of "Infinite Energy," a trade journal for novel energy research, came to the same conclusion. Therefore, having heard of your support for the device, we want first to check if we have heard correctly. If yes, we hope you will provide complete details of your measurements and your certainty as to the over-unity coefficient of performance (C.O.P.). Finally, if you know of any special requirements or tuning needed to bring the device into such a state of performance, that would be a great help to us. With best regards, (signed) H. E. Puthoff S. R. Little From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 3 15:54:13 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04352 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 15:53:41 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA04084 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 15:52:46 -0700 Received: from net-1-193.austin.eden.com (net-1-193.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.193]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id RAA16178 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 17:52:09 -0500 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 17:52:09 -0500 Message-Id: <199510032252.RAA16178 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: attn. Peter, Chris X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter you said recently: >PS2: I didn't understood that the St. Pete Yusmar installation >has no recirculation tube, I thought that only the "certified" >tube received from Delovoi Mir lacks it. Correct me if I'm wrong Chris, but I thought that the two tubes Peter is talking about are one and the same. If so, that means that the critically important bypass tube is absent from the certified over-unity Yusmar unit. A situation like this is a good example to use when defining the word "absurd". Chris, you asked if there was anything else you could do. If you have a rapport with the guys at the St. Pete lab, can you call them and check on the status of the tests...urge them along...help them solve any problems that have arisen. Let's face it, we're not going to believe anybody's positive reports until a sympatico lab confirms them. My latest nightmare: The St. Pete lab will get negative results and Dr. P & Co. won't lift a finger to help because he's too busy signing up his world-wide distributor network. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 3 17:20:11 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24838 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 17:20:08 -0700 Received: from karloff.lanl.gov (karloff.lanl.gov [128.165.16.190]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA24801 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 17:20:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199510040020.RAA24801 mail.eskimo.com> Received: by karloff.lanl.gov (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA207346018; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 18:20:18 -0600 From: Ron McFee Subject: Tuning the Yusmar To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 18:20:17 MDT Cc: mcfee lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greetings Kameraden Votexans and Torvarishi Vortejanos! Peter, please pardon me if tovarisch is now a "bad" word. The word comrade in its generic sense with the small letter "c" has been and still is a good American word and is used with affection toward ones friends. It never had the stigma that must have developed in the Communist world. Anyway if this business succeeds I hope that we all get to live like the old Comrades (i.e. better than Kings). In reading all the discussion on bypass or recirculation tubes and "washerology" it occurred to me that the early Yusmars probably did not have this recirculation tube and that the addition to later models was done probably to keep the device better tuned when circulation is switched to the radiators. This tube may also boost the efficiency of the energy production. If this is true, then it is a refinement that can be ignored until it is determined whether or not the basic unit really does produce excess energy. That the St. Petersburg test Yusmar has or has not a recirculation tube is not relevant if it shows excess energy production. The paranoia of Dr. Potapov is probably assuaged by sending an older unit which is relatively obsolete. This tube is essentially a minor loop inside the small loop which is connected to the larger radiator loop. Yuri's hints on making the device work with the proper washers is probably where the main attention should be focused. From Chris Tinsley's article in "Infinite Energy," Vol 1., No 2 it is interesting to note the flanges where the pump connects to the vortex unit and where the outlet tube connects to that pipe in the small loop which returns the pump. These flanges would easily accommodate metal plates with circular holes, i.e. "washers." If one were in a hurry to try different sized holes, one could place knife-gate valves in these places and have several knife plates with different sized holes. Robert Smith's report to Gene Mallove of his visit to Star City is interesting in that several "washer" are also incorporated inside the outlet tube. This is also probably a refinement to boast the efficiency of energy production. The big secret that Yuri Semionovich is trying to keep is not how his device works, but if it does. Once that is determined it will be worth the effort to discover how to tune it. Gospodin Potapov is playing a dangerous game. If he doesn't get his device covered with real patent protection, he is risking piracy of his invention. I do not know how well his Moldovian or Russian patents will be respected. His practice of selling "licenses" for $200,000 (US?) is really stupid from our perspective. His device is worth probably several millions if not billions (read giga $). As a trade secret it will not be difficult to rediscover. His failure to make disclosure demonstrates a paranoia that is not only delaying the development of his discovery but is contrary to his own self interest. Peter, please pass my comments on to Yuri Semionovich with my apology if he has already begun to obtain US patents. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 4 04:59:32 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14923 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 04:59:10 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA14768 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 04:58:01 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t0SSC-000MNXC; Wed, 4 Oct 95 13:57 EET Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 13:57:40 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, It seems that our Yuri Semionovich considers that GLORY IS NOT SHAREWARE and we have to cope with this situation ourselves, with our YUSMARS and our skills and creativity. Chris: I am more than confused about this tubeless Yusmar (similar to the -er- trunkless elephant of your limerick) in St. Pete, and about the blatant contradiction between the drawing and the advises of Delovoi Mir. Such a cavitation tube and any tube in which the recirculation tube doesn't work is not more and not less than a _dummy_ as Gene's tests have shown directly and Scott's tests in an implicit mode. Heat-yes, but excess heat no, I dare to predict. As the fine analyses of Mike and Norman show an o/u behavior is possible due to a third degree encounter between two water (or oil, or antifreezing liquid this being a proof of the Puthoff theory and against the unitary quantum theory of Sapogin) layers having different velocities (axial, radial), i..e flow and pressure-- and as Norman called our attention to- temperatures. A fine real life complexity, if we remember that even the simple vortex has an intricate structure and dynamics including natural vortex, forced vortex and a difficultly predictable precession movement as shown by Hashimoto and, I hope in a more updated form by Roger E. A. Arndt from the Minnesota University. I will continue to investigate the Belarussian connection, and I need some help. Gene and Scott, may I ask you to send your tests results to: Prof. Ben Filimonov, e-mail for Eng. Leonard A. Radyno, General Manager of YURLE-K Company? Thank you in advance. The Puthoff-Little letter (so well written, I am ashamed for my poor English) is a challenge for Prof. Nikitski; will he put his reputation at the stake? I am not optimistic about the quantity of information he will send, except raw results and principles of measurement. Scott: the situation is similar to an absurd play or novel and it could make Kafka, Ionesco or Becket happy.."En attendant Potapov" but it seems nobody in this group is waiting him..I don't share Yuri's glory but I'm sharing- for the time given- your nightmare. Ron: Tovarishch is a forgotten word here but I share the opinion of one great management gurus that revolutions doesn't exist only evolution or catastrophe, the revolutions' favorite food is their own children; I wrote about the Twin Peaks Principle (the evil is indestructible and always wins)- see Cold Fusion no. 6 p 15 and we have a lot of problems. Thanks for your understanding but I don't want to bore our comrades with such subjects. As regarding your messages to Yuri, I have a great experience in translating such messages. As I told here when I was working at a great chemical company we have imported licenses and had a lot of foreign specialists at the site. We had many discussions with them and, as head of research and as a person speaking English and German I have participated at these discussions. Some where quite unpleasant and I was the "piggy in the middle" as Chris has defined it. How can you translate for example: "Tell to this damned idiot that the distillation column is corroding like hell and his solution is pure s..t. Why isn't he going home asking they should send a normal engineer instead of this ...(censured)? It's easy: "The general manager is concerned for the corrosion problem and please have the kindness to consider this an ultimatum". How should I translate for example "paranoia"? Professional pride? Oversized desire for glory? Please write him a regular letter and I will translate it and forward it by fax immediately. And I'll call a spade a spade and paranoia--paranoia. Best wishes to all! Peter From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 4 12:57:38 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06153 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 12:57:23 -0700 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA05871 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 12:56:18 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id PAA22913; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 15:55:00 -0400 Date: 04 Oct 95 15:50:12 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: This'n'that Message-ID: <951004195012_100433.1541_BHG52-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com 1. Yes, the 'two' tubes are one and the same. The 'virgin' tube (no sign of forced entry to the vortex-initiation chamber) is the one from Delovoi Mir, now in the hands of the Polsunov Inst - who've just faxed me their invitation letter, which is necessary if one wants a business visa. So I'm now applying for a new visa. "If so, that means that the critically important bypass tube is absent from the certified over-unity Yusmar unit." Yup. "A situation like this is a good example to use when defining the word "absurd"." Oh, I don't think so. It's more the kind of example you need to explain why some poor sod is hunched in a corner, sobbing and occasionally banging his head against a convenient wall. "Chris, you asked if there was anything else you could do. If you have a rapport with the guys at the St. Pete lab, can you call them and check on the status of the tests...urge them along...help them solve any problems that have arisen. Let's face it, we're not going to believe anybody's positive reports until a sympatico lab confirms them. Dunno about "rapport". But I do have the email address ... a good point, Scott. I'll use thanking for the faxed invitation to find out what is happening (if possible). "My latest nightmare: The St. Pete lab will get negative results and Dr. P & Co. won't lift a finger to help because he's too busy signing up his world-wide distributor network." That's your 'latest'? Huh, I've had several since I had that one haha. 2. Ron, I never thanked you for your kind note after I got back from the arms of Mother Russia. On why Polsunov want that length of time, I think they just want to do a good job. On theories, I'm just grateful that they are Someone Else's Problem. I think your comments in your last message are just exactly right. The device may show some activity without a bypass tube (hollow laugh here), certainly *I would think that it had more chance than with a tube which was set up all wrong*. That's one of the reasons why I'm not arguing this point with *anybody* right now .... 3. Peter, I accept what you say about the bypass tube - I accept what ANYBODY says about it. "The Puthoff-Little letter (so well written, I am ashamed for my poor English) is a challenge for Prof. Nikitski; will he put his reputation at the stake? I am not optimistic about the quantity of information he will send, except raw results and principles of measurement." You may be right about the information. You should bear in mind that your English is excellent, and - though I stand open to correction - it's probably a great deal better than Hal's Romanian. "Scott: the situation is similar to an absurd play or novel and it could make Kafka, Ionesco or Becket happy.."En attendant Potapov" but it seems nobody in this group is waiting him..I don't share Yuri's glory but I'm sharing- for the time given- your nightmare." Ah. We call that play "Waiting for Godot". I'd remind everybody that Godot never showed up.... I remember that some misguided buffoon gave Sian and I tickets to W F G as a wedding present. Somehow, after the first act, we thought of something better to do. Damn, damn, would have been 25th wedding anniversary next Tuesday. "The general manager is concerned for the corrosion problem and please have the kindness to consider this an ultimatum". That is one I'll remember. "How should I translate for example "paranoia"? Professional pride? Oversized desire for glory?" Peter, I think this is one of the few English words you have got wrong. What you are talking about is probably best described as 'vainglory'. 'Paranoia' is strictly a medical term, but in common use it describes excessive suspiciousness. Thus it is said that Metternich, on hearing of the death of a rival, was silent for some time before saying: "I wonder why he did *that*?" That is paranoia. "Please write him a regular letter and I will translate it and forward it by fax immediately. And I'll call a spade a spade and paranoia--paranoia." I'll have to think about this one. Ideas, anybody? And I'm sure Peter will call a spade 'a bloody shovel' Anyway, *two* clean limericks tonight: We visited Southend-on Sea, I sat next to the Duchess at tea. Her rumblings abdominal Were simply phenomenal - And everyone thought it was me. There was a young man from Japan Whose poems nobody could scan. When told this was so, He replied: "Yes, I know, But I always try to get just as many words into the last line as I possibly can." Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 4 13:02:11 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04261 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 09:15:14 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA04060 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 09:14:25 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA04862 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 12:08:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199510041608.MAA04862 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 04 Oct 1995 12:23:07 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Nightmares and pathological optimism Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have been saving this subject heading (pathological optimism) for some appropriate context, maybe this is it. No, I don't really think that the optimism shown in this group is some sort of "sickness", but sometimes it does lead me to question my own motivations. Actually I loathe the word "pathological" in the way it has been applied on both sides of the "CF" and "O/U" debates. And I don't want this heading to mislead you about my own interest. "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" (Peter) wrote: > [...] > >As the fine analyses of Mike and Norman show an o/u behavior >is possible due to a third degree encounter between two water >(or oil, or antifreezing liquid this being a proof of the Puthoff >theory and against the unitary quantum theory of Sapogin) layers >having different velocities (axial, radial), i..e flow and >pressure-- and as Norman called our attention to- temperatures. >A fine real life complexity, if we remember that even the simple >vortex has an intricate structure and dynamics including natural >vortex, forced vortex and a difficultly predictable precession >movement as shown by Hashimoto and, I hope in a more updated form >by Roger E. A. Arndt from the Minnesota University. I have seen no analysis here that shows in anyway that o/u is possible. We have seen no detailed discussion of either Puthoff's nor Sapogin's theories. I do not understand how Peter reaches the above conclusions. I have little doubt that under the appropriate conditions fluid shear can produce cavitation and that this phenomena could be aptly referred to as "complex". But where is the theory and evidence (or should that be evidence and theory) that cavitation leads to o/u effects? Such fluid shear is fairly common in nature and in many mechanical devices. It just seems so very unlikely that a significant o/u effect could have been missed. I do have a few thoughts along the lines of a possible theory of o/u effects - one which might also apply to P&F style "CF". I think I mentioned them here a few months back, but there were no follow-up comments. I really would like to get into a discussion of some theories (at least while we wait for the outcome from St. Pete. I fear, however, that Scott Little's nightmare may be the only likely outcome of the current work.). ------------------ And speaking of personal nightmares, let me weave a somewhat circumstantial story here, which is likely to remain circumstantial, speculative, and maybe even wrong in some respects, unless and until the principals come forward with new information. Suppose sometime just prior to 1989, two electrochemists were approached by someone with access to information that had been classified for the last 40 years. It was probably anticipated due to the usual time limitations that this information would shortly be made public in any case, but for some reason, this information apparently remains classified today. One might imagine that for a secret to be kept for over 50 years that its import must be very substantial indeed. If you need to keep something secret for a long time that involves a scientific discovery, then you must also be very careful about what is taught to the new generation. You need to mis-direct and try to block further investigation along certain lines without drawing attention to them. As far as I am concerned, this is a fairly accurate description of the development of (conventional) quantum mechanics over this period. Furthermore, with some luck, this would be such a bizzare and massive conspiracy that no one would believe it. Keep in mind, however just how few people were involved in the foundations of quantum mechanics and in secret weapons research 40 to 50 years ago. It is surprizing, perhaps, how many of those who made major contributions to the fundations of quantum mechanics over that period were also directly involved in the development of nuclear weapons. In philosophical terms, to create such a block one had to emphasis the way in which quantum mechanics represented a radical departure from our intutive grasp of reality and in many ways it does, yet there was already one approach which established that this was not necessary. Bohm published his elaboration of de Broglie's interpretation after being forced to leave the country for refusing to testify against Oppenheimer in 1953. Despite continued low level interest in this approach, it has not yet recovered from the initial negative response it received from many of the major physicists at that time. I realize that even speaking hypothetically, this suggestion is terribly heretical and may be viewed as a completely unsubstantiated and even slanderous attach on one of the major intellectual accomplishments of this centry. I don't mean it this way. And having thought about it for a long time, I do not even mean to question the wisdom of those who could have made such a decision. The developments 40 and 50 years ago certainly caused the scientists involved to question the role and responsibilities of science relative to the many wider and all encompassing social issues that have driven civilization for as long as history records. We haven't reached any real resolution of these issues yet, although perhaps the international situation looks better now than at any other during this period. As usual, I worry that my rhetoric does not accurately express the magnitude and import of the subject. But let me continue my story anyway. These two electrochemists might well have weighed the evidence for and against the much earlier classified conclusions and having been affected by their training in quantum mechanics in only a peripheral way, may have come to their own conclusion that the claims could be true. In fact, physical chemists had been collecting such evidence on the strange behaviour of hydrogen in metals for some time. Which lead naturally to experiments of their own. Certainly the skills of electrochemists are more suitable to calorimetry than nuclear measurements, but one might also imagine that the classified evidence might have been primarily of a thermal nature. When the calorimetry results began to seem positive, considering the original source of the claims, and when the initial naive nuclear measurements seemed to confirm it, it is easy to imagine that the electrochemists might have prematurely jumped to a conclusion regarding the origin of these effects. Even after making the results public and being confronted with the contradictions between the claimed thermal output, the nuclear measurements and the nuclear theory, it may have still seemed like a good strategy to continue to promote the notion of a nuclear origin to these effects, since the alternative would mean directly confronting the mental block that had grown to such huge proportions since its inception. Perhaps they under estimated the vigor with which some people would protect their hard won intellectual investment in mere ideas. In a odd parallel of what had happened near the start of this conspiracy, they become exiled from the country in which they did the original research. Funding came from private sources with motivations quite different than the scientific orthodoxy and their research continued in a country that did not share the more commonly held views on the disposition of nuclear technology. By 1994, their writing on the subject no longer contained any claims of nuclear effects while strengthening their position on the excess thermal output. Their published papers in that year emphasised other physical effects such as chaotic phase changes and electrical conductivity at high hydrogen loading. By 1995, there were claims of energy production in cavitation devices, seemingly quite unrelated to the original experiments, yet presented at a scientific conference hosted by the original researchers. But at this conference, all they would say is that we would have to wait a year or two more until everything could be revealed. What are they waiting for? Can the social risks really be so great? For concreteness sake, suppose that the secret might make it possible to construct kiloton yield weapons from materials that were relatively easy to obtain and could not be detected by sensitive nuclear measurements? Does the continued threat of terrorist action justify hiding such a technology, when it might also produce devices which could provide nearly limitless energy for a growing world population that has come to expect a great deal more than at any other time in history? At some point one has to deal with the question of what might ultimately represent the greater threat. End of story ... so far. ------------------------ I hope you don't find my story too off topic. I'd be pleased to discuss it and/or theories of over unity effects with the esteemed members of this discussion group. How better to exorcise those night time deamons, anyway? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 4 15:12:33 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12829 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 15:12:25 -0700 Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.7.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA12700 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 15:11:57 -0700 Received: by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id SAA22283; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 18:10:35 -0400 Date: 04 Oct 95 18:08:31 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Prehistory of CF Message-ID: <951004220830_100433.1541_BHG61-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Bill, You write: "I have seen no analysis here that shows in anyway that o/u is possible. We have seen no detailed discussion of either Puthoff's nor Sapogin's theories. I do not understand how Peter reaches the above conclusions. "I have little doubt that under the appropriate conditions fluid shear can produce cavitation and that this phenomena could be aptly referred to as "complex". But where is the theory and evidence (or should that be evidence and theory) that cavitation leads to o/u effects?" Fair comment, I noticed that myself. The real point here is the evidence that cavitation produces o-u thermal energy. That evidence may be disputed, but I would refer you to the report by Gene Mallove and Jed Rothwell on the Griggs device. OK, it's produced a lot of controversy, but the best arguments that I've seen against that test was that the actual thing could have been some kind of error. No error has been found in the method they used - none which has much chance of cancelling the positive effect seen. As to theory, I bow out on that. "Such fluid shear is fairly common in nature and in many mechanical devices. It just seems so very unlikely that a significant o/u effect could have been missed." And the anecdotal reports trickle in from those who have reported significant apparent o-u in such systems. "Suppose sometime just prior to 1989, two electrochemists were approached by someone with access to information that had been classified for the last 40 years." But ... why should one suppose that? The 'prehistory' of CF has been thrashed out pretty thoroughly. We know (or think we do) all the things that led up to F&P's early work. "By 1994, their writing on the subject no longer contained any claims of nuclear effects while strengthening their position on the excess thermal output." They certainly had not shifted their (to my mind doubtful) idea that the thermal effects were a result of nuclear effects. Undoubtedly there are nuclear effects seen in CF, the question then has to be whether the heat seen is always a result of nuclear activity. One can draw up hypotheses which are less absurd-looking than the original 'squished deuterium' model of F&P. For example, I dreamed one up (from bits I stole) in which a D atom had its electron move to a sub-ground state, thus allowing the atom to look like a super-neutron and tunnel into close proximity with the Pd nucleus. That permitted Pd-D fusion, and then - gollee - it happened again, so the Pd atom decayed, giving off a 4He nucleus in alpha-decay. Pure bullshit, of course! (Talk about lack of rigour.) But with a bit of fudging here, and a bit of 'new fizzix' there - probably no worse sins than the average cosmologist commits (daily) without a flicker of his shifty eyes behind his concealing mirror shades - you can whomp something like that up into a 'theory' which looks half-sane. All this sort of stuff is what makes me feel that these ZPF ideas, with their seductive 'simplicity', are a better bet. As a non-mathematician, that's being pretty presumptious. My chief reason for supporting the ZPF energy effect is that the multiplicity of effects which come under the general vague umbrella of 'Cold Fusion' indicates that something much more basic is wrong with our understanding of matter than can be cured by a little fine-tuning of nuclear or quantum theory. The only candidate for what appears to be needed - a real revolution in physics - would seem to me to be the ZPF. That's the sort of Holmes/Ockham approach to the problem, and if Hal's paper deriving F=ma from ZPF is valid, then the ZPF approach seems to me to be showing huge promise. Excuse my lapse from my usual style, I suppose we are in a bit of a slack patch. A habit both rare and unsavoury Holds the Bishop of Southwell in slavery: With maniacal howls He deflowers young owls, Which he keeps in an underground aviary. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 01:22:34 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23999 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 01:22:28 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA23890 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 01:21:49 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t0lYK-000MNaC; Thu, 5 Oct 95 10:21 EET Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:21:15 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, Three interesting messages this morning...one from Bill Page and two from Chris. First I want to eliminate a very unfortunate misunderstanding. Chris wrote about paranoia: "Peter, I think this is the one of the few English words you got wrong" a) Paranoia is an international word composed from "para" and noos" signifying something like strange conscience, paradox comes from the same root. According to the good old Webster: "insanity marked by delusions of grandeur or persecution". I have heard the word for the first time in war-time at BBC in connection with the personality of Adi Schickelgruber. A somewhat benign form is paranoid and in an essay I read in Current Contents it was used in the following context "inventors and inventiveness- a mixture of curiosity, creativity, paranoia, perseverance and desire of becoming rich". Here it signifies "nobody was able to do it but I will do". No invention is possible without this overdose of good opinion about the self. Being myself an inventor with 24 patents plus one stolen by Madam Ceausescu's acolytes, I have an inside view of the subject. According to my wife Judith, I possess the above characteristics in the following proportion; 60; 5; 17; 17; and 1%. A clear proof of the inside view is the high priority given by me to this marginal subject. Obviously Potapov with his over 100 inventions has a different personality spectrum. b) The word was used by Ron and I am absolutely innocent, it had to be translated. Bill, Your scenario is impressive and it deserves a thorough analysis. Personally, I think that, as Gene shows in an editorial, the discovery of F and P was only the tip of the iceberg and the phenomena are more profound and different as initially thought. Our vocabulary has to include the collocation "PATHOLOGICAL REALISM" and than it is almost complete. Pathological realism urges us to inquire the possibilities of the existing theories to solve the problem of CF. But I have shown many times that as long as theory in the solid state/ material science is not able to predict or even to explain HTSC, luminescence of porous silicon, or even the old catalysis-it couldn't be used to justify or to refute CF or o/u. The famous Rabinowitz et al paper is relevant. Pathological realism urges me to believe that what will come is now just a "paradigm too far" (Fusion Facts, Jan 1995, p 19) and that all these phenomena have different degrees of "nuclearity" always lower than 1 and exactly zero at Griggs and Potapov. Perhaps it is other symptom of pathological realism to advocate a "technology first" approach and strategy for the field (Infinite Energy vol 1, no 1 pp 26-29). However, there are problems with scientific calorimetry of the Potapov device, tent calorimetry is questionable but room calorimetry performed by thousands of ignorant customers seems to be very good. This is the point were my pathological realism, having the support of Griggs, Patterson, Mc. Kubre, F and P, Storms, Dufour, Reifenschweiler, Arata, Piantelli and others is metamorphosed in pathological optimism. It's realism again to find that the common elements in these phenomena are surface and locality and this leads to the idea that all are cooperative energetical phenomena which open the formidable possibility to capture energy from vacuum. Therefore I am an adept of the Puthoff theory. The same was shown by Chris, I think. QUESTION : has somebody here direct information about the reaction of the hot-fusionists to the Patterson cell demo at the Symposium on Fusion Engineering? Thank you in advance! Peter  From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 01:33:50 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25372 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 01:33:48 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA25338 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 01:33:33 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA06974; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 09:34:38 +0100 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 09:34:38 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: Prehistory of CF In-Reply-To: <951004220830_100433.1541_BHG61-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Seeing that it seems to be acceptable here/now to express skepticism, I dare voice mine: Chris tells us that ZPE is a good candidate for an explanation of overunity effects. My feeling is that ZPE is so attractive because: 1. It is indeed thought to be a real effect, by respectable physicists; 2. It is mysterious, unexplored, so one is free to imagine all sorts of properties for it; 3. Although physicists almost all agree that the effect is far too small to BE a candidate for gross effects, they are not QUITE sure about this, so again, one is free to speculate. In other words, it's a straw to grab at, but there is no really good reason for grabbing it. Unless I have missed something - have I? I know Puthoff has some argument, but I have a feeling it is pretty speculative, too. We ought to have Steve Jones on this list. It is beginning to look as if the Russian machine doesn't work; how about the Griggs one? Has the same sort of effort been made to make sure that it works, or is that a similar situation - some people making claims, without details, etc? -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 03:51:52 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06221 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 03:36:37 -0700 Received: from big.aa.net (root big.aa.net [204.157.220.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA06209 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 03:36:32 -0700 Received: from s3c0p2.aa.net (s3c0p2.aa.net [204.157.220.134]) by big.aa.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA20560 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 03:36:24 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 03:36:24 -0700 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199510051036.DAA20560 big.aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mwm aa.net (Michael Mandeville) Subject: Re: Nightmares and pathological optimism Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >End of story ... so far. >------------------------ > >I hope you don't find my story too off topic. I'd be pleased to >discuss it and/or theories of over unity effects with the >esteemed members of this discussion group. How better to exorcise >those night time deamons, anyway? > >Cheers, >Bill Page. > > Bill, yes the post is off topic however you point to an especially interesting set of facts which I have long regarded to be crucial to understanding modern physics. I will state it more bluntly, modern physics is the creation of the 20th century industrial war machines, and quite obviously there are selected elites who manipulate the field and have largely structured the field during the past 70 years. These are elementary statements of fact, which as a Political Scientist who once taught American Government at the University of Washington, I feel are quite obvious, yet no one wants to talk about the good old boy network for what it is. However, you take the analysis too far into pure speculation. I feel the facts of conduct of the industrial machine during the past 50 years more likely indicates the poverty of further accomplishment into basic mechanisms. Quantum is an utter joke as an explanation. The entire field has only an adhoc collection of facts and mathematical relationships. It has no vision of the underlaying structure of the dynamics it can partially describe. Hence the inability to generalize from em to gravity and vice versa. Some isolated stuff is no doubt known, especially in the big bang department of juvinile war garmes. But the evidence is completely lacking that they can do fundamental energy conversions such as CF. CF is a principle which has too many power implications for all hierarchy on the planet. The knowledge of working, engineerable principle is probably worth billions of dollars to the knowers. One thing is clearly as inevitable as taxes and death: greed. No human conspiracy could have kept the lid on for so long. Take that as fundamental as the law of gravity and your head will be screwed on right. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 03:58:55 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08915 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 03:58:55 -0700 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08907 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 03:58:50 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id GAA06327; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:57:35 -0400 Date: 05 Oct 95 06:54:54 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: "Skeptics" and scepticism Message-ID: <951005105453_100433.1541_BHG60-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l eskimo.com Dieter comments: "Seeing that it seems to be acceptable here/now to express skepticism, I dare voice mine:" Yes, but we must distinguish between honest scepticism and straight negativism. For an example which doesn't exactly fit, but may be relevant, I cite the Creationism vs. Evolution dispute, which is current in the US but effectively a non-issue in the UK. One great disservice done by the Creationists is to prevent (occasionally) the showing in the US of TV programmes which take an opposing stand. Another - more subtle but perhaps more serious - is that many perfectly respectable scientists are constantly having to look over their shoulders for the Creationist response to what they say. The effect on evolution science has been that the scientists have become overly defensive about their ideas, so that they now tend to see creationism in the most honest objections to their theories. I have once or twice raised my own doubts about the *mechanism* of evolution - to me, perfectly rational *enquiries* about rates of mutation affecting gross morphology - and been slammed as a 'creationist'. In my view, opposition to valid work by the creationists has hampered that work by colouring the attitudes of the scientists involved. In many ways, the opposition to the showing of TV programmes sympathetic to CF research - and the attitude of such negativists as Jones, Blue and Close - has in much the same way hampered CF research. That is, of course, only my own personal view. "Chris tells us that ZPE is a good candidate for an explanation of overunity effects. My feeling is that ZPE is so attractive because: 1. It is indeed thought to be a real effect, by respectable physicists; 2. It is mysterious, unexplored, so one is free to imagine all sorts of properties for it; 3. Although physicists almost all agree that the effect is far too small to BE a candidate for gross effects, they are not QUITE sure about this, so again, one is free to speculate." I cannot comment on your third point, but I happily accept the other two - with my expressed proviso on the apparent success of Puthoff et al in deriving the Newtonian laws of motion from the ZPF. As I said, if that is valid I see it as a major indicator that further work in the field is urgently indicated. I would strongly suggest that Close's comment on the 'net that "Zero Point Energy is Zero Energy" is an example of simple negativism. But of course you are right. I believe that if it is mysterious, it deserves study. You may not be aware of my general stance, which is to emulate Newton in at least his negativism - "Hypotheses non fingo". It is only on a very bad day that I hypothesise! Similarly, I feel that untestable hypotheses are a waste of time. You may recall the famous revue, "Beyond the Fringe," where an Anglican clergyman preaches a singularly silly sermon on the text, "I am a smooth man, but Esau is an hairy man." It contains the classic line, "It is interesting, [perfectly timed pause] but futile, to speculate ..." Where I think we part company is that I do think that it *is* worthwhile to at least have some kind of idea where you think you *may* be going, if you are studying a field so full of confusion as CF is. One such idea is that all the effects seen are nuclear. Another is that they are partly 'something new, maybe an effect of the ZPF'. Yet another is that they are all errors. I believe that the second of those is the least dogmatic of the three, which is (I hope) why I tend to prefer it. (I do of course include the obviously correct assumption that some of them at least may be error!) "In other words, it's a straw to grab at, but there is no really good reason for grabbing it. Unless I have missed something - have I? I know Puthoff has some argument, but I have a feeling it is pretty speculative, too." Well, I've given my reasons - and you have done me a service because I've tried to look more closely at why I lean towards the 'second alternative' above. My stance is really just one of preferring to keep open all the options, and I guess (I may be wrong) that you prefer the 'all error' option. That's fine, just so long as we are all honest with ourselves and friendly toward one another. "We ought to have Steve Jones on this list." Well, I disagree. I think we would get bogged down in the kind of 'lively exchange of views' so frequently seen in the newsgroups. I see no evidence that these squabbles have contributed much of value. In fact, those debates basically come down to: A. We have these results. B. Your results are mistaken or fraudulent. They are unsupported by current theory, and any new theories you put forward are contradictory to current theory - so those are wrong too. A. ISN'T! B. IS TOO!! [etc] Not a pretty sight, really. This is one reason why I (and most people here) prefer to concentrate on devising test methods rather than worrying too much about hypothesising. See - I've really just fallen into the traps I have described, and I've only myself to blame for that. After all, it was I who broke my own rule about hypothesising, and I've ended up defending myself!! "It is beginning to look as if the Russian machine doesn't work; how about the Griggs one? Has the same sort of effort been made to make sure that it works, or is that a similar situation - some people making claims, without details, etc?" I don't think we've plumbed the full depths of the Potapov device. We still have this fundamental contradiction between our own bad results - much good work, much labour - and the commercial success and good (if genuine!) reports from respectable Russian groups like Energiya. I would like to see this discrepancy resolved, providing only that this can be done within the limits of reasonable effort and expense. Oh, the details of the testing of the Griggs device are good (and published) - no problems there that I can see. Note that it was Gene Mallove who took a considerable part in the testing of both the Griggs and Potapov devices, and came to different conclusions about each. Regards, Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 06:16:28 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17041 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:16:11 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA17017 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:16:03 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA12121; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 14:17:08 +0100 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 14:17:08 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Skeptics" and scepticism In-Reply-To: <951005105453_100433.1541_BHG60-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 5 Oct 1995, Chris Tinsley wrote: [...] > Dieter comments: [...] > such negativists as Jones, Blue and Close - has in much the same way > hampered CF research. That is, of course, only my own personal view. Blue, maybe; but Jones and Close do not have closed minds. I forget who it was who pointed out (on spf) that "we" (he meant skeptical physicists) would be delighted if CNF was real, that that faint hope in fact is the reason they read the group (back then; now it is no longer worth reading). It just requires solid evidence, and instead we get rhetoric. Any thoughtful person expects that there are new phenomena waiting to be discovered, even ones of major importance. But they are not discovered by argument but by compelling evidence. I agree that theory is then less important than that solid evidence, as long as it is indeed solid. Let the theorists come up with something later, as they invariably do. There was a flurry of theoretical explanations of CIF, now dead and not in need of explanation. CIF? Cluster impact fusion. > Where I think we part company is that I do think that it *is* worthwhile to > at least have some kind of idea where you think you *may* be going, if you are > studying a field so full of confusion as CF is. One such idea is that all > the effects seen are nuclear. Another is that they are partly 'something > new, maybe an effect of the ZPF'. Yet another is that they are all errors. > I believe that the second of those is the least dogmatic of the three, which > is (I hope) why I tend to prefer it. (I do of course include the obviously > correct assumption that some of them at least may be error!) Absolutely! We do not part company here. And most scientists presumably work that way, groping ahead, selecting their experiments to perhaps underpin the idea. I just feel that ZPE is only one of many candidates, and wonder why it seems to be in favour. All assuming, that is, that there is in fact something to explain. So far, the Potapov machine needs no explanation, in my opinion it most likely does not work as other than a water heater, producing exactly the amount of heat it should. If the phenomenon behind is thought to be cavitation - well, there are cheaper ways to do research on that, than these big and expensive machines. I was not aware of "published" evidence for the Griggs machine; where is that to be found? I understood that it, too, failed to work in the hands of others. Please enlighten me. I agree, however, that this list ought not to become yet another battleground. Even this posting is probably too much, and I apologise for starting this argument. I will now crawl back into my hole and just watch. -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 06:35:26 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20738 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:35:23 -0700 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA20697 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:35:10 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id GAA08441; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:35:05 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:35:04 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: Prehistory of CF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, Dieter Britz wrote: > Seeing that it seems to be acceptable here/now to express skepticism, I > dare voice mine: Yes, skepticism is a touchy subject here. It too easily becomes a weapon in fights between opposing worldviews, so caution in its use is warranted. At one end of the spectrum, total skepticism causes a totally closeminded approach, and no experimental evidence is good enough. But if we all occupied the other end, we wouldn't see a need to explore Potapov's device, and we'd all be selling them. I see skepticism as a serious problem in modern science because it damps creativity and it steers us away from exploring the unknown. If all of us say "I don't believe it, show me," then no one would do the work to convince the skeptical! To explore something like these devices, one has to believe that overunity is possible (be it from cold or hot fusion, ZPE, cosmic-ray-solarcell, whatever.) One has to put skepticism aside and become a believer. At least temporarily. The term I use for this is "provisional acceptance." Meaning, accept that Potapov's device has a good chance of being real, but then perform some damn good testing before assuming that it really does work. > Chris tells us that ZPE is a good candidate for an explanation of overunity > effects. My feeling is that ZPE is so attractive because: > 1. It is indeed thought to be a real effect, by respectable physicists; > 2. It is mysterious, unexplored, so one is free to imagine all sorts of > properties for it; > 3. Although physicists almost all agree that the effect is far too small > to BE a candidate for gross effects, they are not QUITE sure about this, > so again, one is free to speculate. I think #3 hits it on the head, and probably should be #1. FREEDOM TO SPECULATE. Up until recently, mainstream physics wouldn't touch "overunity" devices even with someone else's ten foot pole. The devices too much of perpetual motion and crackpottery, and any researcher caught playing with them would be ridiculed and labled "crazy." They also fell into the area covered by the common (unexamined) belief that "if there's no theory to explain it, then your observed anomaly is not real." As you say, physicists are not QUITE sure that ZPE won't produce macroscopic effects, so it becomes acceptable to look into Griggs, etc. But wasn't the older situation pretty pathological, where physicsists *were* quite sure that no unknown energy sources existed to explain such things, the lable "speculative" was a derisive epithet, and the occasional reports of anomalies could be rejected without examination? And so vortex-L should ban ridicule and debunkery, err on the side of "crazy" provisional beliefs, and practice semi-unbridled creativity. We should behave as if it's 1800 again and the world still contains a vast unknown out there if one would only look. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 07:53:12 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08940 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 07:53:03 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA07035 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 07:45:15 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t0qvW-000MNaC; Thu, 5 Oct 95 16:05 EET Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 16:05:33 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, Dieter, We need constructive skeptics as you, author of an almost complete Cold Fusion bibliography and a honest fighter for the ideas you believe in. As a personal opinion the situation is exactly the opposite with Prof. Steve Jones who is one of the main authors of the transformation of the s.p.f. group in a slaughterhouse for the cold fusion papers and ideas. I am not a CF fundamentalist and I agree with Prof. Jones that the phenomena belonging to this field are not only and not absolutely genuine fusion or exclusively nuclear reactions; however the absence of nuclear signals is not a proof for the non-existence of these phenomena. The problem is that the arguments used by Prof. Jones in discussions related to the Mc. Kubre, Griggs, Reifenschweiler and especially Arata and Patterson discoveries- as well as his recent publications re. the Miles et al work, with all due respect, go much beyond the scientific arguments and are masterworks of a scientific bravo. Lots of qualitative and false quantitative tricks. It would be more reasonable to attract cavitation specialists as Roger E. A. Arndt in this group. As regarding your consideration about ZPE nobody is able to decide a priori if a new problem/field is worth to be studied or not. Fact is that there is an unknown energy source and vacuum being almost ubiquitous is a promising candidate. You remember the Matthews paper on vacuum -in New Scientist Feb. "95? If the Russian (de facto Moldavian) machine doesn't work - this remains to be thoroughly proved. We have a working hypothesis which wasn't tried yet and we have numerous documents and arguments that it is really o/u. The Griggs device is- and this one has a better engineering. Best regards. Peter  From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 08:54:15 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23897 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:54:02 -0700 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM (GAV.GAT.COM [192.5.166.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA23817 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:53:41 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510051553.IAA23817 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 8:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:53:36 -0800 To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: SOFE Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter Gluck asks: "Has somebody here direct information about the reaction of the hot-fusionists to the Patterson cell demo at the Symposium on Fusion Engineering?" I (a "hot-fusionist") didn't go to this meeting. I would hafe liked to, to see the reaction to the Patterson cell. However, I just don't do much of the kind of engineering and science that is the main focus of this meeting. There are lots of fusion meetings and workshops every month, and one can't get funded to go to all of them, especially these days and if one's work does not relate closely with the meeting. However, General Atomics sent most of its fusion engineering staff to the meeting, which ends later today. A few of them were specifically alerted to check the Patterson cell demo. I will post a message after I talk with them, Friday or Monday. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 10:19:44 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16152 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:19:37 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA16106 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:19:25 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id NAA06014; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 13:18:08 -0400 Date: 05 Oct 95 13:15:05 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: A bit philosophickal, innit? Message-ID: <951005171505_100433.1541_BHG79-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l eskimo.com My own feeling is that we are steering a little too close to the wind here - and it's all my fault for luring Dieter out of his Scaninavian lair. We are at risk of discussing philosophy! Dieter, I think that a 'negative' attitude like yours is positively to be welcomed, if it means that an extra person is looking to find errors in technique - errors which might conceivably lead us astray. This group is very 'engineer heavy', and I'm glad of that because they are not likely to be misled by thinking that low-order effects are important, and they may be the best people to suggest wasy of provoking this 'cavitation' - the big difficulty we are having with the Potapov device is that we don't even know if we are driving it in the way that makes it 'cavitate' at all. I put the word in quotes because it seems to me that we don't quite know if what we are trying to provoke is exactly that. But a person with a more 'science' than 'engineering' approach might spot something we might miss or discount as too small. So, any comments are welcome from Dieter or anyone else. Dieter says: "It just requires solid evidence, and instead we get rhetoric." Well, best we agree to disagree here. No point is stirring up an argument which has shown it leads nowhere - as you say. "....big and expensive machines." The smallest Potapov machine is 6.5kg, less than a metre long, and costs about $200. It's driving the bugger that costs! "I was not aware of "published" evidence for the Griggs machine; where is that to be found? I understood that it, too, failed to work in the hands of others. Please enlighten me." "Cold Fusion" magazine (issue 2 or 3 I think) has Jed & Gene's report. They may recall that I opposed this report being printed, but after reading exactly how they did the test, I thought it pretty good. Yes, the report shows that on occasion the thing doesn't hit its 'sweet spot'; on more than one occasion it failed to behave when Jed went to see it, and I think that it didn't work properly when Scott looked at it. I think you'll find the issue on John Logajan's WWW page. Bill, Basically, I agree with what you said. My own attitude is only marginally different, in that I just stopped believing or disbelieving anything very much at all. But then I always was a bit weird, and growing weirder as I get older. I'm one of the few who'd like to see energy conservation tested more thoroughly, and see no need (by Ockham's razor) for electrical or magnetic fields to have any existence if they can only be observed by putting matter there. Looks like 'multiplying entities beyond necessity' if you ask me (which you didn't). I certainly don't believe the Potapov machine works (or that it doesn't). The evidence simply isn't there either way. The list of things I believe in (like atoms, or 'God') is very very short compared with things I simply do not know about. But I do end up leanin' *towards* belief or disbelief, and the Potapov gadget is one where I've swung back and forth without ever getting very near 0% or 100%. It sits at about 50% just now. Peter, Thanks for reminding us of the yet-unexplained oddities within condensed matter physics. A good, well reasoned argument. Not sure I agree with all of it, but then - that's me, innit? Never sure of anything. Sheesh, it's cold and lonely out here, with my nose pressed against the glass, watching all those happy people inside who are all sure of different things.... Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 11:23:29 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03637 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 11:23:23 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA03527 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 11:23:02 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA16986; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:24:12 +0100 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:24:12 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: A bit philosophickal, innit? In-Reply-To: <951005171505_100433.1541_BHG79-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 5 Oct 1995, Chris Tinsley wrote: [...] > Dieter, > > I think that a 'negative' attitude like yours is positively to be welcomed, This sounds uncomfortably like my wife, when she is cranky at me... I don't like to think of myself as habitually negative. But, er, thanks. [...] > Dieter says: > > "It just requires solid evidence, and instead we get rhetoric." This is the real reason I am sticking my head out of my hole again on this. I think I gave the wrong impression here. There is no rhetoric in this list; I meant spf, on the subject of CNF - which seems to be entangled with OU devices in some unspecified way. Sorry to have misled y'all. This list is good stuff. While I'm here, though: OK, the smallest Potapov is only 6.5 kg; that is still not how a physicist would study cavitation and possible anomalous effects thereof. I just mention it. -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 15:51:09 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA06786 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 15:50:27 -0700 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA06691 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 15:50:04 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id SAA15258; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 18:48:47 -0400 Date: 05 Oct 95 18:27:34 EDT From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Please do crawl back Message-ID: <951005222733_76570.2270_HHB68-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A On 5 Oct 1995, Dieter Britz wrote: "I agree, however, that this list ought not to become yet another battleground. Even this posting is probably too much, and I apologise for starting this argument. I will now crawl back into my hole and just watch." Please do, please do!! Britz, you are about as useless to this forum as Close and Jones have been to cold fusion. Britz wrote: "Blue, maybe; but Jones and Close do not have closed minds." Don't make us laugh -- or regurgitate! Neither one of these characters has ANY claim to objectivity in the O-U field as the historical record shows. Chris Tinsley is absolutely correct in pointing out that it is cold fusion proponents who are fully capable of coming to negative conclusions about failed cold fusion/O-U experiments -- e.g. Mallove/Rothwell on Potapov (provisionally negative), while making positive assessments -- MEASUREMENTS -- on the Griggs' machine. Cold fusion critics are congenitally incapable of admitting the positive evidence of "cold fusion" phenomena -- e.g. tens to hundreds to thousands of megajoules/mole energy release in numerous careful experiments; transmutation of elements (e.g. Wolf, Kevin in P&F experiments); tritium production in a host of once thought chemical environments, etc., etc. We have been suspecting for some time that Close/Britz et al would try to find some future venue in which they would claim they "knew it was real all along, but we were more cautious.." It ain't going to happen. Too many words and deeds are engraved in stone. Indeed, back to your hole! Gene Mallove From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 17:03:49 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25663 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:03:40 -0700 Received: from karloff.lanl.gov (karloff.lanl.gov [128.165.16.190]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA25554 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:03:16 -0700 Message-Id: <199510060003.RAA25554 mail.eskimo.com> Received: by karloff.lanl.gov (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA194667824; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 18:03:44 -0600 From: Ron McFee Subject: Paranoia and Prehistory To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 18:03:43 MDT Cc: mcfee lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter, as Chris points out paranoia is a medical term with a precise clinical definition and is the same word in Russian, different alphabet of course. Also as Chris points out, in English paranoia colloquially generally means being overly suspicious which fits with the clinical term. I agree with you that a little paranoia is good for an inventor, however it needs to be controlled. The saying goes "If you are paranoid, and they really are out to get you; then you are not really paranoid." It is very easy to be insulting in using E-mail. It is important to remember that this is definitely a public forum even if it is somewhat informal. My comments concerning Yuri Semionovich are not intended to be too insulting or critical of his behavior. If I were an ethnic Russian living in present day Moldova, I would probably think and act precisely like he does. I am sure his business practices are proper and correct for his dealings in the Former Soviet Union. My intentions were to draw his attention toward the larger outside world which in my opinion offers him far greater opportunity. As Jed Rothwell has pointed out in an earlier post, Dr. Potapov should make a few modifications in his modus operandi if he wishes to take full advantages of modern business opportunities that have opened to him with the end of the Cold War. I will defer to your experience in dealing with rude foreigners such as myself and draft a short letter to Yuri Semionovich, however don't feel that you need to be "piggy in the middle." You may give him a literal translation of all my postings if you wish. Regarding Bill's post Nigtmares and pathological optimism: Bill, shame on you. I should use the paranoia word on you. It is probable that Pons Fleischmann fusion was first discovered back in the 1920's at the Chemical Institute of the University of Berlin by two chemists, Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters, who published what they thought was helium production from hydrogen and palladium catalyst. This was retracted eight months later because of sever criticism from the academic establishment. They couldn't prove the subtle effect. In February 1927, John Tandberg of the Electrolux Research Laboratory filed for for a Swedish patent on a device which produced "helium and useful energy." This was a light water Pons- Fleischmann type cell. The patent was never granted, and he continued his work into the 1930's. This was all before the discovery of deuterium (1932), the neutron (1932), and nuclear fission (1938). After heavy water became available I believe that Tandberg experimented with this too. Tandberg met with the same academic hostility that continues today. It is amusing to learn that Yuri Semionovich with kilo watts of power is getting the same academic beating. This is why I am interested in his device. The only conspiracy in this business has been one of ignorance. Between March 1989 and March 1990 when I was fortunate to hear Julian Schwinger at the Salt Lake meeting of the First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, I expected to hear that some idiot blew up a building with a Pons-Fleischmann type experiment. I figured that theoretically there was enough fusion energy in a typical device to equal several hundred pounds of high explosives. After learning of Schwinger's hypothesis I realized that the requirement of a solid lattice made the fusion reactions self limiting. Likewise the Potapov device probably requires liquid water to work. Anything more than a boiler type explosion is going to be difficult with this class of device. If this energy source is a type of fusion; it is a clean, safe form of nuclear energy! Regards, Ron From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 5 17:05:17 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA26100 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:05:15 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA25824 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:04:24 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id UAA12098; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 20:03:06 -0400 Date: 05 Oct 95 20:01:20 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: 'Negative' Message-ID: <951006000119_100433.1541_BHG25-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Dieter, I put the word 'negative' in quotes because I was trying to describe an approach to this sort of thing, one which uses as a working hypothesis that there is an error or whatever in the idea of o-u in the Potapov device or its relatives (if there are any). That's because there are so many meanings to the word sceptic/skeptic that I try not to use it at all these days. My approach to many investigations (if I wanted to investigate) would be 'negative' in the sense I mean it. If someone asked me to investigate his notion that the earth has holes in the poles with UFOs using them as entry ports to a hollow earth (some people do believe that), then my approach would be very 'negative' indeed. If it seemed important for some reason to study the evidence in such a case, i would try to do an honest and unprejudiced job, but it wouldn't be easy for me - my mind is not so open that the brains keep falling out. (Well, I hope not, actually I think it is so closed as to refuse admission to almost anything at all!) So 'negative' is not a criticism, and you will see from several posts that some (most likely all) here very much welcome any input you may wish to bring. In fact, I'd be interested in your views on our conclusions regarding null-balance tent calorimetry. (I see Peter's objections, but I hope that the 'tent' will be big enough to behave like a 'room'.) On the matter of CF and OU, I am among those who feel that, with no very clear candidate winner emerging from the rash of theories, I'd prefer to call "CF" 'anomalous thermal energy release in condensed matter'. On that definition, the Potapov device would fit "CF". Not important, just a way of looking at things, and labels stick. I agree that cavitation would be best studied using other tools. What we don't know is whether the supposed effect is from true cavitation - which is why I put that word in quotes too. Only the device itself can be tested if the claims for the device are to be tested. And it is sold as a space heater, so we'll test it that way. The whole idea here is to make *no* assumptions of any kind whatsoever. Maybe not very scientific, but logical nonetheless. More clarification (I know I'm a bore) on hypotheses. I see the thing as a diagram: (Error, fraud, whatever) * * * (nuclear) (something else -maybe ZPE) All the CF and 'OU' results/claims would (I think) fit on this triangle. Some would cluster at the top, others would fit somewhere else. I think it possible that some results/claims might be *within* the triangle, not on a point or even a side. Certainly it is not possible to assign any new claim/result to a point with any certainty before it has been investigated, and the area within the points is my 'uncertainty' field in such cases. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 01:25:16 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09363 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 01:24:43 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA09338 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 01:24:34 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA19082; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:25:25 +0100 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:25:25 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, mcfee@lanl.gov Subject: Re: Paranoia and Prehistory In-Reply-To: <199510060003.RAA25554 mail.eskimo.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, Ron McFee wrote: [...] > It is probable that Pons Fleischmann fusion was first discovered back in > the 1920's at the Chemical Institute of the University of Berlin by two > chemists, Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters, who published what they thought was > helium production from hydrogen and palladium catalyst. This was retracted > eight months later because of sever criticism from the academic establishment. > They couldn't prove the subtle effect. In February 1927, John Tandberg of the > Electrolux Research Laboratory filed for for a Swedish patent on a device > which produced "helium and useful energy." This was a light water Pons- > Fleischmann type cell. The patent was never granted, and he continued his > work into the 1930's. I won't be negative this time, but feel I must correct the above. Paneth and Peters indeed thought they had produced helium from hydrogen. There was a bit of muted criticism, such as a skeptical remark in Nature, but no concerted opposition, as far as I know. Paneth and Peters themselves checked their results - as good scientists should - and found their error, which completely accounted for the helium. Tandberg did keep working on it as you say, but his main experiments were not really like those of F&P. He did charge Pd wires by electrolysis, but then sent huge current zaps through them to provoke fusion. He never did succeed. The patent was not granted because it seems to have been written badly and the examiners couldn't understand it. This seems strange, I suppose, for a man who was heavily into patents; e.g. why did he not rewrite the thing? I don't know. Both stories are well covered in Mallove's book "Fire from Ice" and there is a translation of part of "The Alchemist from Tomegraend", describing Tandberg's zapping attempts, in Britz, Centaurus 33 (1990) 368, where I draw the parallel with the 1989 work of Wada and Nishizawa, who also zapped. -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 01:39:06 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11065 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 01:39:05 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA11002 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 01:38:32 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t18Ia-000MNaC; Fri, 6 Oct 95 10:38 EET Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 10:38:30 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, Mike Schaffer: Thank you in advance for the information re. Patterson demo at SOFE. It's not yet the ideal demo (as defined by Bill Collis in Cold Fusion no. 1) but it would be difficult to disregard it for any true professional. Ron: I agree with everything you wrote and will accept the oversimplified definition of "paranoia" given by Chris and you; I have an autistic son and in 1963-1966 I have participated at a working group aiming to diagnose mental illnesses by computer analysis of the texts written by the patients ( leader Professor Stoessel, Timisoara). Therefore, very unfortunately, I am quite knowledgeable in psychiatry. OK, forget it. You wrote: "It is amusing to learn that Yuri Semionovich with kilo watts of power is getting the same academic beating" Yesterday I have phoned to the arch-enemy of Yuri, Professor Valentin Musteata and asked him about the developments in his testing of the Potapov device. He was extremely angry and the discussion unpleasant. I learned that the governmental committee having the task to investigate the possible wasting of Moldova's electrical energy by the thermogenerators "ceased to exist" and no tests have been done due to a missing flowmeter. Potapov has refused to give this flowmeter, said Musteata. I mentioned the positive results of Energiya and the professor get furious and shouted: "Yes, the Russians have enough electrical energy, they can allow themselves to use the generators!" End of the discussion. What is this all about? At the end of this story ,anyway after Potapov's visit in the US we can get an image of what happened. Is this a victory of room calorimetry performed by thousands of ignorant customers over the academic close-mindedness? Was the committee corrupted? My friend from the European Patent Office e-mailed that they do not have Belarussian and Moldavian patents in their data-base. Waiting the patent from Minsk. Chris: You wrote this (and many interesting and stimulating things): ...tent calorimetry (I see Peter's objections, but I hope the 'tent' will be big enough to behave like a room") You know Chris, the world's greatest dwarf and the smallest giant are about the same; it wouldn't go. Great tent, great losses, small tent, small heat generation. Potapov's machine is born free and has claustrophobia (tentophobia). All the best wishes from Peter!  From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 01:39:58 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11150 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 01:39:57 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA11131 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 01:39:49 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA19313; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:40:59 +0100 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:40:59 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: 'Negative' In-Reply-To: <951006000119_100433.1541_BHG25-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OK, Chris, I take your point about the word "negative". Nevertheless, I have already drawn some aggro, which I want to avoid in this list. A safe topic seems to be calorimetry. You ask for comments on tent calorimetry. Well, the tent and the very large room seem to be extremes. It may be true that a small tent would get too hot to allow testing under normal working conditions. On the other hand, a very large room, the same size as the sort of room the device would be used in, is not a testing environment; one could only qualitatively say, hm, it's getting warmer here, nice. For testing, you need a controlled space. Maybe a slightly larger tent, using my earlier suggestion of controlled heat transfer to the outside. Some of the best CNF calorimetry has been done with cooling coils, measuring the temperature differential between inlet and outlet, and smallish temperature rises in the cell. Can something like that be done in a tent? Or a well insulated shed? However, now I know that the smallest Potapov is only 6.5 kg, so why do you need large tents? If all these devices are supposed to work, irrespective of their size, take a small one, and then even a small tent might do the job? I also take your point about doing more academic work, e.g. on cavitation. I agree that the main thing is now to show definitely whether or not these machines work, and if they definitely do, and can be shown to work at will, then the researchers will jump in with both boots to find out how and why. If not, not. -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 03:21:57 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21824 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 03:21:55 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA21818 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 03:21:51 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id GAA13824; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 06:20:35 -0400 Date: 06 Oct 95 06:18:00 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Helium and glassware Message-ID: <951006101800_100433.1541_BHG36-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Ron, You wrote: "It is probable that Pons Fleischmann fusion was first discovered back in the 1920's at the Chemical Institute of the University of Berlin by two chemists, Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters, who published what they thought was helium production from hydrogen and palladium catalyst. This was retracted eight months later because of sever criticism from the academic establishment. They couldn't prove the subtle effect." I had always thought that the apparent finding of helium in that particular case was traced with some certainty to contamination from the glassware used? That was one of the objections raised to Miles' report of the finding of 4He in CF work. I'm not fully conversant with all the details, but I think that he later found similar levels of 4He when using steel vessels. One of the problems is that one needs to assign proper numbers when estimating the contribution made by possible contamination. In the case of Paneth and Peters, my recollection is that the amount of 4He was comfortably inside the limits for probable contamination but far too big to have been produced by any form of fusion - because of the high energy release which should have (but didn't) accompany its 'formation'. In the case of some more recent work, it's tended to be the other way around - too much helium for contamination, and often insufficient to account for the energy. They say it's tough at the top, but I reckon it's a lot tougher where we are. Now I come to think of it, I just saw a report on 'executive stress'. Seems that while the executives are living long and healthy lives, the hewers of wood and drawers of water are dropping dead all around us from 'stress' illnesses the said executives have always claimed as their very own. That's very anecdotal, but I did see an hilarious article recently. One of the business mags had a survey on economic forecasting. They took predictions from a wide range of groups - from economists to heads of big companies to garbage collectors. I don't have the exact details, but the garbage men came out top with their wide-ranging ten-year predictions on such disparate things as commodity prices and gross national products. The heads of industry did pretty well too, but all the professional forecasters were completely hopeless - as were professionals in other fields, I think. The Roman Empire - and to a degree the British one - had something of a tradition (at least in the earlier days of each) that the amateur had something of value to offer. Some poor sod would be dragged kicking and screaming from his books or his farm, and made to do something like leading the army in defence of the country. He would do so brilliantly, and then go back to his 'proper work'. In our own times this has changed, and every two-bit programmer or social worker frames his achievment certificate from the 'courses' he has attended. But when NASA needed to know the 'geography' of the moon, it was to Patrick Moore they had to turn for his lovingly hand-drawn maps. I am frequently horrified to see articles from so-called experts in many fields, articles which not only show an inadequate grasp of the language they use but also a remarkable inability to think in straight lines. Jed just sent me some articles from a 1943 issue of "Science Digest", and I was much impressed by both the quality of the writing and the clarity with which the ideas were expressed. I feel that education in the West has become so narrow and specialised that each of us knows more and more about less and less, and that this loss of breadth of knowledge has left us without the basic platform of intellectual discipline. Certainly it has been often noted in the UK that the most effective system programmers are not those with degrees in 'computing science' - an oxymoron if ever there was one - but those with degrees in the study of ancient languages. A good degree in Classics requires not only the study of the intricate languages themselves, but also of oratory, history, and social organisation - an excellent grounding for any young person. How's that for prattling, eh? Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 03:25:21 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22125 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 03:25:19 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA22104 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 03:25:13 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id GAA26177; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 06:23:58 -0400 Date: 06 Oct 95 06:22:29 EDT From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Britz and B.S. Detection Message-ID: <951006102228_76570.2270_HHB24-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Rough pineapple Britz has this to say: "I have been more than fair to you lot, and have batted at bullshit on both sides, as the bullshit comes up. That is my main beef: bullshit, I can't stand it." Anyone who endorses the Taubes Bullshit -- as the final word on the CF saga -- as Britz has -- certainly is not a reliable Bullshit detector. In fact, as evidenced above, the detector is so contaminated it is spouting Bullshit. I say recalibrate him! Better yet, send him back to his hole. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 04:54:54 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01493 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 04:54:52 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA01476 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 04:54:46 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA23545; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 07:53:29 -0400 Date: 06 Oct 95 07:52:41 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Time and place Message-ID: <951006115240_100433.1541_BHG25-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Gene, There's a time and place for everything. Some of us know just how much you have had to take over the past few years after taking a stand on matters you believe in - I'd not have had the guts to do that. Problem is, this isn't the right place to express your very understandable frustration, and I (who am proud to count you and Jed as real friends of the best kind) have to be the one who says that. Not everyone here understands the whole story, and so they won't understand how deeply you feel about all this. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 05:44:07 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07719 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 05:44:05 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA07703 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 05:43:59 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA04635 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Fri, 6 Oct 1995 08:43:55 -0400 Message-Id: <199510061243.AA04635 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 6 Oct 1995 08:43:55 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Returned mail: Date: Fri, 06 Oct 95 08:43:12 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Received: from GPU1 by memo.gpuc.com (IBM MVS SMTP V3R1) with BSMTP id 1003; Fri, 06 Oct 95 08:37:38 EST From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC Subject: zpe Date: Fri, 06 Oct 95 08:37:38 EST I have been working on the zero point energy theory for 12 years. The problem mainstream science is having with the new excess energy machines is that no one can explain where the energy is comming from. I may be zero point energy. read my papers on eskimo com and at http:\\nuclues.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum EPRI has just released its final report on their cold fusion work. Epri report # TR-104195 Project 3170-1 I have requested a copy through my employer the Gen Pub Utilitys Corp. Puthoff is testing a Griggs machine. His tests are not complete and he has not yet released any information. Puthoff's tests on homopolar generators revealed no excess eneergy. Personally, I believe, that a dense plasma is required and that any device not employing a dense plasma will not work. Anyone interested in "My book on a disk" may contact me directly. Frank Znidarsic Fznidarsic aol.com fznidarsic gpu.com From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 07:18:43 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24632 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 07:18:41 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA24548 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 07:18:14 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t1DbY-000MNaC; Fri, 6 Oct 95 16:18 EET Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 16:18:26 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris has much courage and writes: He is right too, but here he alludes to some secrets usually well hidden in the dark side of the science of management. I will teach these in some detail at the University to our young managers to be, trying to make them able to compete (or even better to "surpete", see de Bono's definition) with their colleagues from West and everywhere. Given that's weekend and I am waiting very impaciently for the news from SOFE and from Belarus, I hope an intermezzo dedicated to this non-Vortex subject wouldn't be considered a violation of the netiquette. 1. About prediction, P.F. Drucker, the great management guru says: "In this Age of Discontinuity, experience stays for naught." And more explicitly: "We must start out with the premise that forecasting is not a respectable human activity and not worthwhile beyond the shortest period. Strategic planning is necessary precisely because we cannot forecast". The same idea in a simpler form: " Since we can't perfect the art of forecasting, we need get better at the science of consequences" (Robert H. Campbell) BTW, who has correctly predicted in 1989 what will become of Cold Fusion? 2. About professionals: Do you know The Gardner Rule? "In any group of profession, 82% are incompetent" John W. Gardner in his book "Excellence: Can We Be Equal and Excellent Too?" unfortunately I have only excerpts of it. Don't take it as serious, here "incompetent" is a semantic trap just as "those skilled in art" (to reproduce patents). Incompetent for what? You cannot simply quantify competence, and here Peter's Law act as buffer. But I can bet that the situation is much worse in any group of amateurs; however have no data. We have professional forecasters and it seems their activity is supported by the fear of uncertainty. What will happen eventually to this Potapov affair? Who knows the future? Best regards, Peter From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 09:22:18 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24106 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:22:15 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23947 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:21:44 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA04437 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 12:15:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199510061615.MAA04437 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 12:30:27 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Paranoia and Prehistory Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ron McFee >Regarding Bill's post Nigtmares and pathological optimism: >Bill, shame on you. I should use the paranoia word on you. > Alright, I admit it. I do have a tendency toward what you have referred to as paranoia. Back when I was actively doing experiments with Aluminium cathodes and heavy water, I kept hearing those big military helicopers flying over the relatively remote rural area where I live. Yes, they were flying low and yes they were military, I could see the insignia - but sure, just on some unusual training exercise, I'm sure. Funny what one thinks about sometimes, isn't it? Hadn't seen them before, though, and haven't seen them since ... >It is probable that Pons Fleischmann fusion was first discovered back in >the 1920's at the Chemical Institute of the University of Berlin by two > ... This has been adequately disputed by others here, so I don't need to comment directly. But instead, it is interesting to note that P & F *have not* to my knowledge ever referred to any of this earlier work as in anyway a motivation for their studies. They may well not have even heard of it before it was pointed out to them. They did, however in 1994 refer to other "old works" which they claimed did motive their research. That was the work of Alfred Coehn. I think that took many people by surprize and very few people have had anything to say about their ICCF4 (Maui) paper on this subject. ICCF4 was the second conference on "CF" that I attended (the first was the Boston APS meeting in 1989). At Maui, J.P. Vigier was frequently heard expressing his opinion that the reason their were no German scientists at the meeting was that the German government had "put a lid" on their work. And there were other trigging events, I suppose. It was on the airplane home from Maui that I first had an early version of the nightmare that I described in my little story. Again, at ICCF5 Martin Fleischmann referred to the "old literature" in relation to the proper understanding of the behaviour of nickel hydrides. To me, these references to the "old literature" were clearly in the context of something that had been subsequently suppressed (or at the very least ignored), in post 1940's scientific literature. I fully expect to eventually hear more about this from P & F, maybe at ICCF6? I hope. > > ... > >The only conspiracy in this business has been one of ignorance. Between March >1989 and March 1990 when I was fortunate to hear Julian Schwinger at the >Salt Lake meeting of the First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, I expected >to hear that some idiot blew up a building with a Pons-Fleischmann type >experiment. I figured that theoretically there was enough fusion energy in a >typical device to equal several hundred pounds of high explosives. After >learning of Schwinger's hypothesis I realized that the requirement of a solid >lattice made the fusion reactions self limiting. If you check some of the other patent applications submitted in parallel with P & F 's original 1989 patent, it is clear that these early experiments involved many small scale explosive events. Aside from the famous exploding "Pd cube" (which has been frequently debated), you seldom see any reference to these experiments. Yet the patent applications were for devices that the inventors thought might replace internal combustion in an engine. The early P & F literature made cryptic remarks on the significance of the shape of the electrodes, something they referred to again in their 1994 paper in relation to non-linear phase boundry propagation. > Likewise the Potapov device >probably requires liquid water to work. Anything more than a boiler type >explosion is going to be difficult with this class of device. If there is any relation between the liquid water in a Potapov device and the metal lattice in a P&F cell, then it sort of discounts at least a direct application of Swingler's hypothesis, doesn't it? > If this energy >source is a type of fusion; it is a clean, safe form of nuclear energy! > There you go again with that peculiar kind of optimism! In relation to the possiblitity of the use of the "CF" phenomena in the developement of explosive weapons, I think your accessment of the potential of the usual device configurations is probably quite adequate. And those people doing "CF" research (as far as I know) have been concentrating on the peaceful use of "CF" for energy systems which are intended to yield their energy in a well-controlled manner. This is not to say that there may not be other configurations which would not be so benign. This is especially true if you look at the ZPF and other cavitation related hypotheses. What after all is one of the central ideas in a cavitation device? An implosive shock wave, right? Where else is implosion (al beit, at a much larger scale) an important factor? ---------- Chris, are you really so sure that we do have a full accounting of the pre-history of CF? If we do, I tend to think it shows up P & F in a rather bad light on several really awkward points. Having met them in person a few times, I did not get this sort of impression of their competence nor their approach to scientific method, in general. In my speculations, they do not fair so badly. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 12:36:31 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16419 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 12:36:28 -0700 Received: from head.globalcom.net (head.globalcom.net [204.111.1.35]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16373 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 12:36:18 -0700 From: Visor globalcom.net Received: from 204.111.1.81 (eb1ppp17.globalcom.net [204.111.1.81]) by head.globalcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id PAA09424 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 15:37:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199510061937.PAA09424 head.globalcom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 06 Oct 95 03:44:22 -0500 Subject: Fools night out. To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <951006115240_100433.1541_BHG25-1 CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: While most take the linear text book road of why it cannot be, it is the brave few that go in the uncharted path of why it just might be. Let us use this as an outlet for the positive, there are more than enough forums already for the negative. I have been looking over several patents on the "YUSMAR" and a thought came to mind. It occurs to me, as it might to others that the "YUSMAR" is a form of regenerative amplifier. The vortex acting to produce a vectored Bernoulli's effect to which output flow is added in phase to produce a net flow gain greater than one. With this in mind the heat producing element of the device, whether it be friction, cavitation or some new effect could produce a net gain of less than one, while the lumped gain of the complete cycle is over one. If this is true then the orientation of the device, where gravity is used to support the vortex effect, (such as in a tornado) should offer increased efficiency. Have a good weekend ALL! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 15:11:52 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA28748 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 15:11:47 -0700 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA28659 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 15:11:27 -0700 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id SAA04758; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 18:10:10 -0400 Date: 06 Oct 95 17:56:51 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: A tempest Message-ID: <951006215651_72240.1256_EHB119-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: >INTERNET:VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM Here in Atlanta we were hit by a freak hurricane on Wednesday. Things are a terrible mess. Trees were blown down, billboards, signs and trash are everywhere, many traffic lights are still off, side streets are still blocked, and the water pressure dropping to zero in small towns around the State. All schools are closed. The grocery stores have thrown away tons of spoiled food. The power is back on here at the office today, but my house is still out. They say that full power will not be restored to all neighborhoods until Monday or Tuesday. I wish we had cold fusion home generators. The Atlanta Journal front page featured a four inch headline: "CHAOS!" That is an exaggeration. I have seen worse. I slept right through the worst of it on Wednesday night. In the morning the tempest raged on, tree branches fell, sirens wailed, transformers exploded and the heroic electric company people climbed the poles and tried to patch the grid. Working with high voltage line in the driving rain must be dangerous. I decided I could do nothing to influence the weather and I could contribute nothing to the rescue operations underway in flooded neighborhoods, so I took a nice long nap. There is nothing so delightful as the sound of rain when you are safe indoors. Today the skies are blue and the air is washed clean. Returning to the real world and the e-mail world, I found another tempest raging here in Vortex-L. This one also looks like it has blown over. Here in Vortex we have tried to steer clear of the emotional outbursts that are so much a part of CF and other over-unity energy research. For the most part we have succeeded. That is a credit to the members of the forum, and to Bill Beaty, who is nominally in charge. However, since people are people and since this subject does have a long and bitter history of acrimony, these arguments are bound to surface from time to time. It is unavoidable, and I think it would be a mistake to instantly ban all 'flame wars.' As I have said before, the tone of a properly run e-mail academic forum should be the same as a real-life academic forum. The rules should be similar. If we were at a university and this was an informal gathering in the lounge or at the pizza parlor in collegetown, most of us would observe certain rules of behavior and politeness. Occasionally, however, we would not. Someone would make a snide comment, voices would be raised, an argument would ensue. If it got out of hand someone -- the chairman, or more likely the department secretary -- would bang on a table with a ruler and put a stop to it. Then, one hopes, the participants would apologize and the conversation would return to normal. This sort of incident cannot be avoided in daily life, or even at a formal physics conference. The only places where people hardly ever display emotion are dead, hyper-formal, debating societies like the United Nations. Here, in this forum, I see no apologies, and I do not expect to see any. There is a great deal of anger and hostility between Dieter Britz on one side, and Gene Mallove and myself on the other. Things will *never* be normal between us; it is impossible. There can be no civil discourse or polite disagreements between us, because both of us think that the other has gone far beyond the limits of civil academic behavior. Perhaps we can maintain an icy silence, but there can be no peace between us, no agreement, no reconciliation. And, while I am in favor of dropping this subject, and I agree in principle with Chris's admonition to Gene, I myself am not quite ready to drop the subject, because I have not had my innings yet (as they say in baseball). So let me say what I have mind. This statement made by Britz was a deliberate provocation: "It is beginning to look as if the Russian machine doesn't work; how about the Griggs one? Has the same sort of effort been made to make sure that it works, or is that a similar situation - some people making claims, without details, etc? Britz knows full well that I tested the Griggs device, and that Gene tested it. He knows that the test rig was later modified and greatly improved, with a precision dynamometer, a computer and other instruments. He knows this was done according to recommendations from experts at Georgia Tech, NASA and elsewhere. Britz knows where our reports were published. He could not have missed seeing the endless discussions of our work on s.p.f., and my reports, which I repeated dozens of times. In this statement Britz pretends that none of this happened. He pretends that my work does not exist, and that I have provided no details, and that I made no effort to make sure it works. This is a deliberate, snide falsehood. It is backhanded attack on me and on Gene. I submit that everyone here knows this is a deliberate provocation, and that even though it is not couched in inflammatory language, everyone can see it was intended to upset us and belittle us. This is garbage, and Britz knows it is. If he had any decency or manners he would apologize. We have many other profound disagreements with Britz. We consider his judgement fatally flawed, and we think he has too often in the past made deliberate, dishonest attacks on us and our friends. To be blunt, we think is he is a scoundrel, a bounder, and a liar. I have not read many of the descriptions in his bibliography, but some of the ones I did read I know are wildly distorted and bigoted, particularly the descriptions of the Storms work. As Gene pointed out, Britz endorsed the Taubes book. This is the most infamous, outrageous, distorted book that I have ever seen masquerading as science. It makes "The Bell Curve" look reasonable in comparison. Every page of that book is crawling with outrageous mistakes and blatant lies. Every description of every experiment is wrong. To take another example of Britz's warped, dishonest and outrageous behavior, Britz once accused me of engineering a fake cold fusion demonstration during ICCF3. This did not upset me as much as some of the other antics of the opposition, but I think it does prove that Britz is a pathological liar who can never be trusted under any circumstances. I would not let him in my house or loan him five dollars under any circumstances. The arguments between Britz and us is still open; apologies have not been made, the issues have not been settled. No doubt in his own warped imagination, Britz sincerely believes that I masterminded a fraud at ICCF3. He probably thinks I masterminded another fraud at ICCF5, and yet another one at this week's SOFE '95 conference. We must go to our graves implacable enemies. I would not forgive him and act civilly any more than Fleischmann would forgive people like Frank Close, Steve Jones, or Gary Taubes. These people are shameless liars, plagiarists and buffoons. They should be drummed out of decent society, like Richard Nixon. That is what I believe, and what Martin and Gene believe. There is no point in pretending we believe otherwise or in hiding our views. Even Martin's most formal, dry, objective papers about cold fusion reflect this hostility. Dieter Britz is small potatoes compared to Close and Jones. He has not done any real harm, and nobody should drum him out of anywhere -- not even s.p.f. or this forum. On the other hand, I heartily agree with Gene, and I do hope that Britz crawls back under his slimy rock. If I never hear another word from him it would be fine with me. When Brizt, Jones, Close and the others finally shut up once and for all I will be delighted. People sometimes think I enjoy arguing with these people but that is not true. I do not enjoy arguing any more than T. H. Huxley liked to smite the Amalekites and uphold Darwin. Someone has to do it, and I have often been the only person available. Someone has to tell the truth to counteract the lies spread by these people. Now I will let the subject drop, and I promise not to respond even if Britz publishes yet another provocation here. But I would like to add one more thought about the effect of belligerent arguments on human society and on cold fusion. You cannot understand the past history of cold fusion or the present day structure of IMRA unless you understand these bitter arguments. Many institutions and many technologies were shaped by arguments, politics, and long term violent hate between groups of people. The path of U.S. railroad lines west of the Mississippi was profoundly influenced by the coming Civil War and the threat of succession; our highways and our telephone switching systems were designed to cope with nuclear war; a great deal of physics comes from weapons research. Suppose a man from Mars was to study our institutions, our academic departments, and this discussion right here in Vortex. Suppose he asked "why do you call me a man from Mars? Who was Mars?" If he did not realize that Mars was the God of War -- one of our most popular and enduring deities -- he would miss the point. For better or worse, we are an aggressive species. - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Sep 6 07:10:04 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10101 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:07:40 -0700 Received: from roimar.imar.ro (roimar.imar.ro [193.226.4.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAB10021 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:07:09 -0700 Received: by roimar (MX V3.1C) id 30703; Wed, 06 Sep 1995 16:14:18 0200 Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 16:14:07 0200 From: itimc roimar.imar.ro To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Message-ID: <00995FFC.41F80160.30703 roimar> Subject: biblio2 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, Despite my chronic difficulties with the e-mail, I try to continue the bibliography on "catalytically and cavitationally stimulated cooperative energetical phenomena". This time, it's my pleasure to inform you about the publication of a book dedicated, just as this discussion group, to Vortices. I have found it in Current Contents, Eng, Comput and Tech Issue 36/ 04 Sep 1995. BIBLIOGRAPHY-2. The article of main interest is: Author REA Arndt Title Vortex cavitation. Source Fluid Vortices (Series: Fluid Mechanics and Its Applications 30 (1995)) Page(s) 731-782 TGA No. BD42S Discipl. *Current Books Contents* Document Article Address REA Arndt, Univ Minnesota, St Anthony Falls Hydraul Lab Minneapolis, MN 55414 USA Editor SI Green ISBN/ISSN 0-7923-3376-4 Publisher Kluwer Academic publ, PO Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, Netherlands Possible contact persons in Minneapolis : Prof.Richard Oriani Mr. David Moon Mr. D. Rotegard It could be very interesting to discuss with the author about the Griggs, Potapov, Huffman devices. INTERNET, what miracles can you do? The book comprises 19 papers: SI Green: Introduction to vorticity 1-34 MR Lesieur Mixing layer vortices 35-63 FF Grinstein, MN Glauser, WK George Vorticity in jets 65-94 TT Lim TB Nickels Vortex rings 95-153 CHK Williamson Vortex dynamics in the wake of a cylinder 155-234 CR Smith JDA Walker Turbulent wall-layer vortices 235-290 D Bershader Compressible vortices 291-316 RL Ash MR Khorrami Vortex stability 317-372 W Althaus C Brucker M Weimer Breakdown of slender vortices 373-426 SI Green Wing type vortices 427-470 IA Waitz et al Vortices in aero-propulsion systems 471-532 RD Blevins Vortex-structure interaction 533-574 GE Swaters Mathematical modelling of solitary oceanographic vortices 575-616 RA Pielke et al Atmospheric vortices 617-650 E Meiburg Three-dimensional vortex dynamics simulations 651-685 EP Rood Vorticity interactions with a free surface 687-730 REA Arndt Vortex cavitation !!!!! 731-782 ! GL Chahine Bubble interactions with vortices 783-828 CT Crowe TR Troutt JN Chung Particle interactions with vortices 829-861. ................................................................ Quite a book! All the best wishes from Peter! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Sep 6 07:44:40 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16571 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:43:09 -0700 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM (GAV.GAT.COM [192.5.166.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA16532 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:42:59 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199509061442.HAA16532 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 7:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:43:30 -0800 To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: Bibliography Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Peter, I have made copies of all the papers from Fusion Technology and Physical Review Letters that were on your list of desired papers. I will send them to you by air mail. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 23:22:56 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14198 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 23:21:56 -0700 Received: from big.aa.net (root big.aa.net [204.157.220.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA14180 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 23:21:48 -0700 Received: from s3c2p4.aa.net (s3c2p4.aa.net [204.157.220.152]) by big.aa.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA06873 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 23:21:53 -0700 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 23:21:53 -0700 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199510070621.XAA06873 big.aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mwm aa.net (Michael Mandeville) Subject: Re: A tempest Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Whewww.. Glad I was ducking. Can't wait for the dust to settle. I think the one cardinal virtue of Vortex and Beaty in specific is a relaxed but sharp eyed intellectual integrity which goes to the very heart of matters in a respectful manner. The long term karmic return for fraudalent writers and debaters is to be ignored and forgotten. Let's rest on that one... ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 7 04:12:36 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18331 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 04:12:08 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA18219 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 04:10:22 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t1WWw-000MNaC; Sat, 7 Oct 95 12:30 EET Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 12:30:57 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Subject: Potapov Patents. Dear Robert, You wrote: "I have been looking over several patents on the "YUSMAR" and a thought came to mind". A very interesting and creative idea, indeed! Can you please explain in some detail? How this synergy takes place? And it is very good news that the much disputed patents were found adding credibility to the over-unity claims. (BTW, Prof. Nikitski hasn't answered?). The famous recirculation line is present in these patents? If you wish, I am ready to translate those patents with a productivity of 20 pages per day for the Group. Our e-mail being primitive accepts only ASCII, but you can use FAX 40-64-420042. Thank you! Anyway, the news and the idea of regenerative amplifier have contributed to a good weekend for me. Will think about patents and amazed hot fusionists at SOFE. Dear Jed, We all regret the troubles citizens of beautiful Olympic town Atlanta and state of Georgia had with the hurricane. We hope its over and you and Family are OK. All the best wishes from Peter!  From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 7 04:21:41 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19044 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 04:21:39 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA19025 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 04:21:23 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t1XK9-000MNhC; Sat, 7 Oct 95 13:21 EET Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 13:21:47 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: Sunday , idea for.. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: An Idea for Sunday. In direct opposition to Chris' belief/disbelief placed near to 50%, the more realistic perspective is given by the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics: "If the probability of overunity is not almost one, then it is damned near zero." All the best to you, friends! Peter From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 6 18:10:42 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA11601 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 18:10:38 -0700 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA11575 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 18:10:30 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id SAA19897; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 18:10:23 -0700 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 18:10:20 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Recent rules update Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here is the current set of rules for Vortex-L. Comments? Suggestions for additions/changes? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ************************************************************************** WELCOME TO VORTEX-L ************************************************************************** The Vortex-L list was created for discussions of research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy effects (ex: the inventions of Schaffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.) Any interested parties are welcome to subscribe. For more info and an archive of past messages, please refer to the Cold Fusion section of Bill Beaty's ANOMALOUS PHYSICS web page at: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird.html Also, for even more info and photos of the devices, I highly recommend John Logajan's CF page at: http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan Rules: 1. This is not the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup; ridicule, debunkery, and namecalling between believers and skeptics are frowned upon. Let's just say that vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and let the skeptics leave in disgust. The tone should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. 2. Small email files please. The limit is set to 40K right now. 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. 3. "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 regular vortex-L users is acceptable. - Bill B. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 9 02:57:49 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15367 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 02:56:53 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA15358 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 02:56:39 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA03629; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 10:57:47 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 10:57:47 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: A tempest In-Reply-To: <951006215651_72240.1256_EHB119-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OK: As Rothwell knows, I decided a couple of years ago, after a particular venomous personal attack by him on my person, to ignore him. This has done a lot of good on spf, as it seems I bring out the worst in JR, for some reason. The posting in this list, however, needs answering on a few points, so I will do that. I'll keep it as sober as I can. On 6 Oct 1995, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] > have mind. This statement made by Britz was a deliberate provocation: > > "It is beginning to look as if the Russian machine doesn't work; how > about the Griggs one? Has the same sort of effort been made to make sure > that it works, or is that a similar situation - some people making > claims, without details, etc? > > Britz knows full well that I tested the Griggs device, and that Gene tested > it. He knows that the test rig was later modified and greatly improved, with a > precision dynamometer, a computer and other instruments. He knows this was > done according to recommendations from experts at Georgia Tech, NASA and > elsewhere. Britz knows where our reports were published. He could not have > missed seeing the endless discussions of our work on s.p.f., and my reports, > which I repeated dozens of times. In this statement Britz pretends that none > of this happened. He pretends that my work does not exist, and that I have > provided no details, and that I made no effort to make sure it works. This is > a deliberate, snide falsehood. It is backhanded attack on me and on Gene. I > submit that everyone here knows this is a deliberate provocation, and that > even though it is not couched in inflammatory language, everyone can see it > was intended to upset us and belittle us. This is garbage, and Britz knows it > is. If he had any decency or manners he would apologize. Wrong. I do not deliberately provoke you. True, there has been a lot of discussion on spf, endlessly focussing on the length of levers etc. For concrete results, one is generally referred to articles written in these expensive journals you mob publish, which I do not have ready access to. Also, I had been told that these tests by you and Gene, to your discomfort, did not pan out; they found no OU. If this is not true, please correct me. Like Winnnie the Pooh, I asked this question, really wanting to know. > descriptions in his bibliography, but some of the ones I did read I know are > wildly distorted and bigoted, particularly the descriptions of the Storms > work. As Gene pointed out, Britz endorsed the Taubes book. This is the most > infamous, outrageous, distorted book that I have ever seen masquerading as I don't recall right now (and would have to get out of pine to check, which I don't know how to do without killing this letter) just what I wrote about Storms, but I do recall that I find his CNF work - I am talking about his journal papers - more enthusiastic than scientifically rigorous. Mostly, in my abstracts, I wear a poker face, even with patent nonsense but I do admit I occasionally let my amusement show. I may have done this in Storms' case but I doubt it, because he is not too bad and doesn't write nonsense. [...Taubes...] > science. It makes "The Bell Curve" look reasonable in comparison. Every page > of that book is crawling with outrageous mistakes and blatant lies. Every Gene mentioned this. This is one point where I would almost apologise, but - to whom? When I read Taubes, I felt cheated; for some years, I had at least entertained the possibility that cold fusion workers might have some interesting phenomenon by the tail; Taubes told me of a lot of unethical behaviour on their part, and I was greatly disgusted. A year or more later, I can now see that his book is in fact, to a large extent, a hatchet job. I did notice at the time, e.g., that he put Steve Jones in an unfair light. He also slandered Bockris by innuendo and it took me a couple of weeks to wake up to that. I contacted Bockris himself, and was sternly and convincingly straightened out. Today, my view of Taubes' book is that it's not a good book on the whole, was written in order to stir things up (which one ought not to do), but does nevertheless contain some significant accounts of criticisable behaviour on the part of the major CNF workers. E.g. the multilab helium study; who would trust Pons after that? > description of every experiment is wrong. To take another example of Britz's > warped, dishonest and outrageous behavior, Britz once accused me of > engineering a fake cold fusion demonstration during ICCF3. This did not upset JR has stated this on several occasions, and this is one of the main reasons I am writing this. He is making this up, probably even to himself. He is here referring to the demonstration at Nagoya, by Notoya (!) of a supposed CNF cell, where one cell got warmer than another. Note that the demo was by Notoya, not by JR; he told us on spf that he carried some gear for her, and I did not construe this to mean that the demo was his, it was Notoya's. One of Steve Jones' students found that the cooler cell had a current lead going into it, consisting of a very thin silver wire, so that some heat was vented into the air (voltage drop along the wire). I said, and still say, that a very thin Ag wire is not something one accidentally grabs and uses as a current lead, and I described this demo, using the words "false-front PR demo". I did not call it a fake, and I certainly did not refer to JR because I didn't assume it to be his demo, it was Notoya's. How he got the idea that I was accusing him, I don't know. OK, I was accusing Notoya, his friend, of rigging a false-front PR demo and that's exactly what I think she did. I am told she is a well respected worker in the field of electrochemical catalysis ("electrocatalysis", a field I don't work in myself); but here in this case, she may have been making sure that the one cell got warmer than the other, knowing that CNF cells are fickle. I happen to regard the Ni/light water scenario and the Mills "theory" as even less likely than P&F-style CNF, but I am not excluding the possibility that at home, in her lab, Notoya was indeed able to produce excess heat. I have not been shown convincing edidence of it, though. I hope JR now understands, and will remember, that I have never accused him of faking an experiment. [...] > fusion reflect this hostility. Dieter Britz is small potatoes compared to > Close and Jones. He has not done any real harm, and nobody should drum him out Yes, and small potatoes, as I have said many times, compared to Fleischmann and Bockris, who are pillars of electrochemical society. I get angry letters from CNF skeptics for saying this on spf. As for apologies; well, if I have appeared to be provocative, I apologise to Gene and Jed, it was not my intention, believe me. I can't apologise for not believing in the evidence for cold fusion, or OU devices, until I see convincing evidence. When I see that, I will of course accept it, I don't have a closed mind. Meanwhile, I hope we can now get back to purely technical issues in this list. If not - if my presence here keeps raising hackles - I'd have no great problem with signing off, to keep the peace. If the OU machines are indeed the great thing some believe them to be, I guess I'll read about them in New Scientist, Science, and Nature, all of which I read every week. -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 9 05:15:15 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12411 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 05:15:07 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA12402 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 05:15:03 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id IAA15996; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 08:13:45 -0400 Date: 09 Oct 95 08:12:19 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Griggs testing. Message-ID: <951009121219_100433.1541_BHG66-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: to:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Dieter, "For concrete results, one is generally referred to articles written in these expensive journals you mob publish, which I do not have ready access to." Mob (n) 1. A large or disorderly crowd, esp one bent on riotous or destructive behaviour. 2. A criminal group. You flatter us. Our magazine is about $50 per year subscription. I only have one copy of the issue of "Cold Fusion" with the Griggs machine testing in it - though I am well aware of the excruciating level of detail with which it has all been discussed on s.p.f. - and it is currently out on loan. However, if you will send me your snail-mail address I shall send you a copy of the article as soon as I get it back. Or you can get it from John Logajan's web page - I think. John Logajan's World Wide Web home page: URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan In the matter of Notoya, it never fails to interest me just how quick so many people are to cry fraud at any experiment they dislike - as Close does with Bockris (and many others) in his book. In fact, his comment in the 2nd paperback edition makes it clear that the intent of the book is to show the entire matter of CF to be fraud, and tells of his delight at finding that at least the US press realised his intent was just that. I suppose fraud must be very common in 'mainstream' science if the idea of that as an explanation springs so readily to so many minds. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 9 06:39:40 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25409 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 06:39:38 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA25358 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 06:39:27 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA08496; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 14:39:58 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 14:39:58 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: Griggs testing. In-Reply-To: <951009121219_100433.1541_BHG66-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 9 Oct 1995, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Dieter, > > "For concrete results, one is generally referred to articles written in > these expensive journals you mob publish, which I do not have ready > access to." > > Mob (n) 1. A large or disorderly crowd, esp one bent on riotous or destructive > behaviour. 2. A criminal group. > > You flatter us. I know you're joking but just the same: Remember I'm Australian, and there, "mob" means about what "lot" means to you Poms. No disorderliness etc implied. As for your description of your own Griggs tests, I'll check the Logajan site, but thanks for the offer. I get all of my material from the Departmental library, not privately, and an extra $50 for a non-professional magazine would be hard for me to convince them of; privately, $50 would be awkward for me, what with bank charges etc. I'd do it, if I thought the mag had something to offer me that I don't get elsewhere, and I am sorry to say I don't think it has. But important experiments, done well, will always find refereed journals willing to publish them. I know, not Nature, but who cares? > In the matter of Notoya, it never fails to interest me just how quick so > many people are to cry fraud at any experiment they dislike - as Close does I am not sure about Frank, but I must insist that I didn't say "fraud", or "fake". > least the US press realised his intent was just that. I suppose fraud must be > very common in 'mainstream' science if the idea of that as an explanation > springs so readily to so many minds. No, it isn't; it's more prevalent in the biomedical area, but hardly exists in the "hard" sciences. For some reason, we don't even have plagiarism. I don't believe many (any?) cried fraud when hearing about CNF, or do so now. They do cry "error". -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 9 06:47:56 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27169 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 06:47:54 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA26978 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 06:46:58 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t2IYR-000MNaC; Mon, 9 Oct 95 15:47 EET Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 15:47:42 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: spfsizing Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Bill Beaty, Please have the kindness to stop the spfizing of the Vortex discussion group and let us focusing on Potapov, SOFE, Arndt, Nikitski, the recirculation pipe and many other constructive, difficult and interesting subjects. To be or not to be o/u? Tens of science historians will chose Cold Fusion as Ph D subject, why should we intrude in their field? Thank you in advance. All the best wishes from Peter! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 8 13:41:57 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24775 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 8 Oct 1995 13:41:39 -0700 Received: from Ÿa÷o# (billb tia1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.40]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA24711 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 1995 13:41:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199510082041.NAA24711 mail.eskimo.com> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 95 12:21:19 -0700 From: William Beaty X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: (no subject) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here's something I quite enjoyed. If the below concept is applied to beliefs in general rather than beliefs about oneself, then it can be applied to EITHER side of the CF or the overunity debate and the psychology involved becomes quite a lot clearer. Skeptics are apparently using the Forer Effect to bash those with 'irrational' beliefs, yet they don't realize how much of their own knowledge is also based on systems of beliefs. Beware of the assumption that some misguided souls have a mental filter which distorts reality, and that you yourself do not! The same 'filtering' effect applies to the interpretation of experimental results throughout science, and to the large portion of modern science which involves the worldview of its practitioners rather than specific testable facts. -Bill Beaty 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 FROM: http://wheel.ucdavis.edu/~btcarrol/skeptic/dict7.html#Forer SKEPTIC'S DICTIONARY the Forer effect (aka the P.T. Barnum effect) A type of selective thinking whereby one, when presented with numerous general and specific claims about oneself or someone one knows, ignores the inaccuracies while interpreting the general claims as accurate. Forer convinced people he could successfully read their character and amazed his victims at how accurate he was, though his personality analysis was taken from a newstand astrology column and was presented to people without regard to their sign. P.T. Barnum, of Barnum & Bailey Circus fame, is known not only for saying that there's a sucker born every minute but also for noting that people are very selective in what they will believe about themselves. People will accept as true claims they know are false about themselves if they wish the claims were true. People will also give very liberal interpretations to vague claims about themselves or events in order to make the claims fit. People will also ignore false specific claims made by the "psychic" fortune teller, mind reader,etc., and by words or actions will actually provide the "psychic" with most of the information the client (i.e., sucker) thinks has come from the the crystal ball, From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 9 06:56:42 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29245 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 06:56:39 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA29191 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 06:56:27 -0700 Received: from net-1-162.austin.eden.com (net-1-162.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.162]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id IAA15175 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 08:56:23 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 08:56:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199510091356.IAA15175 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: spfisizing X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: spfising (n) 1: endless bickering between two or more irreconcilable parties. 2: the transformation of something useful into something useless. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 9 08:28:45 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21389 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 08:28:33 -0700 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA21342 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 08:28:16 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA09951; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 11:26:14 -0400 Date: 09 Oct 95 11:22:04 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: This guy should be here Message-ID: <951009152203_72240.1256_EHB124-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: >INTERNET:VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM Over in CompuServe SCIENCE I have been getting messages from a guy named Fred Sparb who has been working on o-u cavitation. He has also been thinking about sparking in oil. I have been telling him to get in contact with the group. I think I'll tell him again. Here is his latest message. Regarging spfizing: I agree. I have had my innings and I will shut up. I would say "history will be the judge" but I think it already has been the judge; i.e. two other light water demos plus Mills and Piantelli certainly do prove that Notoya was not faking. I will call around today to see what happened at SOFE '95 and report back here. - Jed #: 205660 S2/Physics 09-Oct-95 10:56:34 Sb: #204084-Cold Fusion information Fm: Frederick J. Sparb 102021,3045 To: Jed Rothwell 72240,1256 (X) Jed, In looking at the cavitation phenomena for extracting over unity heat from water, I suggest the following experiment that eliminates the need for rotating machinery. Using a 2.5kw to 4.5 kw hairpin electrical heater (about $6.00 from W.W. Grainger with 1" male pipe thread) and a four foot length of 1 1/2" or 2" schedule 80 pipe with fittings so that gauges and valves can be screwed on. Then using a standard orifice fitting from a gas appliance store, with a one millimeter hole or thereabouts, install this on the "boiler" pipe so that it can be vented into a section of glass tube and a condensing chamber. The whole setup needs to be arranged so that proper calorimetry can be carried out. I think that with a section of glass one will see the purplish glow in a darkened room caused by the shock wave of the supersonic jet from the orifice. The 1 1/2" pipe only holds .76 lbs of water/ ft and the 2" holds 1.28 lbs/ft, but a short duration run at 10 lbs/ hour might make it unnecessary for a metering pump. I've ran this type of boiler at over a thousand psi in the past (with care) and I think that 150 psig or so should be no problem. DO NOT SKIMP ON THE PIPE THICKNESS ! DO NOT LET THE HEATER RUN DRY. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 9 13:11:32 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09317 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 13:11:30 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA09248 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 13:11:12 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA03361 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:10:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199510092010.AA03361 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:10:54 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: more-names Date: Mon, 09 Oct 95 16:10:10 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Question Does anyone know of the hot fusion convention last week in Champane/Urbana at which "Clean Energy Technology" was said to have announced a cold fusion device with a 10 to 1 energy gain? Warren L Cooley of AC&S at 1-800-713-9245 is doing "cold fusion" work within Buckminster Fullerenes (keep an eye on this guy) Frank J. Stenger retired NASA Lewis Research center engineer is doing high current high voltage ball lightning experments. No ball lightning has been produced to date. I'm interested because ball lightning has unexplained excess energy. I made a type0 on the address It is http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 9 19:13:36 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02154 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 14:32:52 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA01737 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 14:31:32 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA29910; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 17:30:16 -0400 Date: 09 Oct 95 17:28:15 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: COLD FUSION DEMO AT SOFE '95 WORKED WELL Message-ID: <951009212815_72240.1256_EHB134-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: >INTERNET:VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM Last week I reported that a cold fusion cell would be demonstrated during a big hot fusion conference: the 16th biannual Symposium on Fusion Engineering (SOFE '95) Oct. 1 - 5, which is sponsored by the IEEE, the American Nuclear Society, and the University of Illinois. I did not attend, but I have spoken with some of the participants and I am happy to report that the demonstration was a complete success. It produced steady excess heat from a Clean Energy Technology Inc. (CETI) light water cold fusion cell. With only 60 milliwatts input, output ranged from 4 to 5 watts, 80 times input. In a flow calorimeter, the Delta T temperature rise was 4 to 5 degrees C, because the flow rate was set at 14.28 ml/min (60 joules = 14.28 calories). Input was 3 volts at 0.02 amps. Calibrations confirmed that this input alone will raise the Delta T water temperature by less than 0.06 degrees because this is an open cell and half of the input energy is carried off in free hydrogen and oxygen. The demonstration was performed by Prof. George Miley's group from the University of Illinois. They constructed, tested and calibrated the flow calorimeter. They replicated the CETI thin film cathode beads and observed a cold fusion effect, but the magnitude of the reaction was not as great as with the beads from CETI. For the purpose of this demonstration they used a cell and beads on loan from CETI. The demonstration was well received by the conference attendees. The audience snapped up the literature packs in the conference booth, and many scientists and engineers had a close "hands-on" look at the instruments. CETI demonstrated a similar cell at the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF5) in April. That cell produced 10 times input. I can testify that CETI allows close hands-on contact during public demonstrations -- literally hands-on -- because at ICCF5 I accidentally dropped a spare cell and smashed it to smithereens. (I expect the U. Illinois people must have been more careful about handing out spare parts for inspection!) CETI also allows people to take their own measurements of power and temperature. CETI's patented cathodes have now been independently replicated and verified by U. Illinois, and sample beads from CETI have been independently tested by U. Illinois and other groups. Five watts is a significant, macroscopic power level. When output is 80 times greater than input, and output is macroscopic, this eliminates any possibility that the effect is due to instrument error. The CETI glass cell is roughly the same size as a 4-watt night light bulb. When a night light has been turned on for a while it is warm to the touch, whereas 60 milliwatts in an object of that size is not enough to produce palpable heat. You can feel a 5 degree C temperature rise, but you cannot feel a temperature difference of only 0.03 degrees. The SOFE '95 conference also featured papers on cold fusion and a panel discussion with three top cold fusion scientists: Storms, Kim and Cravens, and one member of the 1989 DoE ERAB panel: Bierbaum. I will be reporting this and other news in the next issue of "Infinite Energy" magazine. Please note that this news will not be appearing in New Scientist, Science, or Nature, even though Dieter Britz does read these journals every week. - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 10 08:56:37 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12638 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 08:56:04 -0700 Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.7.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12587 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 08:55:49 -0700 Received: by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA23687; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:53:45 -0400 Date: 10 Oct 95 11:49:47 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: A new beginning Message-ID: <951010154947_100433.1541_BHG79-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Not only shall I refrain from having 'the worst in me' brought out, but (while expressing delight at the story of events at SOFE and hoping to hear the GA version here soon) will celebrate this new start by a break with tradition. The following 'pome' is, for once, not by the great English writer Anon. I trust it will suitably reinforce all the prejudices of you 'demned foreign chappies': English Weather January's grey and slushy, February's chill and drear. March is wild and wet and windy, April seldom brings much cheer. In May - a day or two of sunshine - Three or four in June, perhaps. July is usually filthy, August's skies are running taps. In September, things start dying. Then comes cold October mist. In November, we make plans to spend The best part of December pissed. Mary Cope Annoyingly, it is unpleasantly warm today, but it can't last. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 10 23:07:22 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20798 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:27:40 -0700 Received: from big.aa.net (root big.aa.net [204.157.220.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA20550 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:26:44 -0700 Received: from s3c2p2.aa.net (s3c1p4.aa.net [204.157.220.144]) by big.aa.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA23171 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:26:35 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:26:35 -0700 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199510101826.LAA23171 big.aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mwm aa.net (Michael Mandeville) Subject: Re: A new beginning Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Annoyingly, it is unpleasantly warm today, but it can't last. > >Chris > raining like h here. But to put this on topic, what is happening with cavitation or related? Seems like everyone went back to sleep. Aside from supporting your efforts, Chris, there really was no focus. And it seems that when there is a void, the STUFF, like we have just seen, ahem, rushes in to fill the void. So what's cooking? Maybe this is a good point to do a round of, ahem, SHORT recapitulations by all of those in the group. My cap is this: I have learned a lot about a great use of the internet technology to support a free lance R&D group which is attempting to share an adventure by just sharing in the adventure of discovery. Beyond that, I am technically incompetent on this topic. I have shared the information, however, with an engineer who is a benchtop man and who doens't find much time to use a computer for communication. We talk mainly about cold fusion related info. I thank all of you for your diligent and highly intelligent activity. I have come to admire several of the people on this circuit. If I can chime in with some tidbit which is worthwhile from time to time, I will. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 06:31:48 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19304 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 06:31:14 -0700 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA19245 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 06:30:58 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id JAA06929; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 09:29:40 -0400 Date: 11 Oct 95 09:28:26 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Supersonic orifice Sonoluminescence Message-ID: <951011132826_102021.3045_EHT34-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In looking at the cavitation phenomena for extracting over unity heat from water, I suggest the following experiment that eliminates the need for rotating machinery. Using a 2.5 kw to 4.5 kw hairpin electrical heater ( about $6.00 from W.W. Grainger with 1" male pipe thread) and a four foot length of 1 1/2" or 2" schedule 80 pipe with fittings so that gauges and valves can be screwed on. Then using a standard orifice fitting from a gas appliance store, with a one millimeter hole or thereabouts, install this on the boiler pipe so that it can be vented into a section of glass tube and a condensing chamber. The whole setup needs to be arranged so that proper calorimetry can be carried out. I think that with a section of glass, one will see the purplish glow in a darkened room caused by the shock wave of the supersonic jet from the orifice. The 1 1/2" pipe only holds .76 lbs of water/ft and the 2" holds 1.28 lbs/ft, but a short duration run at 10 lbs/hour might make it unnecessary for a metering pump. I've ran this type of boiler at over a thousand psi in the past (with care) and I think that 150 psig or so should be no problem. DO NOT SKIMP ON THE PIPE THICKNESS! DO NOT LET THE HEATER RUN DRY! F, J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 06:51:39 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23717 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 06:51:38 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA23694; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 06:51:31 -0700 Received: from net-1-217.austin.eden.com (net-1-217.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.217]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id IAA29104; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:51:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:51:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199510111351.IAA29104 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Vortex From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Supersonic orifice Sonoluminescence X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Fred Sparber wrote: >I think that with a section of glass, one will see the purplish glow in a >darkened room caused by the shock wave of the supersonic jet from the >orifice. I don't understand yet. Is it a jet of water or steam? If water, could the same effect be obtained by using air pressure on a vessel of water...or even line pressure which is nearly 80 psi around here? Do you think the glow comes from sonoluminescence? Has such been observed by others or is this just an idea of yours? Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 07:05:19 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26660 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 07:05:17 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA26602 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 07:04:58 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA07871 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 09:58:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199510111358.JAA07871 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 10:13:53 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Supersonic orifice Sonoluminescence Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: F. J. Sparber wrote: >In looking at the cavitation phenomena for extracting over unity heat from >water, I suggest the following experiment that eliminates the need for rotating >machinery. What is the basis for this suggestion? Have you do any experiments of a similar nature? > >Using a 2.5 kw to 4.5 kw hairpin electrical heater ( about $6.00 from W.W. >Grainger with 1" male pipe thread) and a four foot length of 1 1/2" or 2" >schedule 80 pipe with fittings so that gauges and valves can be screwed on. >Then using a standard orifice fitting from a gas appliance store, with a one >millimeter hole or thereabouts, install this on the boiler pipe so that it can >be vented into a section of glass tube and a condensing chamber. How would you solve the problem of mating a glass tube to the boiler pipe and a condensing chamber. Could you provide a diagram of the proposed setup? > >The whole setup needs to be arranged so that proper calorimetry can be carried >out. I think that with a section of glass, one will see the purplish glow in a >darkened room caused by the shock wave of the supersonic jet from the orifice. On what do you base the idea that it will be possible to see such a purplish glow? Have you done any experiments where such a glow was visible? > >The 1 1/2" pipe only holds .76 lbs of water/ft and the 2" holds 1.28 lbs/ft, >but a short duration run at 10 lbs/hour might make it unnecessary for a >metering pump. >I've ran this type of boiler at over a thousand psi in the past (with care) and >I think that 150 psig or so should be no problem. DO NOT SKIMP ON THE PIPE >THICKNESS! DO NOT LET THE HEATER RUN DRY! > Please tell us more about your experience with "this type of boiler". Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 07:38:33 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03373 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 07:36:51 -0700 Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.7.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03051 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 07:35:14 -0700 Received: by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id KAA16551; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 10:33:30 -0400 Date: 11 Oct 95 10:32:21 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Back in harness Message-ID: <951011143221_100433.1541_BHG47-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex -l mail.eskimo.com Frederick, Your experiment sounds fascinating. This forum has drifted badly (partly my fault) and I've just tried another email to Fedorovitch in St Petersburg, asking if they have any progress to report. Meanwhile, this work of yours sounds very interesting. I too would very much like to hear your response to Scott's questions, but I also would like to know: Why do you equate this with cavitation effects? Is it because this is a water pressure jet - the gas fitting being at the bottom (water) end and not the top (steam) end? Have you any reason - gut feeling, measurement, apparent strange effects - which suggest O-U performance? Would Norman Horwood - he of pressure jet fame - care to comment? Regards, Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 08:11:46 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10451 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:10:24 -0700 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM (GAV.GAT.COM [192.5.166.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA09995 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:08:35 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510111508.IAA09995 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 8:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:07:46 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Supersonic orifice Sonoluminescence Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sparber writes about forming: > the shock wave of the supersonic jet from the orifice. >From the context I assume that this is a jet of water into a water target. Not an easy experiment, if we recall that it takes about 20,000 atm (300,000 psi) of pressure to get a water jet up to supersonic speed. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 14:06:50 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28329 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:02:58 -0700 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM (GAV.GAT.COM [192.5.166.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA27651 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:00:00 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510112100.OAA27651 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 13:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:00:19 -0800 To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: Reactions from SOFE Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: As promised, I'm sending some reactions to the demonstration of the Patterson cell by Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI) at the Symposium on Fusion Engineering (SOFE, but usually called the "IEEE Meeting" by those who go, for the principal sponsor, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers). So far I have spoken with four General Atomics engineers and scientists who attended the meeting. The opinions quoted here are their personal opinions expressed to me "off the record". They are NOT in any way the opinions of General Atomics. Three out of the four persons had generally positive reactions. They took the time to observe the demo and to ask questions. They could find no obvious error in the measurements, and they were impressed with the large power multiplication. They all agreed that, even for non experts such as themselves, it was easy to measure the difference between 5 watt and 0.05 watt. Therefore, they accept the excess heat data as probably real, but they would like the time and opportunity to make the measurements themselves with their own equipment before making a professional statement. These three were also favorably impressed that the CETI people did not do any hard selling. They liked CETI's presentation of just experimental facts and letting the observer draw the conclusions. They also liked it that CETI freely admitted that they do not know why the excess energy is produced, and that CETI did not preach any unsubstantiated theory. Many conference attendees were taking the time to look at the demo and ask questions. One of the four reacted negatively. He had been associated briefly with CF in 1989, during which experience he saw OU claims dissolve when experimental errors were discovered. He also did not have (or take) the time to look at the CETI demo closely. He spent only a little time at the demo and asked a few questions. He then concluded that it was just another case of bad experimental technique. His summary statement to me was something like, "If this works so well, why is CETI wasting time attending a fusion conference instead of manufacturing products and making millions of dollars?" I saw the CETI demo at ICCF5 and side with the first three of my colleagues. For me it made the reality of excess energy palpable; before it was just an intellectual assent to statistically problematic data. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 14:08:59 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28912 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:05:50 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA28080 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:01:47 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id QAA18915; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 16:59:49 -0400 Date: 11 Oct 95 16:32:41 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Solar insolation on sea water Message-ID: <951011203240_102021.3045_EHT164-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The insolation is about 1 kw/meter^2 with 4% to 8% reflected. The peak energy level is 480 nanometers (2.586 ev). 20% is in the ultraviolet below 400 nanometers (3.1 to 6.2 ev) the rest is absorbed in the atmosphere and high clouds (water). There is a window to the blue-green which represents less than 10% of the solar insolation. The infrared has absorption peaks and transparency windows all the way out to the microwave region. I think if one takes a good look at the mechanisms of photosynthesis they will find that nature is using the metastable storage effects in the chlorophyll molecule to get the reaction CO2 + H2O = CH2O + O2. FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 15:03:47 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02750 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 15:02:47 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA02639 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 15:02:18 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA23773; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 17:52:20 -0400 Date: 11 Oct 95 17:50:54 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: Supersonic orifice Sonoluminescence Message-ID: <951011215053_100060.173_JHB93-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick, >> I think that with a section of glass, one will see the purplish glow >> in a darkened room caused by the shock wave of the supersonic jet >> from the orifice. I've tried very hard to visualise what is going on in your high speed steam jet, and it is probably some electrostatic/plasma discharge caused by the friction of the dry steam through the nozzle and into the collection area. The form of the shock wave, if visible, should be a series of diamonds cris-crossing the efflux envelope reflecting off the outer interface between the fast stream and the stationary surrounding gas, and gradually attenuating as the jet disperses and slows down. There may well be something complicated happening to the water molecules under these conditions, but I leave it to others to explain exactly what! Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 19:25:41 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04522 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 19:25:30 -0700 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA04447 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 19:25:10 -0700 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id WAA23590; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 22:23:36 -0400 Date: 11 Oct 95 22:20:30 EDT From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: More from DOE "Loony Farm" Message-ID: <951012022030_76570.2270_HHB40-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Lookee here! From today's New York Times. O'Leary not even considering the tritium being generated routinely in CF experiments at Los Alamos! What a farce the DOE is! Plow it under and bury it. Gene Mallove ***** NYT -- October 11, 1995, p.17 Energy Dept. Drops Plan To Build A Reactor WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 (AP) - The Energy Department has given up the idea of building its own reactor to make tritium, a radioactive gas crucial for nuclear weapons, and: will instead consider' buying one built for commercial production of electricity. The department said it would also continue to test and develop a linear accelerator to produce the tritium gas, which enhances the explosive power of nuclear warheads. > The accelerator would be at the Savannah River weapons complex near Aiken, S.C., if that option is chosen as the eventual primary source of tritium, Energy Secretary Hazel R. O'L'eary said today. A radioactive isotope of hydrogen tritium decays at the rate of 5.5 percent a year, and defense officials estimate the Government will need new supplies by 2011. The Government stopped producing tritium in 1988 after its Savannah River reactors were shut down because of safety problems. Supplies since then have come from dismantled warheads. There has been debate for years over, how to assure future tritium supplies. Some defense officials and the nuclear industry have argued for building a new reactor. There have been no new orders for commercial reactors in the United States for about 20 years, and building one as a defense project would enabJetmanufacturers to test new designs at Government expense. Environmental groups have favored the accelerator because it would produce no high-level radioactive waste. Ms. O'Leary said a decision would be made in 1998 whether to pursue the accelerator further or to fall back to leasing or buying a commercial reactor. The use of a commercial reactor is by far the cheapest option. A consultant's report estimated the life-cycle cost of using a civilian reactor could reach $4.5 billion compared with about $14.8 billion for a linear accelerator and $10 billion to $16 billion for construction of a new reactor. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 02:54:48 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19953 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 02:54:47 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19942 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 02:54:42 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id FAA29551; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 05:53:26 -0400 Date: 11 Oct 95 05:52:17 EDT From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Cavitation man Message-ID: <951011095217_76570.2270_HHB23-4 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here's a note from a guy who might want to be in this forum -- I'll leave it to Bill to contact him. Gene Mallove **** For several years I have been designing and building High power density ultrasonic cavitation generators for a recycling application. These systems opperate at a power density of 10e4 watts / sq cm. The goal of the systems was to generate cavitation effects to blast rubber from automobile tires. I am interested in the possiblity of addapting this type of process to the generation of sufficient pressures to obtain the effect. I am gathering information in conjunction with my colleages at Southwest Research Institue to determine if we can investigate the phenomena. SwRI has a significant expertiese in the development, measurement, and control of ultrasonic beam energy and shape. Stephen N. Rowland Jr.- Senior Research Scientist - Applied Physics Rowland Scientific P.O. Box 380346 San Antonio, Texas 78280 voice mail/pager 210-754-0281 From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 22:55:02 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28361 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 09:34:53 -0700 Received: from vaxk.gat.com (GAK.GAT.COM [192.5.166.12]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA27950 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 09:33:01 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510111633.JAA27950 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 9:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 09:31:51 -0800 To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: SOFE Reactions Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: As promised, I'm sending some impressions of the Patterson cell demonstration by Clean Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 22:55:35 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19774 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:57:31 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18845 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:52:47 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA09284 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:46:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199510111546.LAA09284 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 12:01:19 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Supersonic orifice Sonoluminescence Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer wrote: >Sparber writes about forming: >> the shock wave of the supersonic jet from the orifice. > >>From the context I assume that this is a jet of water into a water target. >Not an easy experiment, if we recall that it takes about 20,000 atm >(300,000 psi) of pressure to get a water jet up to supersonic speed. > Hmmm... pressure refers to a force per unit area and water at a given velocity has a certain kinetic energy, right? Isn't there a problem with your statement above, Michael? Maybe this is a stupid question, but how does one calculate the flow rate? Does it not depend on the shape of the nozzle? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 22:56:09 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21201 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:16:49 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA20069 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:11:17 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id OAA08324; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:09:11 -0400 Date: 11 Oct 95 14:06:32 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: General Atomics' SOFE '95 Impression? Message-ID: <951011180632_72240.1256_EHB105-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: >INTERNET:VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM Michael: I am anxious to hear what your people thought of the U. Illinios / CETI demonstration. Were they impressed? Appearently, some of the conference attendees were not impressed. That is to be expected. Prof. Bierbaum of U. Ill. was on the DoE ERAB panel in 1989, which recommended no funding for cold fusion. He was on the Tuesday night discussion panel. He was apparently not impressed by the idea of the demonstration, because he did not come to look at it. It has been at the University for several weeks, and they invited to come have a look several times, but he declined. They did not see him examine it during the conference either. Over in s.p.f. Barry Merriman reported that his colleagues from UCLA did not comment on the demo either. In response to my second report, he wrote: "Interesting, but apparently not as exciting as you thought. Of the four people from our group who were at the meeting, none mentioned the demo in their reports during our weekly meeting this week (including one who got his Phd from Miley's dept. at UofI many years back). I'll have to interrogate them thoroughly about this....:-)" - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 11 22:56:21 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18515 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:51:34 -0700 Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.7.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18175 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:49:20 -0700 Received: by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA24539; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:45:27 -0400 Date: 11 Oct 95 11:42:58 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Supersonic orifice Sonoluminescence Message-ID: <951011154258_102021.3045_EHT64-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Chris and All, I have a pet theory that the water molecule is storing up photon energy in metastable states thus: E3_____________________ E2_____________________ metastable? E1_____________________ You draw in the arrows. Transitition between energy level E2 And E1 are forbidden, thus any energy in E2 must be kicked up to level E3 to get back to the ground state level E1. This could happen to the triatomic water molecule when it is exposed to light. There could be as much as 3 ev of energy stored up per hydrogen oxygen bond, thus 6 ev per molecule or over 10,000 btu per pound of water. I think that this could happen to water vapor in the atmosphere, especially where the water molecule-clusters are supercooled as in high clouds. I've often wondered what causes the bluish-purple glow that one sees occasionally while in a jet aircraft going at near mach one on a dark night. Are the vortice eddies causing microcavitation dumping of the proposed metastable states? I see microcavitation effects as supersonic pressure waves, so why not use a direct approach to supersonic molecular interaction? Going by the use of super high pressure water jets for cutting steel etc, I don't see the water jet as something to try. However a jet of super hot water that flashes to steam on exiting the orifice might be a different story. What I had in mind was using the knowledge about supersonic flow of saturated steam to see if there is sonoluminescence and over unity heat from dumping the metastable states of the water, be it at the "chemical" or possibly energy stored up as dump able mass in the hydrogen itself. If it is at a nuclear level at say 1 kev or so this would mean a decrease in mass of about one part per million for the proton. Either way it is natures storage bin. Bernard Beard over in the cserve science-math forum knows this stuff. FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 03:23:33 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25817 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 03:23:26 -0700 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25809 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 03:23:21 -0700 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id GAA06895; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 06:07:26 -0400 Date: 12 Oct 95 06:05:43 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Supersonic orifice sonoluminescence Message-ID: <951012100543_102021.3045_EHT47-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I don't know what I said or didn't say that gave the impression that the intent was to make the water in the experiment go at supersonic velocities. The velocity V = sqrt(2gh) is out of the question for this approach, which would require pressures of over 8,000 psi for 1100 ft/sec the velocity of sound in air or 155,000 psi for 4,795 ft/sec the velocity of sound in water. It is a lot easier to vaporize the water to steam and let it exit through an orifice at several times the velocity of sound in steam, 1200 ft/sec (or about 4,000 ft/sec) or so. With a 4.5 kw heater and an orifice diameter of about 0.040 inches there should be a steam flow of about 10 pounds per hour at 165 psia into a back pressure of .57*165 psia or less. The intent was to keep it simple. FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 05:17:40 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12365 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 05:17:38 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA12353 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 05:17:33 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA21533 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:11:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199510121211.IAA21533 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:26:37 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Supersonic orifice Sonoluminescence Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> wrote: > >I don't know what I said or didn't say that gave the impression that the intent >was to make the water in the experiment go at supersonic velocities. >The velocity V = sqrt(2gh) is out of the question for this approach, which >would require pressures of over 8,000 psi for 1100 ft/sec the velocity of >sound in air or 155,000 psi for 4,795 ft/sec the velocity of sound in water. I have re-read your original post. Actually it is quite clear. I think it just shows our particular mind-set here, that some of us miss interpreted it. > >It is a lot easier to vaporize the water to steam and let it exit through an >orifice at several times the velocity of sound in steam, 1200 ft/sec (or about >4,000 ft/sec) or so. > >With a 4.5 kw heater and an orifice diameter of about 0.040 inches there should >be a steam flow of about 10 pounds per hour at 165 psia into a back pressure of >.57*165 psia or less. The intent was to keep it simple. I understand. In another post FJS wrote: >I have a pet theory that the water molecule is storing up photon energy in >metastable states thus: > > >E3_____________________ > >E2_____________________ metastable? > > > >E1_____________________ You draw in the arrows. > >Transitition between energy level E2 And E1 are forbidden, thus any energy >in E2 must be kicked up to level E3 to get back to the ground state level E1. >This could happen to the triatomic water molecule when it is exposed to light. >There could be as much as 3 ev of energy stored up per hydrogen oxygen bond, >thus 6 ev per molecule or over 10,000 btu per pound of water. This is a very interesting theory. Can you please explain why E2 -> E1 is forbidden? Such a situation would probably give rise to a laser whould it not? Are you familiar with T.V. Prevenslik's theories on Sonoluminescence? He believes that collapsing bubbles may lase. There have been other speculations on the so called "blue water laser". Is this related? What other physical properties would you expect from a water molecule in the posited meta-stable state? Should it be observable through various types of spectroscopy (Ramon etc.)? Are you aware of the early studies on the thermoluminescence of the irradiated ice? Low temperature ice is irradiated by high energy x-rays. Later, as its temperature is increased, luminescence is observed. It is posited to be some sort of relaxation phenomena, perhaps related to rotational (D/L) defects in the lattice. Similar auto-luminescence of tritium oxide is also reported in the early literature. In your theory, do you consider the water molecule in isolation? I have done some simple calculations on proton band states in water molecule chains which might be relevant to your hypothesis. But these calculations would not likely be applicable to water is a gaseous state. In another recent post FJS writes: >The insolation is about 1 kw/meter^2 with 4% to 8% reflected. The peak energy >level is 480 nanometers (2.586 ev). 20% is in the ultraviolet below 400 >nanometers (3.1 to 6.2 ev) the rest is absorbed in the atmosphere and high >clouds (water). There is a window to the blue-green which represents less than >10% of the solar insolation. The infrared has absorption peaks and transparency >windows all the way out to the microwave region. Do you know where I can find detailed absorption spectra for water in the high UV - low x-ray region? The band state calculations suggest fairly specific absorption peaks with a cut-off in the very high UV range (approx. 15 eV). Any references would be greatly appreciated. > >I think if one takes a good look at the mechanisms of photosynthesis they will >find that nature is using the metastable storage effects in the chlorophyll >molecule to get the reaction CO2 + H2O = CH2O + O2. > Surely chlorophyll has been studied extensively over the years. Can you point to any studies of anomalous effects? Is a metastable state of chlorophyll known? And continuing about the possible storage of energy in a meta-stable state of water FJS writes: > >I think that this could happen to water vapor in the atmosphere, especially >where the water molecule-clusters are supercooled as in high clouds. I've often >wondered what causes the bluish-purple glow that one sees occasionally while in >a jet aircraft going at near mach one on a dark night. Are the vortice eddies >causing microcavitation dumping of the proposed metastable states? > Has this been studied at all? Is the spectrum of the emission known? Perhaps there are other possible explanations (e.g. static electric discharge?). >I see microcavitation effects as supersonic pressure waves, so why not use a >direct approach to supersonic molecular interaction? Going by the use of super >high pressure water jets for cutting steel etc, I don't see the water jet as >something to try. However a jet of super hot water that flashes to steam on >exiting the orifice might be a different story. > >What I had in mind was using the knowledge about supersonic flow of saturated >steam to see if there is sonoluminescence and over unity heat from dumping the >metastable states of the water, This is a pretty complicated system thermodynamically. Can you estimate how much of the energy might be emitted as visible light and beyond versus how much is absorbed by the water and eventual would show up as heat? > be it at the "chemical" or possibly energy >stored up as dump able mass in the hydrogen itself. If it is at a nuclear level >at say 1 kev or so this would mean a decrease in mass of about one part per >million for the proton. > What makes you think it could be nuclear? Doesn't this contradict your first hypothesis (metastable states)? Such a theory would be highly suspect for a large number of well known reasons. >Either way it is natures storage bin. Bernard Beard over in the cserve >science-math forum knows this >stuff. > Do you think he might like to join the discussion here? Note: When I ask a lot of questions, it means I really am very interested - *not* that I am especially skeptical! Also, I am not put off when someone answers that they "don't know". I don't expect everthing to be understood, otherwise there would not be much point in discussing it here, would there? I am looking forward to hearing more. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 05:58:09 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19198 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 05:58:07 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA19165 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 05:57:53 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA10470; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 13:59:02 +0100 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 13:59:02 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Supersonic orifice Sonoluminescence In-Reply-To: <199510121211.IAA21533 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Before we embark on a lengthy discussion of metastable states, let me remind you that - unless you want to postulate something exotic (see below) - they don't work. The idea here seems to be some hitherto unexplored quantum jump in energy states of the water molecule, this jump releasing energy. To get this, you need first to elevate the molecule to that state, so this cannot be a source of energy, only a temporary energy storage. Similar explanations have been offered for 'cold fusion', such as mechanical lattice stress built up and released, or the decomposition of the PdD. All fall down on long-term integrated energy balance - as well as on expected magnitudes. As with chemical changes, this one can only involve eV levels, presumably not large enough to account for over-unity claims. The "unless": unless you mean a permanent jump to some anomalous state of the water molecule, such as the hydrino suggested by Mills. Again, I doubt that there would be enough energy with this, either, and it would have the problem of a hitherto unknown state of water. On the other hand, water is a much studied substance and I find it unlikely that it has an unknown absorption in some part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Not impossible, but unlikely. On another topic, I am confused about one thing. A while ago, I was told that the smallest Potapov machine weighs only 6.5 kg; so why is even a tent needed to test it? Peter Glueck tells us that a tent might be too small, that there would be too-high temperature rises; I have a feeling this refers to the bigger machines. So, the question: why not use the smallest one? Then, maybe a smallish box would do the job, and the cooling-coil calorimeter type would be feasible. Yes? No? -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 06:49:37 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00190 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 06:49:35 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA00118 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 06:49:20 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA03069 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:49:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199510121349.AA03069 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:49:09 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Needanswers Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 09:48:31 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 ; To: VORTEX-L ESKomo.com Subject: wantanswers Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 09:45:00 EST -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 What is going on in the Clean Energy Technology light water cell. 1 Is it fusion? If so fusion of what? Is the Li electrolyte going to N or something else? 2Li --> N How in the world could we get the Ca some are reporting? How can this be? I always thought that the electric charge on a nucleus larger that H was to great to allow fusion to take place under such "ordinary conditions". Can a D wave capture process be at work? 2 If it is fusion of light water what is the probability of 4 protons comming together at the same time and then two of them transmuting to neutrons through the process of beta decay. Can this happen without any radioactivity. 3. Is it zero point energy? Is the plasma be dense enough to adsorb matters zero point energy throught the process of evanscence. I calculate that this would take a plasma density of (10 E +27) electrons / cubic meter. This is 10 times greater than the electron density of solid matter. Is this possible? Can the Casimir force pull electrons together under certain condition creating an electron condensation? 4. Is it stored energy? Do the beads charge up chemically during conditioning and then release their energy during the demonstration? Any ideas? fznidarsic gpu.com From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 08:19:57 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21601 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:19:49 -0700 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM (GAV.GAT.COM [192.5.166.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA21499 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:19:26 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510121519.IAA21499 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 8:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:19:51 -0800 To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: My Mistake and More Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: With reference to Sparber's post about a supersonic water jet: I interpreted his description to mean a supersonic LIQUID water jet into a liquid water target. Now I understand that he was talking about water vapor. I should have thought more carefully about what he was trying to describe. To answer Bill Page's question about calculating velocity from acceleration of any fluid by a pressure difference: By Bernoulli's theorem, the change in kinetic energy per unit volume (0.5 rho v^2, where rho = mass density, v = fluid velocity and ^2 means squared) equals the change in pressure (p). If we want to accelerate the fluid to sound speed (cs), then we need a pressure of at least (0.5 rho cs^2) For my estimate I used rho = 10^3 kg/m^3, cs = 1500 m/s, and I ignored the factor 0.5 to get a required pressure of 2.25x10^9 Pa (mks units). One Pa = 1 newton/m^2 is 10^-5 atmoshpere, so this pressure is about 20,000 atm. Ignoring the factor 0.5 is ok for a rough order of magnitude calculation, since I also did not look up values for the density and sound speed of water at this pressure. My point was meant to be that it is hard to make a supersonic liquid jet. With reference to the glow around jet aircraft, I don't remember the details, but it has something to do with nitrogen. I would not be surprised if a supersonic water vapor jet emitted light. Shock waves heat a portion of the gas. In sufficiently strong shocks the temperature gets high enough to excite electrons which then emit light. In still stronger shocks some of the gas gets ionized, forming plasma. I was introduced to this as a student of plasma physics, when we used a small shock tube in one of our laboratory excercises. Strong shock waves and plasma formation were hot stuff in the 1950s when people were trying to figure out how to make missle nose cones survive reentry into the atmosphere. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 09:39:15 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06721 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:37:58 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06588 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:37:04 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id MAA02892; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:34:16 -0400 Date: 12 Oct 95 12:31:58 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Potapov device Message-ID: <951012163157_100433.1541_BHG69-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com On the suggestion that energy might be stored 'anomalously; in water, then this is at least reasonably easy to test for, given a reasonably reliable system in the form of the CETI device. The energy release would stop after a while! I do have a soft spot for easily-tested ideas. Dieter Britz writes: "On another topic, I am confused about one thing. A while ago, I was told that the smallest Potapov machine weighs only 6.5 kg; so why is even a tent needed to test it? Peter Glueck tells us that a tent might be too small, that there would be too-high temperature rises; I have a feeling this refers to the bigger machines. So, the question: why not use the smallest one? Then, maybe a smallish box would do the job, and the cooling-coil calorimeter type would be feasible. Yes? No?" The smallest machine does indeed weigh only that much. It is a tube about a metre long, with a small vortex initiation chamber at one end. However, it needs a pump and a motor of a couple of kW to drive it, along with the radiatiors through which heat is dissipated. Even arranged tidily, it occupies a space about 1.5m square by 0.5m. The question of tent/room calorimetry also involves dissipating power of maybe up to four kW, even for this smallest unit. A cooling coil within the tent is feasible, either to add to the heat loss through the tent walls or to replace it - the walls in such a case needing to be insulated, of course. The arguments against a cooling coil in a system of this size are the added cost and complexity, together with the introduction of possible sources of error. Such a scheme could be used for null-balance work of course, but I would prefer to avoid any such complications. A nasty (and very smelly) incident involving the last length of rubber-insulated power wiring in my house, and the subsequent dive for the main power switch, has deprived me of my copy of the query about the source of the energy in the CETI device. The problem here is lack of information. What we have so far is this. 1. No evidence of significant nuclear radiation (gammas, whatever). If the energy were (for example) from deuterium fusion, then that would produce so much gamma radiation (for example) as to make the area around it distinctly unhealthy, let alone being very obvious to instruments. 2. Other nuclear process. That would have to be a completely new and unknown nuclear reaction, and it is generally held that we know enough about them already to dismiss that possibility. Others suggest that condensed matter (like water and metal) might permit previously unknown nuclear effects. The argument against a purely nuclear effect in this case would be that it might most likely involve the deuterium in the water and that would be gradually used up. Whether Cravens' reported 6-week run is enough to help with that, I don't have enough numbers to comment. 3. I don't know if there is any evidence from that long run but, even if it were some new kind of deuterium fusion to helium-4, then it would take one million megajoules to make one ml of helium, so looking for it in a 5-20W device ain't so easy. Beware that figure, it comes from my arithmetic and is therefore highly suspect. 4. The alternative is 'something else'. Frederick's previously unknown energy storage? ZPE? Well, the first should be easy to test. The latter would perhaps give us a prediction would be testable. That's what it's all about, giving explanations which in their turn produce testable predictions. Easy, innit? (hollow laugh). And, Jed, if you are going to call people idiots for asking questions, then we may all just as well go home. I've tried to answer the questions as best I can above. I'd forgotten the beads question, but I think it is pretty clear that they can't go on producing watts/ml for very long, especially since they are inside four layers of metal (Cu, Ni, Pd, Ni). I'd add another 'rule' - no repostings from the "Information Supersewer". We've all agreed on only one thing - that spfizing is a Bad Thing. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 09:54:00 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10214 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:52:58 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA09356 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:49:55 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (scott.dsis.dnd.ca [131.136.15.26]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA24398 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:43:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199510121643.MAA24398 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:48:50 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: My Mistake and More Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer wrote: >To answer Bill Page's question about calculating velocity from acceleration >of any fluid by a pressure difference: > By Bernoulli's theorem, the change in kinetic energy per unit volume >(0.5 rho v^2, where rho = mass density, v = fluid velocity and ^2 means >squared) equals the change in pressure (p). > ... Thanks very much for the clarification. Definately a useful estimate. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 10:32:36 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20020 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 10:32:01 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA19753 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 10:30:59 -0700 Received: from net-1-235.austin.eden.com (net-1-138.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.138]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id MAA27257 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:30:31 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:30:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199510121730.MAA27257 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: St. Pete tests X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris, Any word at all from them? Have they started testing yet? My "P" device is all ready to go...awaiting only the secret ingredient. It will be frustrating if the P device in St. Pete works (i.e. makes o-u) right off the bat. In that case, Dr. P won't have to cough up any secrets and we will be flat on our face since both Gene and I failed to observe any o-u with substantially similar devices. I suppose we would react by obtaining every conceivable detail about the St. Pete setup and religiously reproducing them in our own setups. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 13:01:13 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23235 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 13:00:56 -0700 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA22190 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:55:36 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id PAA02042; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:54:15 -0400 Date: 12 Oct 95 15:51:05 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Yusmar tests at St Pete Message-ID: <951012195104_100433.1541_BHG58-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, I've emailed Fedorovitch twice, but no response received as yet. Believe me, the moment I hear a word I will post it here! But ... Volodya (Dr Onoochin) is returning on about the 15th October from a lengthy visit to his sick and elderly mother in a a part of the country some 20 hours from St Petersburg. As I have said, this is one very tenacious gentleman who will never take 'nyet' for an answer, and I have confidence that if anything can be done, he will make quite certain that it gets done. I doubt if they will see instant o-u. Their plan is first to try for a series of good calibration runs to establish the zero balance. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 12:54:50 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21766 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:53:49 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20897 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:49:54 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA07676 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:49:48 -0400 Message-Id: <199510121949.AA07676 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:49:48 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: press/velocity Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 15:49:05 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 The calcultation of the velocity of a flow out of a nozzle is a very easy problem. The potential energy of the fluid is converted to a flow of kinetic energy. Potential energy = kinetic energy mgh = 1/2 mvv gh = 1/2 vv g = 32.2 ft/sec sec v = ft/sec h = feet for a nozzle open to the atomosphere with spraying water h (head in feet) = .43 psi for a nozzle open to the atomosphere spraying air h = 1900 psi Solve for what you need. This assumes a non-compressible fluid For a compressible fluid the energy of compression and vaproization will need to be added potential energy = kinetic energy mgh - heat of vap = 1/2 mvv From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 18:15:33 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA18944 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 18:14:10 -0700 Received: from karloff.lanl.gov (karloff.lanl.gov [128.165.16.190]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA18715 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 18:13:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199510130113.SAA18715 mail.eskimo.com> Received: by karloff.lanl.gov (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA175776661; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 19:11:02 -0600 From: Ron McFee Subject: Tritium and Such To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 19:11:01 MDT Cc: mcfee lanl.gov, joy@lanl.gov, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene Mallove writes: > >Lookee here! From today's New York Times. O'Leary not even considering the >tritium being generated routinely in CF experiments at Los Alamos! What a >farce the DOE is! Plow it under and bury it. > Gene You might very well say this. How could I possibly comment! As you know Tom Claytor and Dale Tuggle of Los Alamos have been conducting on a low scale electrical discharge experiments with deuterium and palladium in powder and wire form. These experiments have produced low levels of tritium and neutron output. When they have seen neutrons they are produced at a ratio of about one hundred million (10^-8) times less frequently than the tritons (tritium atoms). Their experiments produce typically 10 nanocuries or 10^12 tritium atoms. I do not know why the Laboratory management and the DOE haven't taken this more seriously. On the other hand the Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT) project is really a Los Alamos initiative that has received much support. Even though the main production will be done elsewhere, a good deal of money will be spent prolonging the operation of the Los Alamos Meson Facility (LAMP) to do pilot studies. The Times article quoted by Gene states: > >Environmental groups have favored the accelerator because it would produce no >high-level radioactive waste. > Although I have not personally studied this very much, I suspect that these environmentalists will be disappointed. I think that this method of tritium production will be quite messy and the program will need to be renamed APW for accelerated production of waste. The tritium from the deuterium electrolysis and gas discharge experiments point to a nuclear origin as the source of the excess energy. The tritium that is seen to be produced is probably only a minor branch of the reaction. The neutron producing mode is even more suppressed. In the light water cells as far as I have learned there is no tritium or neutron production. In both cases the main branch is probably the production of helium isotopes. In the deuterium case it is probably 4He, and in the light water case 3He and/or 4He, as I have stated before to this forum. While I will continue to tolerate other theoretical speculation, I hope that that is done as hypotheses that can be either proven or disproven as is the case of the nuclear hypothesis. Bill Page has in his "Highlights of the ICCF5 Conference" wondered why people such as Pons and Fleischmann surround themselves with "far out" theorist. Frankly I agree with him, and we need to put an end to this "weird science" which is not really science. If someone wishes to hypothesize on thing like zero point energy, define it and make predictions of measurable quantities. What happens if you extract too much? Do angry Klingons rush in from the fifth dimension? What? Two of my colleagues from my Thermonuclear Applications group attended the recent IEEE at the University of Illinois. Neither one examined the Patterson cell, however one did bring back a nice glossy hand out for me. Needless to say they were both politely sceptical. I would very much like to see a demonstration here at Los Alamos of both a Potapov device and Patterson cell. Either contact me or Tom Claytor (claytor_t_n lanl.gov) if can help facilitate this. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 19:11:47 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA03730 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 19:11:01 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA03195 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 19:08:42 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id WAA11084; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 22:05:46 -0400 Date: 12 Oct 95 22:02:52 EDT From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Testing Hypotheses Message-ID: <951013020251_76570.2270_HHB67-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ron McFee writes: "While I will continue to tolerate other theoretical speculation, I hope that that is done as hypotheses that can be either proven or disproven as is the case of the nuclear hypothesis." The nuclear hypothesis will receive a very severe test with this Patterson cell, which is now bound to proliferate to many research labs. The beads will be examined for isotope shifts/transmutations in various SIMS, neutron activation analyses. With the high production of energy per mole of Pd and Ni, it should be possible to see these. If they are not there at commensurate levels for standard E=mc^2 energy release from hypothesized reactions, then the ZPE-direction theories will have to be invoked. Of course, the anti-scientific skeptic fringe will still say -- "Ah, this proves that the heat-measuring experiments are completely in error." Gene Mallove From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 12 19:57:19 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA15560 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 19:57:15 -0700 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA15503 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 19:57:00 -0700 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id WAA01679; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 22:55:20 -0400 Date: 12 Oct 95 22:53:05 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: One angry Klingon headed your way Message-ID: <951013025305_72240.1256_EHB151-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: >INTERNET:Vortex-L eskimo.com Ron McFee writes: "While I will continue to tolerate other theoretical speculation . . ." Glad to hear you do! You came to the right place. Welcome to Shangri La. "Bill Page has in his "Highlights of the ICCF5 Conference" wondered why people such as Pons and Fleischmann surround themselves with "far out" theorist. Frankly I agree with him, and we need to put an end to this "weird science" which is not really science." We need to!?! Us? Are we authorized to put an end to weird science? Do you want *me* to tell Martin Fleischmann how to do science?!? Hey, I am a brave man but I have my limits. That's like telling Picasso how to draw. "If someone wishes to hypothesize on thing like zero point energy, define it and make predictions of measurable quantities. What happens if you extract too much? Do angry Klingons rush in from the fifth dimension? What?" Well, not exactly Klingons, but Hal Putoff might come your way if you talk like that. He is one of our subscribers, he is one the leading experts in ZPE, and he is like Martin -- you don't go teaching him how to suck eggs. Anyway, as a rank amateur in the theory department let me hypothesize and make a prediction that can easily be measured. If CF is ZPE, then we will run cells for a very long time and find little or no nuclear products -- no commmensurate helium, tritium or anything. How is that? Simple enough? It would not prove that CF is ZPE, but it would eliminate fusion, just as today's results eliminate chemistry. We do not find chemical ash, so it is not chemistry. If we do not find nuclear ash, then it isn't nuclear. - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 05:16:07 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20982 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 05:16:05 -0700 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA20962 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 05:16:00 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id IAA07794; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 08:14:43 -0400 Date: 13 Oct 95 08:13:21 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: No info from Russia Message-ID: <951013121321_100433.1541_BHG97-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com I just had an email from Fedorovitch in St Petersburg. But it turns out that the Dr Fedorovitch who emailed me about my visa is not the same one that I met in St Pete - it's his *son*. His father must have used his son's access to the 'net to get in touch with me. The response was: Dear Dr. Tinsley: I have not managed to contact my father yet. I'll try to find him and let you know as soon as possible. Sincerely, A.Fedorovich Usual honorary doctorate haha. I think Jed has collected his share of those. On the matter of 'weird science', well, I dunno. Jedo-san's idea that any lack of nuclear products would invalidate the nuclear hypothesis has the weakness that you have to look for specific products. That's what caught Hahn when he couldn't see any nuclear products from what turned out to be fission. He wasn't looking for Sr and the like. If a common reaction in CF were to turn out to be: 14N + 2p + e -> 16O (+ thermal energy!) (to take something utterly absurd) then - apart from the acquisition of a negative charge by the cell hahaha - then finding the products won't be easy .... please don't tell me if that 'reaction' would require rather than produce energy. Personally, and in the profundity of my ignorance, I would suggest that the three basic categories of theories for CF energy release (nuclear, sub-ground states for atoms, ZPE) all require some heavy revision of conventional physics. The 'unconventional chemistry / error / fraud' explanations need some pretty heavy revision of our understanding of chemistry / competence / psychology. If even a fraction of the CF reports are valid, then there is a nuclear component. That that strengthens the 'nuclear' hypothesis. The question then would be whether it is a complete explanation. It is fair to complain that I drivel here, but I can't resist this story - we think *we've* got problems, but one native of Papua-New Guinea returned home recently to discover that his home was under 15 feet of lava. However, his friends had already rebuilt their homes (and one for him) - and had leveled and marked out a proper Rugby League pitch on top of the flow. Apparently, this sport was introduced by missionaries as an alternative to tribal warfare. While some locals see 'ragby lig' as escalation, one was quoted as saying: "In our tradition, we like brutality. Rugby League is the only sport which gives us that." Recently a match with an English team was called off because of the rocks and tear-gas bombs. Nobody has yet beaten these guys on their own ground. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 06:12:15 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00419 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 06:12:09 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA00399 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 06:12:03 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA06433 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:05:55 -0400 Message-Id: <199510131305.JAA06433 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:21:08 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: One angry Klingon headed your way Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote (in part): >... > Do you >want *me* to tell Martin Fleischmann how to do science?!? Hey, I am a brave >man but I have my limits. That's like telling Picasso how to draw. Well, I admire Fleischmann's work myself, but I think you go too far, Jed. I do not think your comparison is apt. Science is not art (though I will admit that it does have its non-objective side). Anyone capable of basic logic, careful observation and dedicate may well be able to give useful advice to any scientist. I don't see you (or anyone else in this group) as being at a disadvantage here. Yes, I think we can try to tell people like Martin Fleischmann how to do science. About my remarks concerning "weird science" theorists at ICCF5: Jed, you will recall, I am sure, that the theory sessions at ICCF5 were a mess. I know you have rather negative opinions about the possible contributions of theory to "CF" (at least in the short term) and a dis-organized display such as that at ICCF5, doesn't detract from such an opinion. On the other hand, I am convinced that many scientists very correctly operate by a reversal of the old "common sense" adage "Seeing is believing". In my opinion much of the progress in science is due to a credo like: "I will only see what I believe!" Where in terms of science, "believing" is to be equated with "having a credible theory". In other words, scientists necessarily filter data by models based on theories to become provisional facts. Yes, I know not every scientist does this so explicitly and some get it wrong and use this credo as an excluse to ignore new results. It seems to me that as long as there is no credible theory, even in the face of almost incontrovertible evidence, many people will simply not "see" the phenomena. This is what I think happened at the Cravens demo at ICCF5 and also seems to have happened to a large degree at SOFE. > > > "If someone wishes to hypothesize on thing like zero point energy, define > it and make predictions of measurable quantities. What happens if you > extract too much? Do angry Klingons rush in from the fifth dimension? > What?" > >Well, not exactly Klingons, but Hal Putoff might come your way if you talk >like that. He is one of our subscribers, he is one the leading experts in >ZPE, and he is like Martin -- you don't go teaching him how to suck eggs. > I, for one, would be very, very pleased if Hal Puthoff would discuss some of his theories here in this forum, but I am not very concerned about how he likes his eggs! Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 06:01:29 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28314 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 06:01:27 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA28300 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 06:01:22 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA11796 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:01:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199510131301.AA11796 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:01:11 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: zpesignature Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 09:00:28 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 I prime question continues to be how do you test for ZPE. According to my theories and the theories of some others ZPE results from an electron condensation. Detecting these condensations in the new excess energy machines would be a signature. How then can we best do this? Some ideas can be obtained from other systems that involve electron condensations, namely superconductivity and superfluidity. Yes, electron condensations DO take place in well known systems. We could try looking for the flux line exclusion (the Meissner effect). We could try looking for superfluid flows. We could try to detect the electron clusters from their wavelength of evanscence. I would place this wavelength in the mid-infrared band of wavelengths. We may be able to see sparkely clusters at this wavelength with some sort of infrared device. Don't take this idea to lightly. Keep in mind the nuclear energy is an order of magnitude more dense that chemical energy and that chemical energy is an order of magnitude more dense than mechanical energy. How then is anyone going to believe that machancial forces are producing nuclear effects? No wonder main stream science is having a fit! We can look to other zero point energy processes like the Genesis of the Universe. We could look at falling objects. Where does the energy come from, except from a zero point energy process. Yes, the zero point energy process is closely tied to the gravity and the genesis of the universe. Read my papers before you write off these ideas. Read Puthoff's publications. This stuff is real. http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum You follow ideas are welcome and needed. fznidarsic gpu.com From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 07:03:45 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA09247 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 07:03:43 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA09187 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 07:03:28 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA11753 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:03:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199510131403.AA11753 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:03:23 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: zpe Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 10:02:43 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 I have been trying for some time to pin down ZPE energy. I've looked to natural systems that seem to be producing excess energy. The first of which is ball lightning. Frank J Stenger and myself have done many high current and microwave ball lightning experiments. All of which, sorry to say, were negative. Contact Stenger at 216-224-0121 A ball lightning experiment done by Y.H. Ohtsuki did seem to produce excess energy see "Plasma Fireballs formed by Microwave Interference in Air" Nature Vol 350 14 March 1991 Ohtsuki concluded, "...we can find no reasonable explanation for the plasmafire lasting for such a long time after the magnetron has been turned off..." Stenger and I try to duplicate the effect. To date we have not suceeded. What can we learn from ball lightning? It sinks..a hot plasma should rise in the atomosphere. Something has increased the density of the plasma...It could be an electron condensation. Can electron condensation act like muons and catalize a fusion reaction? I think so..some of the energy may be fusion the most is ZPE. How can electrons condense? Read Puthoff's work. There is another force at work..the Casimir force. This force has been measured between bits of mica...Yes another force to the list. 1. Strong 2. Weak 3 electrical Gravity and Casimir. Add in this force to the mix...and new things start to happen. For a better understanding of Genesis process see: "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation" Edward P. Tryon Nature vol 246 December 14 1973 Gene If you agree to market my disk...This information could become more well known. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 02:52:42 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18877 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 02:52:32 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA18604 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 02:48:37 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t3mJU-000MObC; Fri, 13 Oct 95 17:46 EET Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:46:23 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: Patterson cell Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, 1. The Patterson cell at SOFE. During reading my favorite journals this week I came across the following sentence: "Chemical engineers have developed a healthy disrespect for what they "know". (Chemical Engineering Progress, June 1995) Obviously , AIChE is the US organization I would ask to test the machines of Griggs, Potapov or a scaled-up version of the Patterson Cell; you can find there people without technical and scientific prejudices, ready to accept a reality in conflict with the "certainties". The SOFE impressions and reactions (not completely known yet) are, grosso modo, those predicted for people who have almost unlimited respect for what they know. It was possible for them to ignore a device which is very convincing but doesn't corespond to the requirements of the ideal, Invincible Cold Fusion Demo, namely: -no external source of energy-that is infinite o/u during the active period, -large effect, in any case at the hundreds of watts level, -long active period and a very great quantity of global heat generated per unit volume (weight) thus eliminating, beyond any doubt the possibility of a hidden chemical/electrochemical source; -high working temperature, optimal for energetics. Perhaps the long-awaited Italian (Piantelli et al) generator or Potapov's egg-shaped super-device can accomplish these requests. The fine, bright, small cell couldn't achieve a great victory but it is a part of an unstoppable process, a brave messenger of the era of Infinite Energy. 2. The source of energy in the Patterson Cell. As always, I consider a discussion confined only to that device, of limited use; it's better to analyze it in the _context_ of all the other systems being in various stages of development. A lot of data is unknown, at least for me; for example no news about the Randell Mills- HydroCatalysis cell and not up-to-date info re. the E-Quest reactor; Piantelli and Arata are protecting their patentable data. The cold fusion community is not more a more or less homogeneous group of true believers, we have now e.g. : -D+D fusion fundamentalists; -fusion fundamentalists; -nuclear reactions fundamentalists; -free thinkers and heretics. I belong to the last category because I consider that excess heat is coming only in part from nuclear reactions, i.e. each system has a characteristic "nuclearity" measured by the contribution of the nuclear reactions to the total excess heat. In some of the systems "isotopic democracy" that is comparable heat generation for deuterium and hydrogen, is the rule. Obviously this type of democracy is good as is the political one, it is an enormous economical advantage, heavy water or deuterium are not cheap. From the WET ELECTROCHEMICAL systems, those based on the Pd/D2O are very sensitive and have a questionable reliability. My explanation is that their function depends on the formation of active catalytic centers a process difficult to control. Two happy exceptions: -the Patterson cell having a cathode of high catalytic activity due to its special structure-thousands of tiny beads covered with layers of metals-beautiful know-how in it! This functions with normal water and as far I know, not the slightest signs of nuclear reactions have been found. -the Arata cell with a structured cathode, it works with heavy water; actually the active surface is in contact with pure deuterium, being also a stuff which favors catalysis: Pd black with ultrafine particles. No commensurate nuclear ashes found. >From the WET CAVITATION systems: -the E-Quest cell seems to have a high nuclearity, however it is not clear if sufficient helium is formed to explain all the excess heat; the mechanism described by the authors ultrasonic dissociation of D2O and deuterium thus formed entering the lattice of Pd seems to be unrealistic for me. I think a mechanism comprising active sites formed on the surface of the metal is more plausible. No isotopic democracy here. -the Griggs and the Potapov devices work with ordinary water and WHAT'S ESSENTIAL: THE CLUE IS NOT WATER BUT CAVITATION (please apologize me for shouting!) because there are data that both can work with oil for example. This is a fundamental aspect of the problem and it proves that the 'iceberg' is much greater than imagined. The DRY systems also give a complex vision: -gas loading works better with deuterium (no new data there!) -gas discharge (as in the famous N.T.T. experiment) give excess heat both with hydrogen and deuterium; however this method has no technological future due to the limited quantity of 'fuel' which is instantaneously consumed; -gas sparking (Dufour) is, bien compris, democratic; a very important negative discovery. No traces of nuclear ashes found in a very fine experiment. -stimulated gas/metal system-Piantelli et al. works perfectly with hydrogen, we are told. It seems that the authors believe it is a D+H fusion but the data regarding helium-3, depletion of deuterium and some slight X-rays emitted are not published yet. My proto-theory of this class of diverse phenomena is the following: Matter is organized on levels: -the profound level better known as vacuum, -the nuclear level, -the atomic-molecular level, (chemistry) -the biological level -the rational level. A low of separatedness rules, feedback from a higher level to an inferior is difficult, feedforward is dangerous. For example a bit of chemistry can destroy biology, nuclear effects are detrimental for molecular edifices etc. As we go downhill, the intensity of energy increases, therefore capture of energy from the lower levels is strongly restricted and it is possible only by cooperation of two levels of matter _very locally and for very short time_. Such miraculous places are the catalytic centers and the cavitation bubbles. Massive flows of energy from the inferior levels could destroy the more complex and evoluated structures. What we call cold fusion is actually harnessing of energy from the profound level, in some cases it is associated with capture of nuclear energy, but this is a secondary phenomenon. The correct but exceedingly long name of what happens is "cooperative energetical phenomena stimulated by catalysis and cavitation". This theory was inspired in part from the concept of "creative cosmos". see e.g the paper with this title , New Scientist no.1591, 17 December 1987; the author is Prof. Paul C. W. Davies , a theoretical physicist from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne- perhaps our English friends know him personally. I have admired him very much; however in 1989 he wrote in a letter to me :"My sources tell me that cold fusion hasn't happened yet and probably never will!". I got very angry with him not because he denied CF but because he was based on sources. The paper is one of the best ever written and as far I know he has published a book too, the title of it is "The Cosmic Blueprint" if I remember it correctly. Anyway cold fusion is, in my opinion the most fundamental phenomenon discovered till now. It depends on us to make it the most useful too. Best regards, Peter From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 10:18:02 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25902 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:17:15 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA25113 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:14:29 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA09376 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:08:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199510131708.NAA09376 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:23:35 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: zpe Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank Znidarsic wrote (in part): >... > > Gene If you agree to market my disk...This information could become > more well known. > This comes rather close to soliciting... not that I mind *that* much, but... I think this should be a forum for free exchange of ideas. Ideas that we have to pay for (in addition to what we may already pay to access this email forum) are much less attractive. May I suggest that instead of simply saying "read so and so's papers", why not make specific references to relevant papers and short summaries of the ideas. Then we can decide if the trip to the library might be worth it. BTW, I have read some of H. Puthoff's papers, but I am not aware of any where he has explicitly dealt with the possible "over-unity" behaviour of macroscopic systems. To my knownledge ZPE remains a very theoretical subject (which is fine by me) but with no known applications. And speaking of theory. I would really like to discuss with someone the meaning of the Airy wavefuntion solutions to Schrodinger's equation in relation to Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics. Is there anyone else out there with an inkling of interest? You see, these particular solutions to the most basic equation of quantum mechanics appear to suggest that there may exist macroscopic quantum systems which do not conserve energy. No, this is *not* the same as ZPE. In these systems, some of the kinetic energy of the particles comes directly from the *form* of the wavefunction evaluated at the exact position of the particle. In Bohm's interpretation, the wavefuntion is considered to be a real physical field - much like the electromagnetic field. But it acts, not by exchange of energy, but rather through a "guidance condition" which implies a "quantum potential" influencing the particle motion. This quantum potential makes the equations of motion of the particle fundamentally non-conservative and non-classical. Its action is such to ensure that a statistical ensemble of particles "on average" obey all the laws of quantum mechanics. The conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics denies the possibility of directly discussing the motion and trajectories of individual particles, so it is not possible to formulate questions about the possible non-conservative motion of particles as such. Bohm's interpretation, on the other hand, makes such a question meaningful. The best reference that I know of about this subject is Peter Holland's book "The Quantum Theory of Motion", Cambridge University Press, (paper back edition 1995). He deals specifically with the Airy wavefunction solutions and also several other non-conservative systems. D. Bohm & B.J. Hiley also published a book called "The Undivided Universe", Routledge, 1993, which is a good introduction. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 12:30:12 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27858 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:29:09 -0700 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA26852 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:25:15 -0700 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id OAA09618; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:42:09 -0400 Date: 13 Oct 95 14:25:51 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Theory and all that Message-ID: <951013182550_72240.1256_EHB159-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: >INTERNET:Vortex-L eskimo.com Chris Tinsley writes: "Jedo-san's idea that any lack of nuclear products would invalidate the nuclear hypothesis has the weakness that you have to look for specific products. That's what caught Hahn when he couldn't see any nuclear products from what turned out to be fission. He wasn't looking for Sr and the like." I asked Peter Hagelstein about this during ICCF5. I gather that his latest theory predicts isotope shifts and element transmutation in the cathode material. I asked him if a CETI style cell would make it easier to verify his theory. He said it would, and he was enthusiastic about the prospect of using one. I asked whether it would be possible to make a complete accounting of *all* possible nuclear transmutations, using appropriate instruments. As I recall, he said that would not be a big challenge with modern equipment. You would have test before and after samples of cathode material and electrolyte. If a small, tightly closed cell was left to run at high power for a long time, say, 100 watts for six months, I gather the people at MIT could find any conceivable nuclear transmutation, assuming that present theories about the energy release per atom are correct. In other words, given the reaction: 14N + 2p + e -> 16O (+ thermal energy!) [pretend example from Chris] . . . they have machines that would automatically account for all elements. They would spot the decrease in nitrogen and the increase in oxygen, even if that is not what they were looking for. I do not know if their computerized monstrosities can account for every isotope of every element. I doubt it. I am sure other readers of this forum can enlighten us about that. Bill Page writes: "About my remarks concerning "weird science" theorists at ICCF5: Jed, you will recall, I am sure, that the theory sessions at ICCF5 were a mess. I know you have rather negative opinions about the possible contributions of theory to "CF" (at least in the short term) and a dis-organized display such as that at ICCF5, doesn't detract from such an opinion." Are you talking about the session at ICCF5 where the participants attempted to assemble the disparate elements and predictions of different theories into a table? I cannot judge theory, but I did get the sense that the participants were trying to arrange a menage a trois between an elephant, an ostrich, and a bumble bee. The theories appear to be highly incompatible. However, let me hasten say that *I* do not have a negative opinion of the possible contributions of theory to CF. I have no opinion about that at all, because -- as Arthur Clarke says -- it is over my head. I have a negative opinion about the behavior, attitudes and work habits of some theorists. I have three specific complaints, which I borrow lock, stock and barrel from Ed Storms: 1. I wish they would make specific predictions, so that we can test their ideas. Perhaps it is difficult for them to do so, but in that case, their theories are of no practical use yet, which irks me. 2. I wish they would stop "picking and choosing the data that fits," as Ed puts it. 3. I wish that more theorists somewhere would concentrate on the prosaic, boring, low level aspects of material science. As Ed says, theory has two branches: "One -- the nuclear branch -- which addresses the problem of overcoming the coulomb barrier, and also tries to explain what the nuclear products are. This branch is in severe need of some trimming . . . On the other hand there is the theory branch involving materials. This addresses how to create the nuclearactive state in which these reactions can occur . . . That branch needs some attention." I also feel that many scientists do not understand the role of theory in the development of technology. I have looked carefully at the history of many technologies, including the steam engine; steamships; square rigged clipper ships (which came after steamships -- surprise, surprise); telephones; airplanes; automobiles and computers. I believe that in most cases, successful technology comes first, theory follows. The problem is not solved "all at once" by a theoretical breakthrough. It is solved in stages. Usually it works like this: a workable theory or set of theories is cobbled together to explain the behavior of the machine. This theory is usually wrong, and always grievously incomplete. The technology is launched, the industry begins to make a lot of money, intense R&D is launched, and eventually new and better theories emerge. This may seem like putting the cart before the horse. A scientist might think that this method would never work, but a scientist would be wrong, as you can see by reading the caloric theories of heat used by the people who built successful steam engines for a hundred years, starting in 1695. In many cases we pay a terrible price for doing things this way. Thousands of people were killed and maimed in boiler explosions during the first 280 years of steam engine development. It was not until the late 1800s that theory and practice were united, national standards developed, and legislation passed to ensure boiler safety. It took a lot of hard scientific work and it took an Act of Congress. You may say that technology aught to be developed starting from theory, because it would work better and it would be safer. Perhaps that is true, but in the real world it seldom happens that way, even today. Even when adequate theory and a working knowledge of causes exists, it is often ignored, sometimes for decades. Doctors still treat gastric ulcers as if they were caused by nervous tension, bad eating habits, or what-have-you, even though we have known for many years that ulcers are caused by a peculiar little corkscrew shaped Heliobactor bacteria, and that it can be treated effectively with ordinary antibiotics. In my own field, I assure you that the development of personal computers and computer software has seldom followed the hallowed rules and principles laid down 25 years ago by St. Niklaus (Wirth). If it had followed those rules, computer software would work much better than it does. Windows would take up one-tenth the RAM and it would run twice as fast. Technology does not always follow logical, scientific paths. Just as often, it follows trends, fads, superstitions, ploys to increase market share, and colossal blunders. An interesting example can be seen in any airport. Look at those jet airplanes with the engines mounted on the fuselage in the back, instead of under the wings. Mounting them there makes the airplane harder to fly, noisier to ride in, less efficient, and harder to engineer. It puts an unnecessary strain on the wings, because they have to hold up more weight in the fuselage while in flight. In the 1970s, aircraft designers went through a passing fad of putting engines in back. Some of those engineers probably wore bell bottom pants too, which also look like a silly, passing fad in retrospect. I digress. Getting back to Bill's remarks: "It seems to me that as long as there is no credible theory, even in the face of almost incontrovertible evidence, many people will simply not 'see' the phenomena. This is what I think happened at the Cravens demo at ICCF5 and also seems to have happened to a large degree at SOFE." Ah, now here Bill has stepped out of the realm of theory -- where I cannot touch him, or challenge him in any way -- and into the murky realm of sociology and the history of science, where I lurk. No, sorry, I disagree. I do not think that the scientists reject the almost incontrovertible evidence because there is no theory. (By the way, it is absolutely incontrovertible, not "almost." Nobody has controverted it yet, and nobody ever will.) I have stood and watched scientists reject equally incontrovertible evidence even though it was backed up by all in theory in the world. I have seen that happen many times. The example I am most fond of quoting occurred in the early 1980s when microcomputer came on the market. (No doubt my readers are as tired of hearing this as my grandchildren some day shall be! Please, skip the rest of this message!) At the time I was working for a large, world-class high technology company. My colleagues were among the world's top experts in minicomputer architecture. They knew far more than I ever will about computers, processors, RAM chips and so on. Naturally they knew that microcomputers worked. Some of them had even designed the chips used in the microcomputer boards. When I saw the first microcomputers, I went ape. I bought one, brought it to work, and I talked about nothing else for weeks. I said this would revolutionize everything, it would change our business, or lives, our whole world. My middle-aged colleagues scoffed at the idea. They said the microcomputer was mere toy, with no hard disk and only 4 K of ram. It would never replace the vaunted mainframes and minicomputers. "Not in our lifetimes, anyway" they said. The rest is history . . . and I have a lot more history where that came from. Try this: "People who amuse themselves with speculations at to the time when steamers will no longer plough the oceans, and when all our overseas transportation will be done by airmen in air machines, are in the happy company of those who still pursue the pleasures of alchemy, those who are still trying to square the circle, and that other cheerful companion of dreamers who have faith in the possibilities of perpetual motion." - An ocean liner corporate executive quoted circa 1925. Please note that regular, profitable transatlantic zeppelin service began in 1928. The first Pan American Clipper flying boat transatlantic flight was in 1937. "Eighty-five percent of the horse-drawn vehicle industry of the country is untouched by the automobile. In proof of the foregoing permit me to say that in 1906 - 7, and coincident with an enormous demand for automobiles, the demand for buggies reached the highest tide of its history. The man who predicts the downfall of the automobile is a fool; the man who denies its great necessity and general adoption for many uses is a bigger fool; and the man who predicts the general annihilation of the horse and his vehicle is the greatest fool of all." - The keynote speaker in the 1908 annual meeting of the National Association of Carriage Builders When the hot fusion scientists, and newspaper people, and other ordinary people at ICCF5 and SOFE, and in the coming months at other conferences look at the CETI cell, they will ignore it, scoff at it, and reject it just as surely as my colleagues back in 1980 rejected the microcomputer. I know what they will say. "This is a toy." "It only produces 4 watts; our tokamaks produce 10 million watts!" "Why it doesn't even have a hard disk!" (Oops, Sorry! Flashback to 1980 there -- I meant: "it doesn't even self sustain!") "Okay, maybe someday after we have a theory we will use this for minor applications. But not in our lifetimes, anyway." Believe me, I have heard it before, I have read it before. They will turn away from reality, they will deny the most obvious facts, just as countless people did in the past, and as people will continue doing in the future for as long as we progress and change. Why? Because it is human nature. It is a common weakness of character, shared by so many people that it is accounted a virtue; a praiseworthy steady, conservative way of looking at things. You might as well ask why people fall in love foolishly, or why they invest money unwisely, or treat their children callously. (We call the latter a virtue when we say spare the rod and spoil the child.) In 1908, did that self-satisfied keynote speaker have *any* reason to doubt that automobiles would soon put him out of business? Did he think the supply of oil was so limited that the price would soon skyrocket? No, he could not have. This was seven years after the biggest drop in oil prices in history, when the Spindletop gusher blew in at Beaumont, Texas. Did he think people would not want automobiles? Did he think automobiles were not practical? No, this was the year the Model T was introduced to great fanfare. Nobody who saw a Model T could have thought it was impractical. Was he not aware of the Ford Model T? I expect he treated it the way my erstwhile colleagues treated the Radio Shack TRS 80 in 1980. They barely noticed until it put them out of business. Our keynote speaker may have looked at a Model T, but he did not see it. He was blind to it. As Bill says, he did not see it because he did not believe it. And he did not believe it because he knew subconsciously that it would bankrupt him, destroy his life, impoverish his family, and take away something he loved deeply: the horse drawn carriage. Whatever else the hot fusion scientists at SOFE may be, I am sure they are also human beings. They are husbands, wives, breadwinners, and people who dearly love their work -- as all scientists do, as all skilled carriage builders and computer programmers do. I am sure they are proud of their accomplishments, and proud to play a vital role in society. They hope they will someday fix a desperate social and economic problem. They tell their children that if they succeed they will go down in history for having done a wonderful thing. And what do they see when they look at the CETI cell? Oblivion. The end of their dreams. A dead halt to everything that gives their lives meaning. They are seeing proof that their careers, their social status, their income, and everything they have worked for in their adult lives will soon evaporate. How can they face that? How could anyone face it?!? They will -- they *must* -- deny this painful truth the same way the carriage builder did in 1908, and the mainframe computer builders did in 1980. You could hand those hot fusion scientists a ready-made theory on a platter. They could be *totally convinced* that the phenomenon is real, just as the mainframe builders knew that microcomputers worked in 1980. It would make no difference, they would still react the way they do. People always go through a painful stage of denial before events force them to face the truth. This is distressing. It is the price we must pay for progress. - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 11:16:17 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10020 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:15:56 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA08790 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:10:40 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA05558 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:07:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199510131807.AA05558 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:07:31 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Bohm Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 14:06:54 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Criss, thank you for your comments. I'm glad you brought up Bohm because his ideas are central to my work. You say that Bohm's theory states that matter wave functions are real. Not probablity waves. I believe this. There is on big problem with this idea. All real waves propagate. What contains the real wavefunction. A little arrow drawn by Bohm! I don't think so! What contains the wavefunction is a force. Force and gravity have a symmetrical realtionship. From Gen Rel Gravity = (dp/dt)/(ccr) dp/dt = force Again I have a paper posted at http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum on this subject. Can you access the web? If not I will sent it to you. This force generates the gravitational mass of matter. Bohm's little arrows are also intended to explain the variable DeBrogle wavelength of matter. This concept can better be explained with a force. A moving wavefunction bouncing off of a moving potential well (a force of containment for a real wave) doppler shifts the DeBroglie wavelength is a beat note produced by the orginal Compton wavelength and its doppler shifted reflection. Again the math is posted at the web site. This idea is better than Bohm's. Once the symmetrical relationship between force and gravity is understood models of zero point systems can be developed. This is a very long story by there is a relationship between the internal forces within matter entropy and the negative gravitation potential of the universe. If you believe that matter is made from real waves this story is true. Frank Z From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 14:19:42 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24642 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:19:31 -0700 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA24536 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:18:53 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA22063; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:16:52 -0400 Date: 13 Oct 95 17:14:57 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Klingons Message-ID: <951013211457_100433.1541_BHG28-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Jed is talking (seductive) nonsense. IMHO. We on the heretical wing have convinced ourselves that scientists will refuse to see the nose on the end of their face. That's because the vocal wing of the sceptical tendency has taken that stance. But we are getting reports that suggest that this did not happen at SOFE. Those reports come from Michael Schaffer as well as from 'our own side'. Certainly some will deny. But many are intrigued. They would like to study the device more, with their own instruments. They might even turn 'like' into pressure to get such a machine and study it. I'm an optimist, and happy to be one. By the way, what is a Klingon? Some kind of particle, like a muon? Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 14:25:31 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25560 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:23:59 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA25091 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:21:38 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA04896 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:20:15 -0400 Message-Id: <199510132120.AA04896 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:20:15 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: DAVID VESICLE.IBG.UU.SE To: MHUGO EPRI.EPRI.COM To: PUTHOFF aol.com To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: EPRI report Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 17:19:36 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> PUTHOFF AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> ROGER W KARN -> JOSEPH J BATTISTA JR -> JOHN G HERBEIN -> DAVID VESICLE.IBG.UU.SE MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> MHUGO EPRI.EPRI.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 I have just received EPRI report TR-104195 Title "Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear Processes in Deuterated Metals" It states, "The excess heat generated in electrochemical cells with palladium cathodes and heavy water electrolyte appears to be far too large to result from chemical or metallurgical transformation. The evidence implies that the heat source is a nuclear reaction of some as yet undetermined nature." Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 16:14:28 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA19356 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 16:13:41 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA18711 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 16:10:41 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA12876 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 18:17:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199510132217.SAA12876 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 18:32:50 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Theory and all that Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed rothwell wrote: > > >Bill Page writes: > > "About my remarks concerning "weird science" theorists at ICCF5: Jed, > you will recall, I am sure, that the theory sessions at ICCF5 were a > mess. I know you have rather negative opinions about the possible > contributions of theory to "CF" (at least in the short term) and a > dis-organized display such as that at ICCF5, doesn't detract from such > an opinion." > >Are you talking about the session at ICCF5 where the participants attempted to >assemble the disparate elements and predictions of different theories into a >table? I cannot judge theory, but I did get the sense that the participants >were trying to arrange a menage a trois between an elephant, an ostrich, and >a bumble bee. The theories appear to be highly incompatible. Actually more than that. Many of the theory posters where so far out that I doubt that they could have been displayed in even the most generously moderated conference. Even some of the oral presentations were of very dubious value. The "session" that you referred to was apparently hastily arranged by the organizers in a doomed attempt to see all the weirdness in some kind of perspective. I don't think any of the theory paper presenters were warned of this in advance. Most of them (including myself) simply walked away to do something more interesting - like gaze at the CETI demo percolating out in the lobby. I think the main result is to dismiss the whole lot, inspite of there being a few good apples in the barrel. In my opinion, it would have been much better to sort them out a little first. > However, let me >hasten say that *I* do not have a negative opinion of the possible >contributions of theory to CF. I have no opinion about that at all, >because -- as Arthur Clarke says -- it is over my head. I have a negative >opinion about the behavior, attitudes and work habits of some theorists. I >have three specific complaints, which I borrow lock, stock and barrel from Ed >Storms: > >1. I wish they would make specific predictions, so that we can test their >ideas. Perhaps it is difficult for them to do so, but in that case, their >theories are of no practical use yet, which irks me. I agree, if there are no specific testable predictions then what you have is not a theory. But I could name several "CF" theories which have made predictions and which have not been tested by experimenters, for example the Chubb's theory predicted that the silver lattice (although a poor absorber of hydrogen) would be a good host lattice for the kind of interation that they think is involved in "CF". But in "CF" research, it seems that too frequently, experiment preceeds theory. A researcher does some experiments, gets some anomalous results, then changes hats and trys to become a theorist to explain these results (Mills, Bush, et al.). The result is simply very amature theories, as one might expect. > >2. I wish they would stop "picking and choosing the data that fits," as Ed >puts it. But this is *exactly* what scientists have been taught to do! It *is* largely a filtering process. At the present stage of "CF" research there are many unsubstantiated, unrepeated results. If one is to form any kind of theory, it will necessarily involve tentatively identifying some results as incorrect at the same time as affirming other ones. Sometimes some very creative thinking is required to keep as many of the important results as possible, without letting in things which are clearly wrong. Eventually, when some theory becomes widely accepted, some of the early claims will also be widely understood to be wrong. > >3. I wish that more theorists somewhere would concentrate on the prosaic, >boring, low level aspects of material science. As Ed says, theory has two >branches: > > "One -- the nuclear branch -- which addresses the problem of overcoming > the coulomb barrier, and also tries to explain what the nuclear products > are. This branch is in severe need of some trimming . . . On the > other hand there is the theory branch involving materials. This addresses > how to create the nuclearactive state in which these reactions can > occur . . . That branch needs some attention." I agree completely with this. I feel comfortable to point out that my ICCF5 paper was in the second catagory. > >I also feel that many scientists do not understand the role of theory in the >development of technology. I have looked carefully at the history of many >technologies, including the steam engine; steamships; square rigged clipper >ships (which came after steamships -- surprise, surprise); telephones; >airplanes; automobiles and computers. I believe that in most cases, successful >technology comes first, theory follows. > ... Yes, I think many of us are very familar with this line of discussion which you have used on CIS and sci.physics.fusion. I am not concerned about disputing the facts as you state them. They largely agree with my own more limited knowledge of recent history. But I do strongly feel that it is quite premature to refer to "CF" as a technology. I do not see advancing the present state of "CF" research as a problem of engineering. It is a problem in science. It is a phenomena that we don't understand. Despite what may seem to be its enormous potential, it remains to be seen whether it is a phenomena that can be practically applied. It is darkly amusing to notice that fission energy, while now quite well understood, may still ultimately fail the applicability test. > > I digress. Getting back to Bill's remarks: > > "It seems to me that as long as there is no credible theory, even in the > face of almost incontrovertible evidence, many people will simply not > 'see' the phenomena. This is what I think happened at the Cravens demo > at ICCF5 and also seems to have happened to a large degree at SOFE." > >Ah, now here Bill has stepped out of the realm of theory -- where I cannot >touch him, or challenge him in any way -- and into the murky realm of >sociology and the history of science, where I lurk. No, sorry, I disagree. I >do not think that the scientists reject the almost incontrovertible evidence >because there is no theory. >... > >When the hot fusion scientists, and newspaper people, and other ordinary >people at ICCF5 and SOFE, and in the coming months at other conferences look >at the CETI cell, they will ignore it, scoff at it, and reject it just as >surely as my colleagues back in 1980 rejected the microcomputer. > ... Why? Because it is human nature. It is a common weakness of character, >shared by so many people that it is accounted a virtue; a praiseworthy >steady, conservative way of looking at things. > > [Example of speaker against automobiles} > As Bill says, he did not see it because he did not >believe it. And he did not believe it because he knew subconsciously that it >would bankrupt him, destroy his life, impoverish his family, and take away >something he loved deeply: the horse drawn carriage. Whatever else the >hot fusion scientists at SOFE may be, I am sure they are also human beings. > ... People always go through a painful stage of denial before events >force them to face the truth. This is distressing. It is the price we must pay >for progress. > Actually, I sort of think that we agree, but you seem to discount the sociological role of theory itself. I think you vastly overstate the degree to which most scientists, either consciously or unconsciously are blinded by their own desires. Although, human, as you say, most have a long history (as trite as it may sound), of "searching for truth", even when it is to their own professional disadvantage. Just choosing to be a scientist (for most people) is already putting their ideals over their potential earnings. I think that for science (as opposed to engineering), theory plays a much larger role. People doing advanced, esoteric work feel comfortable doing this in the context of a THEORY. If there was no THEORY, then they might just feel rather silly or eccentric. Changing the THEORY involves an intellectual revolution. Engineers, of course, are much more practical... Have a good weekend! Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 17:05:06 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01537 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:04:04 -0700 Received: from karloff.lanl.gov (karloff.lanl.gov [128.165.16.190]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA00863 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:01:20 -0700 Message-Id: <199510140001.RAA00863 mail.eskimo.com> Received: by karloff.lanl.gov (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA237868713; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:58:33 -0600 From: Ron McFee Subject: Trolling for Klingons To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 17:58:33 MDT Cc: mcfee lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene writes: >The nuclear hypothesis will receive a very severe test with this Patterson >cell, which is now bound to proliferate to many research labs. The beads will >be examined for isotope shifts/transmutations in various SIMS, neutron >activation analyses. With the high production of energy per mole of Pd and Ni, >it should be possible to see these. If they are not there at commensurate >levels for standard E=mc^2 energy release from hypothesized reactions, then >the ZPE-direction theories will have to be invoked. Right on! This should turn the tide. Ed Storms tells me that the Piantelli device has recently received an Italian patent. Hope you can publish this in your next "Infinite Energy" issue. If this effect is not nuclear, i.e. we can't see any transformation products after producing large amounts of energy; then I promise to rethink my philosophy. One of the problems with so called theoretical physics is that it is rooted in modern quantum mechanics and relativity which even after ninety years still has not become part of the intellectual machinery of the average educated intelligent even technically trained person, but is still mostly the monopoly of trained theoretical physicists. Even some experimental physicists sometime feel uncomfortable with some arcane portions of theories of superconductivity or quantum electrodynamics. What is necessary is not some complicated theory with fancy terms and mathematics but simply an understanding of "what's happening," something that any intelligent business person, politician, and/or engineer can understand. So let us can the mumbo jumbo until we know whats going on. Synergy, zpe, shrinking hydrogen atoms, tight Bohr orbitals, wiggly-wigglies, hoping neutrons, lasing phonons, unitary quantum theory, Schwinger fusion? One certainty, they are not all correct. Chris writes: >If a common reaction in CF were to turn out to be: > >14N + 2p + e -> 16O (+ thermal energy!) > >(to take something utterly absurd) then - apart from the acquisition of a >negative charge by the cell hahaha - then finding the products won't be easy >.... please don't tell me if that 'reaction' would require rather than >produce energy. This is not at all absurd. It should be 14N + 2p -> 16O + positron + neutrino which is part of the CNO fusion cycle that produces a small portion of the sun's energy. The positron would however produces two 511 KeV gamma particle which would stand out like a neon light in the dark. A Klingon is an unattractive, aggressive being from the the Star Trek TV series. I think the closest way to imagine it is to consider what you would get if you crossed Jed Rothwell with a troll. Jedro-san remarks: >Whatever else the >hot fusion scientists at SOFE may be, I am sure they are also human beings. >They are husbands, wives, breadwinners, and people who dearly love their work >-- as all scientists do, as all skilled carriage builders and computer >programmers do. I am sure they are proud of their accomplishments, and proud >to play a vital role in society. They hope they will someday fix a desperate >social and economic problem. They tell their children that if they succeed >they will go down in history for having done a wonderful thing. And what do >they see when they look at the CETI cell? Oblivion. The end of their dreams. A >dead halt to everything that gives their lives meaning. They are seeing proof >that their careers, their social status, their income, and everything they >have worked for in their adult lives will soon evaporate. How can they face >that? How could anyone face it?!? They will -- they *must* -- deny this >painful truth the same way the carriage builder did in 1908, and the mainframe >computer builders did in 1980. You could hand those hot fusion scientists a >ready-made theory on a platter. You are much more understanding of these people than I am, and these people are my colleagues. The so called "hot fusion" people who have been working in magneticly confined fusion and laser driven inertially confined fusion are not really doing much fusion at all. Only the people who have designed thermonuclear weapons really know much about real fusion and have succeeded in producing any real energy. The so called controlled fusion people, even if they were successful, would have a product that is as nasty and messy as a fission reactor, if not worse. It is a myth that this type of fusion energy would be clean and cheap. Maybe we can retrain of few of these reprobates. Meanwhile these people are wasting our national treasure on a questionable quest. It is time to change the political climate and gain government support for developing the new "hydrogen energy" whatever it is. (I still think it is Schwinger fusion.) Regards, Ron From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 20:35:38 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17792 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 20:34:43 -0700 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA17745 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 20:34:29 -0700 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id XAA22455; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 23:33:03 -0400 Date: 13 Oct 95 23:31:51 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: A little more history Message-ID: <951014033150_72240.1256_EHB43-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: >INTERNET:VORTEX-L MAIL.ESKIMO.COM I hope that people do not mind a few more off topic postings. Once you get me talking about history, I don't shut up easily. Especially not after reading three books this week about Edwardian social history. Chris writes: "Jed is talking (seductive) nonsense. IMHO. We on the heretical wing have convinced ourselves that scientists will refuse to see the nose on the end of their face. . . . That's because the vocal wing of the sceptical tendency has taken that stance. But we are getting reports that suggest that this did not happen at SOFE . . ." Don't overstate my point. I talked about the attitude of mainframe computer engineers in 1980 to the microcomputer. What I did not say, but what I presume everyone knows, is that many of these people *did go ape* over microcomputers. There were many middle-aged entrepreneurs. Many dropped out of large companies to hop on the bandwagon. However, I think that a majority held back, and many held back too long. This is illustrated in an excellent book titled "Big Blues - The Unmaking of IBM," by Paul Carroll. In the end, all scientists will believe in CF, probably even before consumer products become widespread. The question is, how will they be converted? Will it be love at first sight? Will they latch on to it the moment they set eyes on it, the way I latched on to microcomputers? Yes, some will do that, and we will get lots of enthusiastic new blood in this field. But others will sign on grudgingly after many years, as other companies eat away their market. I believe that history shows the latter pattern will be most common. People hang on to the past, blind to trends that everyone else sees. A businessman with common sense in the year 1908 could see that the horse and buggy was doomed, but not the man who made his living selling buggies. Incidentally, the U.S. horse population peaked in 1929, 21 years after our speaker stepped down from the podium, so in a sense the technology did last until the end of his career. But by that time I think most personal and urban transportation was by auto, with the horses remaining in the countryside and in use by delivery people, especially icemen, who I expect would have told you electric refrigerators were only a passing fad, and that customers would still demand ice deliveries in 60 years. In response to the comment by Ed Storms quoted by me, that some theoreticians "pick and choose the data that fits," Bill Page writes: "But this is *exactly* what scientists have been taught to do! It *is* largely a filtering process. At the present stage of "CF" research there are many unsubstantiated, unrepeated results." In that case let me say that many of them take it too far. They filter too much. In particular, many of theoreticians I have talked to dismiss the nickel light water results. After the Mills papers and the CETI demonstration, I think that is irrational. Bill also writes: "I think you vastly overstate the degree to which most scientists, either consciously or unconsciously are blinded by their own desires. Although, human, as you say, most have a long history (as trite as it may sound), of "searching for truth", even when it is to their own professional disadvantage." I think Bill misunderstands something about the rest of humanity. Most people, in most professions must also "search for the truth" as assiduously as any scientist. Furthermore, many people pay very close attention to instrument reading from nature. In many professions, if you do not pay close attention to the truth, you die -- or you kill someone. I mean people like airline pilots, sailors, doctors, miners, steel mill operators, heavy industry factory workers and farmers. These people are as much in tune with nature as any scientists, and they are every bit as good at searching for the truth. The only difference is that scientists search for new truths, whereas sailors search for signs from nature of weather and tides that mankind has known about for eons. People like engineers, computer programmers, telephone linemen and cooks must also pay as much attention to instruments and to disciplined, scientific problem solving as any scientist. Again, the only difference is in the class of problems they deal with. It is naive to think that in an industrial society only scientists use the scientific method. Most skilled technical people do. For that reason, I think that my comments about the reaction of the mainframe engineers to the microcomputer were directly applicable to the reaction of scientists at SOFE to the CF demonstration. Mainframe engineers and circuit designers are not one iota less scientific than scientists. Indeed, in my experience compared to academic scientists most computer engineers are more scientific, more objective, more willing to look at the truth even when it is to their professional disadvantage. Scientists are concerned with priority, and with making a name for themselves. Many scientists are not good at working in close cooperation with other scientists, because they are competing for scientific glory. Computer engineers do not give a darn about making a name for themselves. All they want to do is make a product for the customer and a buck for the company. They always work in teams. It does not make any difference to a computer engineer whether he is the first person to solve a problem, or the tenth person, or the 5 millionth person. He can't even tell; the competition does publish their methods. In fact, an engineer who finds he is *not* the first person to solve a problem will breath a sigh of relief, steals the prior solution, and never think about it again. Whenever a good engineer finds a canned solution he grabs it, whereas scientists are often infected with the Not Invented Here syndrome. The fact is, even though computer engineers respect the truth as much as any hot fusion scientist, and even though they understand vastly more about the marketplace and the customer than your typical hot fusion scientist, the mainframe computer people were *still* blinded by their own desires and fears. With all their advantages and inside knowledge of the industry, many of them missed the boat on microcomputers. If people like that can fail to see the obvious, think of how much more blind the DoE scientists will be. I have more hope for the hot fusion scientists at a place like General Atomics, which is part of the free enterprise system. The General Atomics people will know what a customer and a market is. - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 13 20:51:59 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21104 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 20:51:29 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA21056 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 20:51:11 -0700 Received: from dialup-a27.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a27.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.27]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id NAA19679 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 13:48:22 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199510140348.NAA19679 tornado.netspace.net.au> From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Needanswers Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 02:51:57 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199510121349.AA03069 power.gpu.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 12 Oct 95 09:48:31 EST , you wrote: [snip] >3. Is it zero point energy? Is the plasma be dense enough to adsorb matters > zero point energy throught the process of evanscence. I calculate that > this would take a plasma density of (10 E +27) electrons / cubic meter. > This is 10 times greater than the electron density of solid matter. > Is this possible? Can the Casimir force pull electrons together > under certain condition creating an electron condensation? You might like to check out Ken Shoulder's patent #5018180 in this regard. > >4. Is it stored energy? Do the beads charge up chemically during > conditioning and then release their energy during the demonstration? > > Any ideas? > fznidarsic gpu.com > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 14 00:57:21 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02984 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 00:56:45 -0700 Received: from skypoint.com (mirage.skypoint.com [199.86.32.7]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA02971 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 00:56:40 -0700 Received: by skypoint.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0t41RK-0004txC; Sat, 14 Oct 95 02:55 CDT Message-Id: Subject: Scott Little -- CETI yeti? To: vortex-l eskimo.com (vortex-l) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 02:55:29 -0500 (CDT) From: "John Logajan" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 473 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hey Scott Little -- now that Miley and company have duplicated CETI (as has Cravens and Klein) is there yet any chance that you could get ahold of one of these devices and put it through its paces? I haven't bugged you about this for several months, so consider yourself nagged. :-) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 14 02:47:24 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14412 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 02:46:43 -0700 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA14405 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 02:46:39 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id CAA09337; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 02:46:37 -0700 Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 02:46:37 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Zero Point Field paper Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Anyone interested in hardcopies of the "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field Lorentz Force" paper? See below .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 9:47:27 -0700 (PDT) From: HAISCH SAG.SPACE.LOCKHEED.COM To: billb eskimo.com Subject: Zero Point Field Hello Bill, I've seen some discussion in your newsgroup on our paper, "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field Lorentz Force" by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff that we published in the Physical Review A last year. I have been swamped with letters and email since then, which would take up most of my time if I were to get into individual discussions, especially with enthusiastic non-physicists, but as a result I have drawn up a "Questions, Answers and Issues document." I am happy to send this and other material out in the mail to anyone who wants copies. My assistant has the following available: (1) Reprints of the Physical Review Article: "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field Lorentz Force" (2) A limited number of copies of The Sciences magazine containing the article "Beyond E=mc^2" (a popular-level overview) (3) The "Questions, Answers and Issues" document (4) Reprints of the article "Vacuum Zero-Point Field Pressure Instability in Astrophysical Plasmas and the Formation of Cosmic Voids" by Rueda, Haisch and Cole, published in the Astrophysical Journal. If you want to announce the availability of this, you may do so. Just have anyone who is interested email me a postal address and my assistant will sent the material out. Regards, Bernhard Haisch Staff Scientist Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory haisch sag.space.lockheed.com From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 14 12:29:08 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02239 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 12:28:05 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA02136 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 12:27:33 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA08176 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Sat, 14 Oct 1995 15:26:41 -0400 Message-Id: <199510141926.AA08176 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Sat, 14 Oct 1995 15:26:41 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: FZNIDARSIC aol.com To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: zpeimpact Date: Sat, 14 Oct 95 15:26:03 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> FZNIDARSIC AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 15:14:01 -0400 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com To: p8156 memo.gpuc.com Subject: zpeimpact For those of you who can appreciate the full impact of the ZPE theories on philosophy, here is one of my papers. I apologize for some of the typos in some of my last postings but I am busy at work answering the phone going to meetings and in general running a power plant. I'm luckey to have time to get anything out. I've sent this one from home where I have more time to read..you should find many less typographical errors. It looks like this paper will soon be published. If no one objects I have about 5 more papers of about the same quality as this one. I will post them over the next few weeks. Title: GENESIS OF THE UNIVERSE AND ZERO POINT ENERGY Author: FZNIDARSIC GPU.COM, F. Znidarsic Electrical Engineer with the Pennsylvania Electric Co. Johnstown Pa. Comments: ASCII *.TXT, 5 PAGES, SIMPLE EASY READING, submitted to the Canadian Journal of Physics July 94, Resubmitted Jan 95 Report_no: Special Energy Prog. ABSTRACT The idea that something can be created from nothing has always been considered to be impossible. This manuscript presents a historical account on the subject of creation. Recently, it has been shown that the gravitational field contains negative energy. Contemporary ideas on the subject of creation demonstrate the existence of a link between the energy in matter, zero point energy, and the negative gravitational potential of the universe. These new ideas are explored. Finally experiments, which seem to be creating energy, are examined. INTRODUCTION Since antiquity the genesis of the universe has been a subject of thought, study, and speculation by the greatest minds in philosophy and science. The original ideas on genesis were developed by philosophers. Some of the original philosophers were Greek. It became apparent to the Greeks that all things came from other things. The great Greek philosopher Plato (427-347 BC) described this with his idea of forms. According to Plato the form was the property that made a thing what it was. Aristotle (384-322 BC) developed the idea of forms and concluded that each form was composed of a substance. The form of a substance could be changed but the substance itself was eternal. The question then was where did the original substance come from? The conclusion that the ancient Greeks drew was that a prime mover created the original substance. This prime mover was God. The Greek Empedocles defined what the fundamental substances of the original creation were. To him the fundamental substances were earth, air, fire, and water. Later the Greek Democritus redefined these original substances as atoms. According to Democritus these atoms were produced in the original creation and were eternal. In the Middle Ages the greatest thinkers on the subject of creation were theologians. One of these theologians was St. Augustine (354-430 AD). It became apparent to St. Augustine, like it did to the Greeks, that all things came from other things. If the material substance of the universe had not been created then this substance must have always been. If the substance of the universe has always been then time had no beginning. Every event is precipitated by a prior event. Without a first event everything that could have happened should have happened in the infinite past. For current time to have meaning there must have been a first event or moment of creation. St. Augustine used a Latin word to describe this creation process called exhihilo. This word means to create something out of nothing. St. Augustine concluded that an infinite source or prime mover created the universe exhihilo. This concept was developed to an apex by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). He came up with a line of reasoning in his arguments from design. These arguments were based on the idea that the substance of the universe required a divine origin. PROPOSED THEORY Today scientists are studying the problem of creation. Science does not address the question of who created the universe. Scientists have rules that they work by called conservation laws. Some of these conservation laws are the conservation of momentum, energy, and charge. Science addresses the question of how the universe formed within the framework of possibilities allowed by these laws. According to current theory and experimental evidence these conservation laws always hold true. In more precise language, they are invariant with respect to time and location. The scientific principle of the conservation of energy simply restates the old idea that something cannot come from nothing. According to the accepted theory of the big bang the universe sprang from nothing 15 billion years ago. In 1973 the great contemporary scientific thinker Edward P. Tryon demonstrated how the universe could have formed without violating the principle of the conservation of energy. He said that the total energy of the universe is zero. 1 He said that the positive energy of the things we observe is balanced by a negative gravitational energy. Therefore the creation was formed without violating the principle of the conservation of energy. Let's explore his idea. When something falls it loses gravitational potential energy. The relationship between potential energy and position, in a force field, is given by equation #1. (NOTE: In case your mailer does not line the text up like mine does the following equations are only simple integrals.) / | -> -> /\ PE = W = - | F . dr Eq #1 g | g / According to Tryon's theory if an object were to fall into the universe from an infinite distance away the gravitational potential energy the object lost would equal the total mass energy of the object. This is stated mathematically in equation #2: / rad of univ 2 | -> -> mc = - | F . dr Eq #2 | g /infinity Assuming that the universe is spherical with an isotopic mass distribution, the amount of gravitational potential an object will lose upon falling to the edge of such a universe is given by equation #3. / rad of univ 2 | 2 mc = -(G)(M)(m) | (1/r ) dr | /infinity Given a radius of the universe is 15 billion light years 26 (1.42x10 meters) and the known gravitational constant G, the mass of the universe may be determined. 53 M = 1.91 x 10 KG If this is the mass of the universe then the total energy of the universe is zero. To check this result the mass of the universe was calculated from its density and volume. The universe was considered to be a sphere. This sphere has a radius of 15 billion light years and is filled with matter of the same density as the density of space in our galactic neighborhood. This "local" density is equivalent to one proton of ordinary matter and nine protons of "dark" matter per cubic meter. 3 Given that the volume of a sphere with a radius of 15 79 3 billion light years = 1.2 x 10 M Please note that at one proton mass per cubic meter this is also the number of protons in the universe. The mass of the universe was derived from its volume and density in equation #4. 3 3 M = ((1 proton/m )+(9 proton masses dark matter/m ))(vol) Eq#4 The mass of the universe according to this second argument is: 53 M = 2.00 x 10 KG Amazingly the resultant masses agree even though they were determined by two entirely different methods. This agreement indicates that the universe has a total energy of zero and that it formed without violating the principle of the conservation of energy. There is something very profound in what Edward Tryon said. CONCLUSION New scientific arguments have shown how something can be created out of nothing. These arguments have tremendous philosophical implications. If we now understand the creation process, can we now create something out of nothing? Inventors have been trying to do this for many years. In fact, the patent offices currently reject all applications for patents on such perpetual motion machines. If a gravity producing machine could be built, however, it would produce positive energy in an amount equal to the negative gravitational potential of the induced field. As of late several scientists have appear to have created something (energy) from nothing. 4 Among the most advanced is Dr. Puthoff at the Center for Advanced Study in Austin Texas USA and Dr. McKurbe under a contract with the Unites States Electric Power Research Institute. 5 Puthoff, in particular, is attempting to extract the zero point energy of matter. According to this author's theories, the theories of Hal Puthoff, and 6 7 the theories of Andrei Sakharov , the the zero point energy of matter is 8 intimately linked to its gravitational field. If the zero point energy of matter is extracted a gravitational field will be produced. This gravitational field will reach out and retard the expansion of the universe. Some of the kinetic energy of the expansion of the universe will eventually be absorbed by this induced gravitational field. This energy will be locally available for use. We will have to wait and see to comes from these latest ideas. If man finally creates substance from nothingness he will have ventured into a realm that was, since antiquity, reserved for God. The world and its ideas will then surely change. NOTES 1. Edward P. Tryon, NATURE VOL 246, December 14, 1973. 2. Technically, nothing can exist outside of the universe. The universe is a closed structure in which, according to the cosmological principle, all positions are equivalent. The model presented in this paper, in which an object falls from an infinite distance away to the edge of the universe, does not represent reality. The model does, however, allow for the calculation of the negative gravitational potential shared by all objects within the universe. 3. Fritz Zwicky proposed that 90% of the matter in the universe is "dark" in 1933. He came to this conclusion from the study of clusters of galaxies. Vera Rubin confirmed that 90% of the universe's matter is composed of the so called "dark matter" from her study of the rotational speeds of galaxies in 1977. 4. A ball lightning experiment in Japan appeared to produce excess energy. Y.H. Ohtsuki & H. Ofuruton, NATURE VOL 246, March 14, 1991 5. Dr. McKurbe's cold fusion experiments at SRI in the USA continue to produce unexplained excess energy. Jerry E. Bishop, The WALL STREET JOURNAL 7/14/94. 6. Frank Znidarsic, ELEMENTARY A. GRAVITY Adventures Unlimited Kempton Il. USA, 1989 7. Working with artificial ball lightning. Hal Puthoff, PHYSICAL REVIEW A, March 1989 Hal Puthoff, D.C. Cole, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, August 1993. Hal Puthoff, OMNI, "Squeezing Energy From a Vacuum" 2/91 8. Andrei Sakharov SOVIET PHYSICS DACKLADI Vol 12, May 1968, Page 1040. // END OF PAPER From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 14 15:01:39 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02624 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 15:00:51 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA02595 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 15:00:43 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA16259; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 17:59:26 -0400 Date: 14 Oct 95 17:58:36 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Sparks in Water Message-ID: <951014215835_102021.3045_EHT30-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A simple test to see if there is any spark initiated over unity behavior in water is to drill a 27/64" diameter hole about 1 1/2" deep in a short piece of 1" or better, diameter steel round stock. Run in a 1/4" internal pipe thread for a good fit for a standard automotive spark plug, fill with water, set gap at one to two thousands of an inch, Charge a 10,000 microfarad capacitor to about 150 volts (about 110 joules) switch it onto the plug and do some calorimetry. More fun? FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 14 20:30:14 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02704 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 20:29:29 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02480 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 20:28:36 -0700 Received: from dialup-a31.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a31.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.31]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id NAA02533 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 13:26:11 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199510150326.NAA02533 tornado.netspace.net.au> From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: zpeimpact Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 02:29:37 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199510141926.AA08176 power.gpu.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 14 Oct 95 15:26:03 EST , you wrote: > > -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 > > -> FZNIDARSIC AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 > >Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 15:14:01 -0400 >From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com >To: p8156 memo.gpuc.com >Subject: zpeimpact > >For those of you who can appreciate the full impact of the ZPE theories on >philosophy, here is one of my papers. I apologize for some of the typos >in some of my last postings but I am busy at work answering the phone going >to meetings and in general running a power plant. I'm luckey to have time to > >get anything out. I've sent this one from home where I have more time to >read..you should find many less typographical errors. It looks like this >paper will soon be published. If no one objects I have about 5 more papers >of about the same quality as this one. I will post them over the next >few weeks. >Title: GENESIS OF THE UNIVERSE AND ZERO POINT ENERGY > >Author: FZNIDARSIC GPU.COM, F. Znidarsic Electrical >Engineer with the Pennsylvania Electric Co. Johnstown Pa. > >Comments: ASCII *.TXT, 5 PAGES, SIMPLE EASY READING, >submitted to the Canadian Journal of Physics July 94, >Resubmitted Jan 95 Report_no: Special Energy Prog. > > >ABSTRACT > >The idea that something can be created from nothing has >always been considered to be impossible. This manuscript >presents a historical account on the subject of creation. >Recently, it has been shown that the gravitational field >contains negative energy. Contemporary ideas on the >subject of creation demonstrate the existence of a link >between the energy in matter, zero point energy, and the >negative gravitational potential of the universe. These >new ideas are explored. Finally experiments, which seem >to be creating energy, are examined. > > >INTRODUCTION > > Since antiquity the genesis of the universe has been >a subject of thought, study, and speculation by the >greatest minds in philosophy and science. The original >ideas on genesis were developed by philosophers. Some >of the original philosophers were Greek. It became >apparent to the Greeks that all things came from other >things. The great Greek philosopher Plato (427-347 BC) >described this with his idea of forms. According to Plato >the form was the property that made a thing what it was. >Aristotle (384-322 BC) developed the idea of forms and >concluded that each form was composed of a substance. >The form of a substance could be changed but the substance >itself was eternal. The question then was where did the >original substance come from? The conclusion that the >ancient Greeks drew was that a prime mover created the >original substance. This prime mover was God. > > The Greek Empedocles defined what the fundamental >substances of the original creation were. To him the >fundamental substances were earth, air, fire, and water. >Later the Greek Democritus redefined these original >substances as atoms. According to Democritus these atoms >were produced in the original creation and were eternal. > > In the Middle Ages the greatest thinkers on the >subject of creation were theologians. One of these >theologians was St. Augustine (354-430 AD). It became >apparent to St. Augustine, like it did to the Greeks, >that all things came from other things. If the material >substance of the universe had not been created then this >substance must have always been. If the substance of the >universe has always been then time had no beginning. >Every event is precipitated by a prior event. Without >a first event everything that could have happened should >have happened in the infinite past. For current time to >have meaning there must have been a first event or moment >of creation. St. Augustine used a Latin word to describe >this creation process called exhihilo. This word means to >create something out of nothing. St. Augustine concluded >that an infinite source or prime mover created the >universe exhihilo. This concept was developed to an apex >by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). He came up with a line >of reasoning in his arguments from design. These arguments >were based on the idea that the substance of the universe >required a divine origin. > >PROPOSED THEORY > > Today scientists are studying the problem of creation. >Science does not address the question of who created the >universe. Scientists have rules that they work by called >conservation laws. Some of these conservation laws are the >conservation of momentum, energy, and charge. Science >addresses the question of how the universe formed within >the framework of possibilities allowed by these laws. >According to current theory and experimental evidence these >conservation laws always hold true. In more precise >language, they are invariant with respect to time and >location. > The scientific principle of the conservation of >energy simply restates the old idea that something cannot >come from nothing. According to the accepted theory of >the big bang the universe sprang from nothing 15 billion >years ago. In 1973 the great contemporary scientific >thinker Edward P. Tryon demonstrated how the universe could >have formed without violating the principle of the >conservation of energy. He said that the total energy of >the universe is zero. > 1 >He said that the positive energy of the things we observe >is balanced by a negative gravitational energy. Therefore >the creation was formed without violating the principle of >the conservation of energy. Let's explore his idea. When >something falls it loses gravitational potential energy. >The relationship between potential energy and position, in >a force field, is given by equation #1. >(NOTE: In case your mailer does not line the text up like >mine does the following equations are only simple integrals.) > > / > | -> -> >/\ PE = W = - | F . dr Eq #1 > g | g > / > > >According to Tryon's theory if an object were to fall into >the universe from an infinite distance away the >gravitational potential energy the object lost would equal >the total mass energy of the object. This is stated >mathematically in equation #2: > > / rad of univ > 2 | -> -> >mc = - | F . dr Eq #2 > | g > /infinity I would be happier if this were ammended as follows: / rad of univ 2 | -> -> mc + Ek = - | F . dr | g /infinity Where Ek is the kinetic energy of the object, on arrival at the edge of the universe. Admittedly, this would be a very small correction compared to the energy in the mass itself, however it does remove an annoying loose end. If the model is run is reverse, (i.e. what we actually observe in the real universe), then both mass and kinetic energy are continually being converted into gravitational potential energy as the universe expands. This makes me wonder how the conversion is balanced between mass conversion, and kinetic energy conversion. Does all the kinetic energy get converted first, then the mass? Does all the kinetic energy get converted, then the whole thing start to collapse again with real mass still around? Does some portion of the mass get converted to gravitational potential energy, at the same time as kinetic energy is converted? And if so, how much? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 14 20:30:14 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02723 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 20:29:35 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02698 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 20:29:27 -0700 Received: from dialup-a31.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a31.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.31]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id NAA02545 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 13:26:25 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199510150326.NAA02545 tornado.netspace.net.au> From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sparks in Water Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 02:29:52 GMT Organization: Improving References: <951014215835_102021.3045_EHT30-1 CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 14 Oct 95 17:58:36 EDT, you wrote: >A simple test to see if there is any spark initiated over unity behavior in >water is to drill a 27/64" diameter hole about 1 1/2" deep in a short piece of >1" or better, diameter steel round stock. Run in a 1/4" internal pipe thread for >a good fit for a standard automotive spark plug, fill with water, set gap at one >to two thousands of an inch, Charge a 10,000 microfarad capacitor to about 150 >volts (about 110 joules) switch it onto the plug and do some calorimetry. > >More fun? > >FJS > > So what _does_ happen when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? :-) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 14 22:16:23 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22098 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 22:15:53 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA22087 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 22:15:48 -0700 Received: from net-1-210.austin.eden.com (net-1-210.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.210]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id AAA02347; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 00:15:42 -0500 Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 00:15:42 -0500 Message-Id: <199510150515.AAA02347 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com (vortex-l) From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: Scott Little -- CETI yeti? X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:55 AM 10/14/95, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: >Hey Scott Little -- now that Miley and company have duplicated CETI >(as has Cravens and Klein) is there yet any chance that you could >get ahold of one of these devices and put it through its paces? > >I haven't bugged you about this for several months, so consider yourself >nagged. :-) I'd like to....and there may actually come a chance soon. We're talking to them about some kind of cooperation. I certainly have doubts about the CETI cell, despite the huge o-u it shows. I've heard that their cell works with many "active" metals...Pd, Fe, Cr, etc. Seems improbable doesn't it? I worry about the added complexity of having the electrolyte pumped around continuously. Right this minute, I'm preparing a serious attempt to perform an experiment similar to Piantelli's. A Ni rod in a H atmosphere. Much more practical as a usable energy source if it can be made to work. - Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 15 00:02:47 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08952 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 00:01:45 -0700 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA08943 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 00:01:39 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id DAA09151; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 03:00:19 -0400 Date: 15 Oct 95 02:59:25 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Solution and Cavitation Heat Message-ID: <951015065924_102021.3045_EHT47-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: When one looks at the 75,000 Joule/gram-mole heat of solution of hydrochloric acid (HCl) in water or 0.8 ev/ HCl-H2O molecule it gives one pause to wonder if the dissolving of HCl in water is actually dumping a proposed metastable energy state. This works out to about 2,000 BTU per pound of water which is about what the cavitation effect devices do at a good energy return above input. Even when one takes a water solution of HCL and adds it to more water it gives off more heat as though the HCl was catalyzing the dumping of metastable energy states in the water. Chlorinating water gives a reaction; Cl2 + H2O = HCl + HClO, which under light goes through steps that results in liberation of oxygen from the water with the buildup of HCl, possibly explaining why knowledge of the source and history of the water used in the experiments is important,and why the results of so many different experiments are so inconsistent. Other solvents, particularly ionic solvents could cause the same problems. Even CO2 which becomes ionic in water could have a pronounced effect on experimental results. F.J.Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 15 07:08:28 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15465 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 07:07:59 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA15445 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 07:07:52 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA05041 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Sun, 15 Oct 1995 10:07:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199510151407.AA05041 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Sun, 15 Oct 1995 10:07:44 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: whyzpe Date: Sun, 15 Oct 95 10:07:08 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Epri report TR-104196 states on page #1 "nucler reaction products commensurate with the excess heat have not yet been observed" On page iii of the abstract the same report states: "Tritium, neutrons, or gamma rays are not quantitatively correlated with the excess power production observed." We must begin to look at ZPE as a possible source of the energy. I can see by the comments that a lot of you don't understand ZPE theory. I will teach you. I developed some of it myself. ZPE energy production requires a dense,cool plasma; a factor of ten more dense than solid matter. The plasma's electrons must condense and the plasma must not deionize. The electron temperature of the clusters must be cooler than the plasma temperature.(An unstabe and non-equlibrium conditio) Under these conditions the Casimir force will pull the electrons together producing the desired condensation. I figure, If you can believe my figuring, that pressures of 20,000 atm or greater ar needed to induce the condensation. This kind of pressure is produced in palladium electrodes. Pressures of this magnitude are also produced magnetically by lightning strokes. F.J.Stenger has a model of lightning and this model shows that this kind of pressure can be generated in a lightning stroke. Do cavitational devices like the Griggs machine also produce the required pressure and low temperature and non-equlibrium plasma. I don't know. The sun is a high pressure plasma. Why don't steller models show an excess of power beyond nuclear? I don't know. Why is not Jupiter glowing red with ZRE energy. I don't know? ZPE theory is much more than a theory of excess energy. It tells us how to build a levitational device. It tells us how to control gravity. It tells us how to build non-eletrochemical ZPE energy machines. Stay tuned. Let's keep the discussion going. Frank Z From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 15 08:53:23 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00204 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:52:53 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA00187 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:52:47 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA21608; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 11:51:30 -0400 Date: 15 Oct 95 11:49:18 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Warm Fusion? Message-ID: <951015154918_102021.3045_EHT47-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In sifting through all of the hype on Hot and Cold fusion, it seems that possibly the best shot for meaningful energy gain is to run sparks through D2O hydrostatically prepressurized to about three thousand atmospheres or so and operated at just below the critical temperature of duo. The use of consumable platinum electrodes that can be recovered and reformed to original condition for reuse would be practical. A recombining catalyst for the D2 - O2 enclosed in the pressurized spark chamber along with a servo system for optimizing the platinum-platinum sparking electrodes would also keep the system simple. Molecular sieves would handle the O2, H2, and He separation. The thought is, that the high pressure cavity created by the sparks occurring at up to a million per second would give a favorable cross section at several hundred ev "plasma" temperature (several million degrees K). FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 15 09:09:05 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02662 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 09:08:29 -0700 Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.7.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA02653 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 09:08:24 -0700 Received: by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id MAA07600; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 12:07:08 -0400 Date: 15 Oct 95 12:06:00 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: The Meyer process Message-ID: <951015160559_100060.173_JHB28-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You may be interested to hear of the latest progress of Stan Meyer's high voltage discharge electrolysis process. As some of you may know, there was a project in Eire to produce a small furnace using his system. I have been keeping a close eye on that, and the last I reported was that the Irish Engineers had obtained detailed design drawings from Meyer, and that they had assembled their components and sent them off to the States for SM to incorporate his secret bits, test it and return the whole thing in full working order. You've guessed it - they never saw hide nor hair of their L250,000 baby again, and they are slightly cross!! I won't bore you with the details of the "yes I did - no I didn't" cross-talk over the ocean, but it seems to have followed the well-worn path of many of our ou experiments. The inventor gets annoyed with the potential developers and they fall out of bed when the cash seems to have run out. The latest story is that SM has convinced a major producer of railway engines to fund a 3000 HP Diesel loco to run on H2O using SM's technology. Also, a well known drinks and candy manufacturer in the UK is about to spend its hard- earned cash on a trial. I can think of a better type of trial for certain types of con men! Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 15 08:54:43 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00387 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:54:09 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA00372 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:54:04 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA02113 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Sun, 15 Oct 1995 11:53:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199510151553.AA02113 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Sun, 15 Oct 1995 11:53:58 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: rules Date: Sun, 15 Oct 95 11:53:21 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 I hope you have enjoyed my Genesis paper. Many of you may be inclined to jump to the conclusion that I am an amateur and don't know much. Many of you may believe that ZPE theory is a theory of magic. Yes I am an amateur but I can understand ZPE. Why? because it is not based on the rules of magic...It is based on three principles. They are: 1. The principle of the conservation of energy. 2. The principle of the conservation of momentum 3. A belief that nature is built around underlying symmetries. These three principles are the foundation of modern science. I have applied them without exception. Take the first of my papers you have seen; the Genesis paper. It applies the principle of the conservation of energy without exception. Some of you say, "What do we know about the birth of the universe. Frank Z is a little loose." I say we know something. That something is that ENERGY WAS CONSERVED. I don't throw out the rules at a wim. I stick with them. I will send out some more papers over the next week or so. Read them. Stick to the rules of the game..no matter what....And we all begin to see the light. Frank Z From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 15 13:13:27 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19266 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 13:12:56 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA19238 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 13:12:49 -0700 Received: from net-2-121.austin.eden.com (net-2-121.austin.eden.com [204.177.170.121]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id PAA20863 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 15:12:45 -0500 Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 15:12:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199510152012.PAA20863 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: electron clusters X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 10:07 AM 10/15/95, Frank Z: > Under these conditions the Casimir force will pull the electrons > together producing the desired condensation. OK, at this point you've created an electron cluster that has ZPF energy in it. This is because the ZPF did work on the electrons in pushing them together against the Coulomb repulsion. So we've succeeded in extracting energy from the ZPF...but is it in a usable form? Presumably this energy is stored "in" the charge cluster...actually it is probably stored around the charge cluster in the very intense electric field that would exist around it. Since the ZPF is inexorably ubiquitous, it is difficult to imagine a way to get the charge cluster to disrupt and release this energy without having to put the same amount of energy into disrupting it. In other words, just the formation of a charge cluster is nothing special (e.g. all atoms contain a similar cluster...their nucleus). What is needed is a non-conservative way to get the ZPF energy out of the cluster. - Scott Little "Ex vacuo omne" EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 15 15:25:40 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA17556 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 15:24:56 -0700 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA17519 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 15:24:44 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id PAA05685; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 15:24:43 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 15:24:42 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters In-Reply-To: <199510152012.PAA20863 matrix.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 15 Oct 1995, Scott Little wrote: > Since the ZPF is inexorably ubiquitous, it is difficult to imagine a way to > get the charge cluster to disrupt and release this energy without having to > put the same amount of energy into disrupting it. > > In other words, just the formation of a charge cluster is nothing special > (e.g. all atoms contain a similar cluster...their nucleus). What is needed > is a non-conservative way to get the ZPF energy out of the cluster. One of Ken Shoulders' patents is for a 'drift tube' device purported to have overunity energy throughput. By simply launching the electron- clusters down the axis of a single layer coil, he extracts a few mW of RF, and when the electron-clusters touch the end plate, they are spontaneously distrupted, giving off flashes of light and x-rays (and heating the plate.) This info wasn't in the patent, this was from old conversations on Keelynet. Yet, as you say, why should this be overunity? And why shouldn't the same thing happen when an ion beam is used in the same apparatus? But maybe the same thing DOES happen with charged normal matter. If researchers don't usualy look for anomalous energy output, they won't make measurements to detect it, and if it's not an amazingly huge output, it might be entirely overlooked. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 15 16:31:29 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01369 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 16:30:59 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01291 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 16:30:39 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA09089 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Sun, 15 Oct 1995 19:30:19 -0400 Message-Id: <199510152330.AA09089 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Sun, 15 Oct 1995 19:30:19 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: FZNIDARSIC aol.com To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: clusters Date: Sun, 15 Oct 95 19:29:43 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> FZNIDARSIC AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 19:12:20 -0400 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com To: p8156 memo.gpuc.com Subject: Fwd: clusters --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: clusters Date: 95-10-15 19:12:00 EDT From: FZNIDARSIC To: FZNIDARSIC Scott...Do you work with H. E. Puthoff? A question seems to be how do electron clusters adsorb energy. From my book on a disk below. The process of evanescence. Criss to you for free. Many think evanscence is a process only of reflection. This reflection process is not perfect it is also a process of adsorption. Why do you think they charge the exhaust on the stealth bomber..to move the wavelength of evanscence below the radar band. Here goes. the zero point application of the process. APPENDIX ON EVANESCENCE In chapter three it was mentioned the dense plasmas absorb energy through the process of evanescence. The process of evanescence will now be explained. Plasmas possess a natural frequency. This frequency is given by Equation #7. 0.5 Natural frequency = (NQ/(e m )) eq #7 o -e N = the electron density in electrons/cubic meter Q= the electric charge in coulombs m = the mass of the electron in kg e e = the permittivity of free space o All waves with frequences higher that the natural frequency of the plasma will pass through the plasma. All waves with frequency lower than the natural frequency of the plasma will reflect off of or be absorbed into the plasma. (Many scientists acknowledge only the reflection process. This process of reflection is not perfect, some of the energy is absorbed into the plasma.) This process of reflection and adsorption is known as evanescence. The ionosphere, for example, is a plasma. The lower regions of the ionosphere are weakly ionized. Only low frequency radio waves bounce off of the lower ionosphere. A. M. radio stations operate at low frequences. A.M. radio transmissions bounce off of the lower ionosphere and can be received over moderate distances. Higher frequency short wave transmissions pass through the lower ionosphere. They are not reflected until they encounter the heavily ionized upper regions of the ionosphere. Reflections from great height of the upper ionosphere travel longer distances before returning to earth. Short wave radio transmissions can be received around the world. High frequency F.M., V.H.F., and U.H.F. transmission pass unabated though the densest layers of the ionosphere. They cannot be received at distances that over the horizon. When Glenn's Mercury capsule touched the upper atmosphere a plasma fire ball formed around his capsule. This plasma was dense enough to prevent the transmission of his U.H.F. radio signals. For a period of time, known as the blackout interval, no radio signals were received from the plummeting spacecraft. The anxiety during the blackout period was intense. Prior to reentry, instruments had shown that Glenn's heat shield had become loose. After the blackout phase of the reentry, there was was a great relief when his radio transmissions were once again received. N.A.S.A. shortened the black out period on later flights by employing higher frequency radio transmitters. The super-high-frequency waves from these new transmitters could penetrate all but the most dense plasmas. The black out period was greatly shortened by the use of these higher frequency transmitters. Zero point energies have have frequencies shorter than any in the radio frequency spectrum. The lowest frequency zero point energies (Fermi levels) are found in metallic plasmas. These zero point energies posses frequences in the mid-infrared band. For a plasma to absorb wave energy in the mid-infrared band its electron density in would have to exceed the electron density of solid matter. (greater than 10 exp 27 electrons/ cubic meter) An electron 11 condensation is required to produce electron densities this great. NOTES 1. Edward P. Tryon, NATURE VOL 246, December 14, 1973. 2. Technically, nothing can exist outside of the universe. The universe is a closed structure in which, according to the cosmological principle, all positions are equivalent. The model presented in this paper, in which an object falls from an infinite distance away to the edge of the universe, does not represent reality. The model does, however, allow for the calculation of the negative gravitational potential shared by all objects within the universe. 3. Fritz Zwicky proposed that 90% of the matter in the universe is "dark" in 1933. He came to this conclusion from the study of clusters of galaxies. Vera Rubin confirmed that 90% of the universe's matter is composed of the so called "dark matter" from her study of the rotational speeds of galaxies in 1977. 4. A satellite gyroscope experiment actually measured the gravitomagnetic field. Schwinger "Einstein's Legacy" Page 218, The Scientific American Library. 5. The gensis process may currently be creating particles in inter-steller space. "Energy from Particle Creation in Space" Cold Fusion (12/94) No. 5, p. 12; Wolff, Milo 6. Paul Davies and John Gribbin, "THE MATTER MYTH" Tuchstone publishing 1992. 7. Working with artificial ball lightning. Hal Puthoff, PHYSICAL REVIEW A, March 1989 Hal Puthoff, D.C. Cole, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, August 1993. Hal Puthoff, OMNI, "Squeezing Energy From a Vacuum" 2/91 8. A ball lightning experiment in Japan appeared to produce excess energy. Y.H. Ohtsuki & H. Ofuruton, NATURE VOL 246, March 14, 1991 9. Dr. McKurbe's cold fusion experiments at SRI in the USA continue to produce unexplained excess energy. Jerry E. Bishop, The WALL STREET JOURNAL 7/14/94. 10. Andrei Sakharov SOVIET PHYSICS DACKLADI Vol 12, May 1968, Page 1040, 11. Puthoff manufactured very dense plasma while working with Jupiter Technologies 1990. "Compendium of Candensed-Charge Technology Documentation" Jupiter Technologies 1989.  From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 15 19:23:56 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA06521 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 19:23:20 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA06504 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 19:23:15 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id WAA19300; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 22:21:50 -0400 Date: 15 Oct 95 22:20:02 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Meyer the Menace Message-ID: <951016022001_72240.1256_EHB168-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: >INTERNET:Vortex-L eskimo.com Thank you Norman for telling us the latest depressing news about Meyer. What a scoundrel he is! I cannot tell whether his machine works or not, but even if I knew I knew for a fact that it does I would still say he is a menace to society, and a threat to the good name of every scientist working in the field of over unity. I agree that the best "trial" for him would be in a court, not a laboratory. This in spite of the fact that I have a lingering suspicion his gadget works, primarily because I find it difficult to imagine he has fooled Admiral Griffin. Here we have a case of a man who may be a good scientist, a great inventor, and a con-man -- all rolled up in one. There have been others. I recall that Galileo fleeced the Italian government on military contracts for telescopes. Edison was followed around all of his life by outraged creditors and vendors. While working on the incandescent light he purchased the most advanced vacuum pump available. It was a prototype machine custom manufactured by a university. I think they gave it to him at cost. In any case, I distinctly remember reading that they were still trying to collect on it long after delivery. There are many other reports like that. Since Edison was already rich and famous and since J. P. Morgan was picking up the tab for this research he must have stiffed the university out of habit, not necessity. - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 15 22:21:12 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12370 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 22:20:29 -0700 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA12353 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 22:20:24 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13433 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 01:19:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 01:19:06 -0400 Message-ID: <951016011906_124828507 mail06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Scott and I continue to have this running discussion as to whether it takes the same amount of energy to disrupt a ZPE-condensed-charge cluster as is stored in it. I think not, in the same sense that it does not take the same amount of energy to cause a balloon to burst with a pin as is stored. All it takes is a concentrated imbalance of force at one location (as in the pin-pricked balloon) and the stored energy itself will do the rest of the job. What think the rest of you? Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 15 23:12:18 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21371 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 23:11:48 -0700 Received: from skypoint.com (mirage.skypoint.com [199.86.32.7]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA21354 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 23:11:43 -0700 Received: by skypoint.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0t4iks-0005EfC; Mon, 16 Oct 95 01:10 CDT Message-Id: Subject: Re: Scott Little -- CETI yeti? To: vortex-l eskimo.com (vortex-l) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 01:10:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "John Logajan" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1508 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: little eden.com (Scott Little) writes: > I'm preparing a serious attempt to perform an experiment similar to > Piantelli's. A Ni rod in a H atmosphere. Much more practical as > a usable energy source if it can be made to work. Cool. But I was under the impression that Piantelli had some "trigger" secrets up his sleeve. Keep us posted. (Hint: My web page gets 500 hits a week -- so feel free to send me scanned images (or images to scan) etc of CF experiments for publication there.) > I certainly have doubts about the CETI cell, despite the huge o-u it shows. > I've heard that their cell works with many "active" metals...Pd, Fe, Cr, > etc. Seems improbable doesn't it? I worry about the added complexity of > having the electrolyte pumped around continuously. Unlike Piantelli, however, (or has he been verified??) the CETI system has independently been verified by at least three people; Dennis Cravens -- Veron College, Bruce Klein -- Bechtel, and now Miley at the U of Mich. I suggested in s.p.f, by the way, that the CETI mechanical pump be replaced by a gravity feed system (raise the reservoir to the needed height to provide the appropriate feed pressure.) You can't get more fundamental than that. And you have a built in excuse to hire fetching maidens to keep the cisterns full. :-) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 03:57:49 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25546 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 03:57:35 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25533 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 03:57:31 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id GAA00797; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 06:56:15 -0400 Date: 16 Oct 95 06:52:49 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Various Message-ID: <951016105249_100433.1541_BHG69-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Jed, On Edison, "... he must have stiffed the university out of habit, not necessity." Nice one, Jed. On Meyer, Norman mentioned to me (and perhaps felt it inappropriate to post) that the UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has apparently warned firms here to avoid Meyer ... Hal, I'm hardly competent to comment on the possibility of releasing ZPE, but I'd have thought that a discontinuity would be more or less essential - as in the balloon analogy. Or something analogous to a heat-pump. What seems clear enough to me is that we now have the first apparently secure and easily reproducible CF system in the various implementation of the bead technique, so the race shuould now be on to find products. If none are found, then alternative ideas need to be investigated. ZPF-type theories seem to be about the only 'runners' we have at present - IF no commensurate nuclear products are found. Scott, The idea of your trying the Ni/H system fills me with dread. I thought that Piantelli had - after his initial success - had big trouble with both materials and with his trigger mechanism. The Pd-bead idea on the other hand seems to have worked (as John Logajan points out) for several people. Also, Piantelli - we hear - is not happy to talk about his methods, and I doubt whether his patent will be much help. The people who've done the bead trick would - I feel - be willing to supply beads. Well, CETI might or might not, but U Ill would? So you get the beads and the know-how. John writes, "I suggested in s.p.f, by the way, that the CETI mechanical pump be replaced by a gravity feed system (raise the reservoir to the needed height to provide the appropriate feed pressure.) You can't get more fundamental than that. And you have a built in excuse to hire fetching maidens to keep the cisterns full. :-) " This is not essential for Scott's purposes, since the pressure difference (and therefore the power to drive fluid through the cell) can be measured easily. Nice idea, though, especially the maidens (if such are still available). Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 04:46:59 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00856 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 04:46:58 -0700 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA00842 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 04:46:54 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA29198; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 07:45:37 -0400 Date: 16 Oct 95 07:44:45 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: St Petersburg news Message-ID: <951016114445_100433.1541_BHG2-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Dr Onoochin has just returned to St Petersburg, and I've just received his message: "First of all, I would like to say that Yusmar installation is ready for test. I called to Drs. Fedorovich and Sudakov and they [told] me about it. Please, say when you can [come] here. According to the words of Fedorovich your invitation is legal from Oct. 26 to Nov. 9." "About bypass. It follow from the context of Moldovian Yusmar's patent that the bypass pipe is intended for more safety and to smooth sudden changes of the pressure." "Now [...] we have more information about Yusmar and the devices like it." My response is obvious - that we want the testing to start! And I'm going to chase up the other matters he mentions. Naturally, I can't even think about going there until we know more. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 05:58:46 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10415 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 05:58:42 -0700 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA10368 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 05:58:30 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id FAA16983; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 05:58:28 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 05:58:27 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters In-Reply-To: <951016011906_124828507 mail06.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 16 Oct 1995 Puthoff aol.com wrote: > Scott and I continue to have this running discussion as to whether it takes > the same amount of energy to disrupt a ZPE-condensed-charge cluster as is > stored in it. I think not, in the same sense that it does not take the same > amount of energy to cause a balloon to burst with a pin as is stored. All it > takes is a concentrated imbalance of force at one location (as in the > pin-pricked balloon) and the stored energy itself will do the rest of the > job. What think the rest of you? Wouldn't the situation be analogous to fission, where the nucleus isn't very stable, and when disrupted puts out much more energy than is put in by the triggering particle? Couldn't a charge-cluster be made so large that the tinyest perturbation will distrupt it (analogous to nucleii with atomic number far above uranium)? The real question is whether energy is conserved through a cycle of creation and destruction of a charge cluster. Is a charge-cluster device a source of excess heat? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 07:16:40 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26075 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 07:15:56 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA26018; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 07:15:39 -0700 Received: from net-1-163.austin.eden.com (net-1-163.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.163]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id JAA00912; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:15:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:15:30 -0500 Message-Id: <199510161415.JAA00912 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: electron clusters X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:58 AM 10/16/95, BillB wrote: >Wouldn't the situation be analogous to fission, where the nucleus isn't >very stable, and when disrupted puts out much more energy than is put in by >the triggering particle? This does seem possible. >The real question is whether energy is conserved through a cycle of >creation and destruction of a charge cluster. Is a charge-cluster device >a source of excess heat? We have tried to measure excess heat from charge clusters without success _so far_. A big problem is getting any _significant_ fraction of the input energy to go into making charge clusters...most if it goes into a plume of plasma that is not o-u. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 08:41:38 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16209 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 08:41:17 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16202 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 08:41:13 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA27193; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 11:39:54 -0400 Date: 16 Oct 95 11:38:34 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Gas phase Ni/H Message-ID: <951016153833_100433.1541_BHG75-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Scott, Very interested to see your comments on the Piantelli patent. Gene just passed me a comment from Srinivasan to the effect that this patent is full of detail - just as you say. Fascinating. Good luck indeed. And I do agree, if it works why bother with liquids and such - I've always seen the Ni/H system as ideal - if it works as advertised! Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 22:31:58 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22747 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 11:31:04 -0700 Received: from big.aa.net (root big.aa.net [204.157.220.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA02284 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:51:45 -0700 Received: from s3c2p6.aa.net (s3c2p6.aa.net [204.157.220.154]) by big.aa.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA26773 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:51:43 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:51:43 -0700 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199510161651.JAA26773 big.aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mwm aa.net (Michael Mandeville) Subject: Re: Theory and all that Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >they see when they look at the CETI cell? Oblivion. The end of their dreams. A >dead halt to everything that gives their lives meaning. They are seeing proof >that their careers, their social status, their income, and everything they >have worked for in their adult lives will soon evaporate. How can they face >that? How could anyone face it?!? They will -- they *must* -- deny this >painful truth the same way the carriage builder did in 1908, and the mainframe >computer builders did in 1980. You could hand those hot fusion scientists a >ready-made theory on a platter. They could be *totally convinced* that the >phenomenon is real, just as the mainframe builders knew that microcomputers >worked in 1980. It would make no difference, they would still react the way >they do. People always go through a painful stage of denial before events >force them to face the truth. This is distressing. It is the price we must pay >for progress. > >- Jed > A wonderfully written essay. I would like to post it into a web archive page. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 22:45:41 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13325 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:37:26 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA12300 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:31:41 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA17608 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:23:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199510161723.NAA17608 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:38:44 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Trolling for Klingons Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ron McFee writes: > ... > >If this effect is not nuclear, i.e. we can't see any transformation products >after producing large amounts of energy; then I promise to rethink my >philosophy. One of the problems with so called theoretical physics is that >it is rooted in modern quantum mechanics and relativity which even after ninety >years still has not become part of the intellectual machinery of the >average educated intelligent even technically trained person, but is still >mostly the monopoly of trained theoretical physicists. Even some >experimental physicists sometime feel uncomfortable with some arcane >portions of theories of superconductivity or quantum electrodynamics. Frankly, I do think it is the education system that is largely at fault. Yes, these theories are complex and challenging to ordinary intuition, but until only very recently none of the essential ideas of these theories have been introduced to students until very late in their university level education. There have been an increasing number of popularizations (especially of quantum mechanics) but these have emphasised the more unusual esoteric parts, often even in the context of mystical religious traditions. Hardly the way to treat such wonderful intellectual achievements! >What is necessary is not some complicated theory with fancy terms and >mathematics but simply an understanding of "what's happening," something >that any intelligent business person, politician, and/or engineer can >understand. What you are talking about here, I think, is "intuition". It is true that quantum mechanics, as it has developed and as it has been taught for the last 50 years or so, has taken a very non-intuitive path that depends to a very large extent on difficult to attain mathematical sophistication. But this does not need to be the case. There are presentations of quantum mechanics which are at least as equally intuitive as classical mechanics. It is possible to talk about particles as if they were concrete objects like billard balls on a table and that have an existence independent of observation. All that is necessary is to admit a somewhat strange new quantum force that affects their motion. Louis de Broglie initiated such an approach in 1927 (Solvay conference), at the same time that the other more widely taught but significantly less understood approach was developed (Copenhagen interpretation). David Bohm elaborated on de Broglie's idea in 1953 to produce a theory that encompasses all of modern quantum mechanics while retaining the natural intutive character. Einstein reportedly dismissed the de Broblie/Bohm approach as simply "too cheap", without clearly articulating any objections to it. Mean while, John Bell utilized the intuitive appeal of this approach to yield a striking consequence of quantum mechanics which ultimately proved the Einstein/Podolski/Rosen critism of quantum mechanics to be wrong. I really don't understand why even today, Bohm's approach is barely mentioned in quantum mechanics education even at the advanced levels. > So let us can the mumbo jumbo until we know whats going on. But what you have called "mumbo jumbo" is an essential part of trying to "know whats going on". Trying to fit theory to experiment is what leads to new, better experiments which leads to more accurate theories ... etc. >Synergy, zpe, shrinking hydrogen atoms, tight Bohr orbitals, wiggly-wigglies, >hoping neutrons, lasing phonons, unitary quantum theory, Schwinger fusion? >One certainty, they are not all correct. > Agreed. >... > > It is time to change the political climate and gain government support >for developing the new "hydrogen energy" whatever it is. (I still think it >is Schwinger fusion.) > Could you review for us what "Schwinger fusion" is? Specifically, how does it avoid the generation of high energy radiation, while generating thermal energy in a lattice (or in a sonicly driven collapsing bubble in water)? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 22:38:51 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13249 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:37:00 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA12311 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:31:46 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA17614 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:23:25 -0400 Message-Id: <199510161723.NAA17614 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:38:48 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Solution and Cavitation Heat Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: F.J.Sparber wrote: >When one looks at the 75,000 Joule/gram-mole heat of solution of hydrochloric >acid (HCl) in water or 0.8 ev/ HCl-H2O molecule it gives one pause to wonder >if the dissolving of HCl in water is actually dumping a proposed metastable >energy state. If this were true, would you not expect some significant disagreement as to the value of the heat of solution since presumably the experimenters were not controlling for the percentage of water in the putative meta- stable state? On the other hand, it is very interesting to me to notice that you mention HCl since that is the electrolyte that Aurthur Wasserman used in his experiments with excess heat generation in cathodically treated Aluminum. [Electrochemical Method of Reducing Aluminum Oxide and Producing Additional Energy, Fusion Technology, Vol. 21, March 1992.] > >This works out to about 2,000 BTU per pound of water which is about what the >cavitation effect devices do at a good energy return above input. How do you arrive at an estimate of what cavitation effect devices yield per pound of water? > >Even when one takes a water solution of HCL and adds it to more water it gives >off more heat as though the HCl was catalyzing the dumping of metastable energy >states in the water. Suppose you plot the heat produced in a solution as a function of the amount of HCl added. Does it show any unexpected variation with the concentration such as might be produced by a catalyst? Suppose you remove the HCl from an HCl-H2O solution and then repeat the above measurement. Has the heat of solution curve changed? Would such an "HCl-cycle" be one way of recovering all of the putative stored energy from a given batch of water? > >Chlorinating water gives a reaction; Cl2 + H2O = HCl + HClO, which under light >goes through steps that results in liberation of oxygen from the water with the >buildup of HCl, possibly explaining why knowledge of the source and history of >the water used in the experiments is important,and why the results of so many >different experiments are so inconsistent. You are implying here, I think, that water can exist in various concentrations of the putative metastable species. Would not this give rise to significant variations in the calorimetry and reactions rates of a very large number of chemical reactions? Has this sort of variability and non-repeatability been observed in other types of experiments? Can you name some? Can it be shown that this variability is removed if we somehow control for this factor? Your postings continue to be provocative, but can you please provide more information? Dieter Britz has correctly noted that this type of potential explanation for the "C/F" and "O/U" effects is not fundamentally an energy source. Rather it represents a sort of heat pump. Pumping energy that is stored in water by reversing the transformation from the true ground state to the more enviromentally common form of water in its claimed meta-stable state, energy which was presumably deposited there in that form from some source such as the sun's energy or from its original primeval formation. This does not detract from its possible applications however, any more than the current applications of hydrocarbons. And further more, we do have at least one report that implied that the water in a Potapov system eventually "goes dead" and has to be replaced... Still, it does seem rather unlikely, doesn't it? More unlikely than ZPE, I don't know. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 22:38:34 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13142 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:36:30 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA12316 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:31:49 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA17618 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:23:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199510161723.NAA17618 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:38:51 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: whyzpe Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser writes: >... > > We must begin to look at ZPE as a possible source of the energy. I can > see by the comments that a lot of you don't understand ZPE theory. I > will teach you. I developed some of it myself. > > ZPE energy production requires a dense,cool plasma; a factor of ten > more dense than solid matter. The plasma's > electrons must condense and the plasma must not deionize. The > electron temperature of the clusters must be cooler than the > plasma temperature.(An unstabe and non-equlibrium conditio) > Under these conditions the Casimir force will pull the electrons > together producing the desired condensation. > I figure, If you can believe my figuring, that pressures of 20,000 > atm or greater ar needed to induce the condensation. Such pressures are easily obtained by chemical explosively induced hydrodynamic implosions such as those utilized in fission weapons. Do you think that ZPE plays a role in such devices? > This kind of pressure is produced in palladium electrodes. This has been very strongly disputed by various people. [see R. Oriani, The Physical and Metallurgical Aspects of Hydrogen in Metals, proceedings Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1994] > Pressures of this magnitude are also produced magnetically by > lightning strokes. F.J.Stenger has a model of lightning and this model > shows that this kind of pressure can be generated in a lightning > > stroke. Do cavitational devices like the Griggs machine also produce > the required pressure and low temperature and non-equlibrium plasma. > I don't know. > > The sun is a high pressure plasma. Why don't steller models > show an excess of power beyond nuclear? I don't know. > > Why is not Jupiter glowing red with ZRE energy. I don't know? Might not these observations be pointing to flaws in the basic ZPE theory? > > ZPE theory is much more than a theory of excess energy. It tells > us how to build a levitational device. It tells us how to control > gravity. It tells us how to build non-eletrochemical ZPE energy > machines. Stay tuned. Thank you, but one miracle per day (before breakfast) is enough for me! > Let's keep the discussion going. > Glad to oblige. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 22:32:40 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13194 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:36:46 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA12322 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:31:50 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA17621 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:23:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199510161723.NAA17621 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:38:53 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal Puthoff wrote: >Scott and I continue to have this running discussion as to whether it takes >the same amount of energy to disrupt a ZPE-condensed-charge cluster as is >stored in it. I think not, in the same sense that it does not take the same >amount of energy to cause a balloon to burst with a pin as is stored. All it >takes is a concentrated imbalance of force at one location (as in the >pin-pricked balloon) and the stored energy itself will do the rest of the >job. What think the rest of you? I'd like to know more about the details of the force that holds a ZPE-condensed-charge cluster together. Does it have some sort of essential non-linearity that might give rise to this "pin-pricked ballon" effect that you mention? Can you show us a possible "curve of binding energy" for a cluster? How are we to view the electrons? As classical charged particles? Or in terms of their quantum mechanical wavefunctions? What are the typical dimensions of an electron ZPE-condensed-charge cluster? How would you characterize the difference between the electron Cooper pairing that is theorized to account for superconductivity and other such effects and a ZPE-condensed-charge cluster? In particular it seems that in the usual BSC theory that although the motions of the electrons in a Cooper pair are co-ordinated, they are not (on average) really very close to each other. Can we form ZPE-condensed-charge clusters of protons/deuterons as well as electrons? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 09:52:25 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02151 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:51:16 -0700 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM (GAV.GAT.COM [192.5.166.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA00842 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:45:49 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510161645.JAA00842 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 9:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:46:46 -0800 To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: Tapping energy Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: As long as conservation of energy reigns, I don't see how it will be possible to tap any form of energy unless there exists a final state in which there is an "exhaust" that has less energy than the initial state. Access to the lower energy state might be blocked by a potential barrier. Some examples are: the inflated balloon, gasoline vapor in air, TNT, an excited lasing state, the U-235 nucleus, and two D atoms. Sometimes it takes only a little energy to overcome or break the barrier, eg the balloon, gasoline. Other times it takes a large fraction of the total energy, eg DD fusion (H-bombs are hard to make--one has to pay close attention to efficient energy usage). I am ignorant about concepts to tap ZPE energy. What is the lower energy final state? With respect to electrons into cold, dense clusters in plasmas, IMHO as a plasma physicist this is difficult to do. The components of dense plasmas equilibrate quickly due to the high rate of interparticle collisions; cold electrons in a hotter plasma are sustainable, but only if the plasma is not too dense and one can get rid of the power collisionally heating the electrons by some means, usually by radiating it away. Also, the process of condensation itself heats the electrons as they compress; again, it is necessary to have strong radiation or some other process to throw off this undesired power. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 22:31:53 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20144 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:05:30 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA19455 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:01:55 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id PAA23533; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:57:47 -0400 Date: 16 Oct 95 15:55:44 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Tapping energy Message-ID: <951016195544_102021.3045_EHT54-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: If one is off the west coast of California in a storm it's difficult to connect being tossed about on the deck of a ship to the generally perceived laws of thermodynamics. La Jolla Cove and the General Atomics lab is as close as I ever got to this situation except for a day of salmon fishing off the coast of Washington state. Michael J. Schaffer, How does one work out the thermodynamics of this energy flow? The second case is the heating of aggregate mass such as planets or stellar entities due to General Relativity or whatever the gravitational field is caused by. How do you explain the source of this enormous energy output? Do our puny laws of thermodynamics really make much difference in a sea of infinite energy? FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 22:37:22 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20611 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:07:14 -0700 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA19867 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:03:34 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01117 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:59:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:59:18 -0400 Message-ID: <951016155918_125239451 mail04.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tapping energy Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: With regard to Schaeffer's question as to higher/lower energy states if ZPE were to be tapped. Take the simple example of the Casimir plate experiment, which proves the principle of tapping the ZPE. Begin with 2 plates far apart, universe full of ZPE. ZPE density between the plates is slightly less that that outside the plates because of the somewhat restricted mode density. Therefore, radiation pressure pushing plates apart is somewhat less that that outside pushing them together, and so we have the inverse 4th-power law of attractive Casimir force (see Milonni, "Radiation Pressure from the Vacuum: Physical interpretation of the Casimir Force, Phys. Rev. A 38, 1621, 1988). As the plates move together, more interior modes are eliminated, the ZPE in those modes being converted into kinetic energy of the plates moving together, until the plates hit and turn into heat. Therefore, one would say that universe with lots of ZPE and plates far apart is metastable, decays to universe with less ZPE and plates together, leaving as exhaust less ZPE, some heat and a lump of metal from what used to be 2 separated plates; overall energy is conserved, of course. Now of course it doesn't do any good to have to pull the plates apart for the next part of the cycle, because one would have to put in as much energy as originally obtained. However, if one arranges for metastable balls of charge in a plasma or metstable bubbles in a turbulent fluid to collapse by this process, and doesn't expend energy to recycle, then one is ahead (as in hot fusion) if the energy it takes to "ignite" the process is less than what one gets out of the process. Principle looks promising; what we need is a workable engineering embodiment. Hal Puthoff aol.com From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 17:50:43 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA28489 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:50:23 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA27667 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:46:41 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA09786 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:46:00 -0400 Message-Id: <199510170046.AA09786 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:46:00 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: step2zpe Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 20:45:22 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> FZNIDARSIC AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:24:31 -0400 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com To: p8156 memo.gpuc.com Subject: step2zpe I can tell from the many questions like. Like, "Does ZPE come rushing in from the 4th dimension" and "How can energy by liberated from the lowest ground state" That the philosophy of ZPE is not understood. In my first paper GENESIS, I showed that the positive energy of the universe is equivalent to its negative gravitational potentail. I advised "Think energy conservation" I will now bring you closer to home and show how distant remote regions of the universe couple with local matter linking the gravitational potential of the universe the the event right in front of you. I advise when reading this paper, "Think the conservation of momentum and symmetry." Sorry to say I cannot transmitt the nice pictures that come with my book on a disk. From my book to a disk to you Bill Page for free. TIME LIKE INTERACTIONS AT A DISTANCE Positive local energy is balanced by the remote gravitational potential energy of the universe. In the nineteenth century, Ernst Mach (1838-1916) proposed that inertial results from the influence of distant matter in the universe. For example, spinning matter experiences a centripetal force. Mach maintained that fixed local matter would also experience a centripetal force if the universe started to spin around it. The argument commonly used to dispel the idea that distant objects produce local effects is based on the velocity of light. Essentially this argument asserts that no influence can travel faster than the speed of light. Given that distant regions of the universe are millions of light years away, these regions could not possibly influence local phenomena. If Edward Tryon's supposition is correct and local energy is balanced by the negative gravitational potential of the universe, local phenomena must be influenced by distant matter. The validity of Mach's principle will now be demonstrated. For the sake of argument let's first assume that forces propagate instantaneously. The movement of local matter, in such a system, immediately affects distant regions of the universe. All forces are equal and opposite. Momentum is always conserved. No additional forces, other than the original exchange forces, are required. In the real universe forces do not propagate instantaneously. It takes time for the gravitational field of matter to establish itself throughout space. Moving matter immediately experiences the force produced by the established gravitational field of other matter. The field of the moving matter requires a finite amount of time to propagate outward. For a a period of time, distant matter will continue to be attracted to the moved matter's old position. During this period, a single force is not capable of conserving the system's momentum. Additional forces are required to bring about the conservation of momentum. Returning to chapter 1, Faraday discovered that a moving electrical charge generates a magnetic field. Similarly, Einstein's equations demonstrate that moving matter generates a graviotomagnetic field. The magnitude of the magnetic field produced by the movement of an electrical charge is proportional to the charge's velocity. If a moving electron passes through a changing electrical field, a second magnetic field is produced. The magnitude of this second field is proportional to the rate of change of the external electrical field. A force is produced through the interaction of these two magnetic fields. This additional force balances the momentum of the system. A similar interaction takes place between the gravitomagnetic fields in a gravitational system. 4 In a system consisting of moving force producing bodies momentum is conserved through the introduction of additional forces. Faraday expected that a static magnetic field would impose a continuous electrical potential. He discovered that only varying magnetic fields produced electrical potentials. Faraday did not know why the electromagnetic interaction was coupled with time. We now know that the element of time is required in order to conserve momentum within a universe in which forces propagate at finite velocities. An accelerating system will now be examined. A second new force is required to balance the the momentum in an accelerating system. Returning to chapter #1, in an electrical system this force is carried by the induced electrical field. In a gravitational system this force is carried by an induced gravitational field. Acceleration results from an unbalanced force. The acceleration produces an induced gravitational field. This induced gravitational field carries a momentum opposite to that of the accelerated matter. This field propagates outward and eventually transfers this momentum to every bit of matter in the universe. An equal and opposite force is eventually imposed upon the universe. The force imparted to the universe (Equation #4) must be equal and opposite to the local force. Force = Force Eq. #4 (univ) (local) The relationship between force and gravity was derived in chapter one (Chapter #1 Equation #15). This relationships has yielded many answers in the first two chapters of this book. Substituting the relationship into the left side of Equation #4 yields Equation #5. The relationship between force and gravity once again reveals another secret of the universe. The left side of Equation #5 describes the force that is imparted on the universe by acceleration of a local mass. The local force of acceleration is expressed as the change in momentum with respect to time (dp/dt). Force imparted to the universe = Local force of acceleration 2 (G/c r)(Mass )(dp/dt) = (dp/dt) Eq. #5 univ If Equation #5 is correct: 2 (G/c r)(Mass ) = 1 Eq #6 univ -11 Given: G = 6.67 x 10 new-mm/kgkg 53 Mass = 2.0 x 10 kg (univ) 26 The radius of the universe (r) = 1.42 x 10 meters 8 c = 3 x 10 m/s Against all odds, given the tremendous magnitude of the numbers involved, Equation #6 does equal one. It has once again been demonstrated that gravitational linkages couple local events to remote regions of the universe. This coupling is accomplished through the introduction of additional forces. These additional forces act as a reservoir of momentum and energy. This reservoir stores energy and momentum until it can be transferred to distant regions of the universe. The positive energy of the universe is linked to its negative gravitational potential through an interplay of transient interactions. THE EXTRACTION OF ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM New scientific arguments have shown that substance can be created from nothing. These arguments have tremendous philosophical implications. If we now understand the creation process, can we now create something out of nothing? Inventors have been trying to do this for many years. In fact, the patent offices currently reject all applications for patents on such perpetual motion machines. If a gravity producing machine could be built, however, it would produce positive energy in an amount equal to the negative gravitational potential of the induced field. The central question now remaining is; what mechanism separated the negative gravitational potential and positive energy of the universe. Does this process require exotic conditions like those that prevailed during the birth of the universe? Can genesis occur today and if so, under what conditions? If, for example, a ball is thrown, the ball 5 will carry energy but that energy was imparted by the pitcher. The pitcher expended energy while ball absorbed it. In gravitational terms, the pitcher lost the negative gravitational potential that the ball gained. Is there any situation in which negative gravitational potential and energy both arise spontaneously? In the first two chapters of this book it was pointed out that gravity is produced by the application of an unbalanced force. With this fact in mind the question will now be rephrased. The new question is, is there any situation in which a spontaneous unbalanced force is imparted? All forces that are imparted by fields are spontaneous. The ball, from the prior example, will eventually be drawn to earth under the force of gravity. The total energy of the system before the fall is the sum of the mass of the earth and the mass of the ball. After the fall, the total energy of the system is the sum of the mass of the earth, the mass of the ball, and the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy gained by the ball as it fell. Current theory states that the kinetic energy gained the ball is equivalent to gravitational potential energy lost by the object. Gravitational potential energy is not real. It has no mass energy associated with it. The mass of the ball is the mass of the ball. It is not the mass of the ball plus the mass equivalent of its gravitational potential energy. The kinetic energy gained by falling matter is produced through the genesis process. Yes, genesis does take place today under quite ordinary conditions. The production of energy by letting matter fall is a one shot process. In order to get the matter to fall again, it must be lifted. The process of lifting requires energy. The gravitational force cannot by employed in a cyclical process to continuously produce excess energy. Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir proposed an experiment in which plates are placed in close proximity. (Pick Icon 3-2) An effect, known at the the Casimir effect, produces a force which tends to draw the plates together. The Casimir force is a quantum effect brought about by disturbance of the space between the plates. The Casimir force is small but measurable. Experiments involving curved mica surfaces have actually measured the Casimir force. The force varies with the reciprocal of the 6 fourth power of the distance between the plates. Dr. H. E. Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin Texas, studied this effect. He found the the Casmimir force acts 7 between groups of electrons in a plasma. In a very dense plasma the force can become large enough to overcome the repulsive electrical forces between the electrons in the plasma. A condensation of electrons results. The force distance relationship produces energy as the electrons are drawn together. The resulting condensation of electrons is very unstable. The electrons tend to get buffeted around by the thermal and zero point energies within the condensation. The condensation quickly absorbs these zero point and thermal energies through a process known as evanescence. This extra energy flings the condensation apart. Excess energy is produced in the process. This process may, in fact, be the one that produced the original mass energy of the universe. As of late several scientists have appear to be creating something (energy) from nothing. Among the most advanced is Dr. 8 Puthoff at the Institute for Advanced Study in Austin Texas. Puthoff is extracting the zero point energy of matter through the use of micro-balls of lightning. Dr. McKurbe is working on the cold fusion process under a contract with the Unites States Electric Power Research Institute. Ball lightning and cold 9 fusion both produce unexplained excess energy. Ball lightning is a dense cloud of plasma, cold fusion takes place in an electrode into which a dense plasma has been forced. This author believes that both of these processes are extracting the zero point energy of matter. According to the theories of Andrei Sakharov, the zero point energy of matter is intimately 10 linked to its gravitational field. If the zero point energy of matter is extracted a gravitational wave will be produced. This gravitational wave will reach out and retard the expansion of the universe. Some of the kinetic energy of the expansion of the universe will eventually be absorbed by this induced gravitational field. This energy will be locally available for use. This author has shown, through the application of the conservation laws and the principle of symmetry, that substance can be produced from nothing. We will have to wait and see to comes from these latest ideas. If man finally creates substance from nothingness he will have ventured into a realm that was, since antiquity, reserved for the Gods. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 21:59:47 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00976 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:59:41 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00942 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:59:30 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA07632 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Tue, 17 Oct 1995 00:59:17 -0400 Message-Id: <199510170459.AA07632 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Tue, 17 Oct 1995 00:59:17 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: clusters Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 00:58:40 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 I thank the plasma physics professionasls for their comments. I've had similar concerns. Just how do you get the electron temperature cool enough to allow the electrons to condense without deionizing the plasma? Quite a stickey wicket of a problem. Presssure alone doesn't seem to be the answer. The answer I came to quite a few years ago was to keep the plasma temperature hot and the electron temperature low. I propose that this can be done by grouping the electrons into moving clusters. The group velocity of the cluster is high enough to prevent deionization and the velocity of the electrons within the cluster relative to each other is low. To each other the electons appear cool. In an equilibrium plasma the kinetic energy of all the species within the plasma is the the same. The kinetic energy, however, may be organized..and plasma will be still be at equilibrium. I looked at placing mechanical energy into a plasma in order to produce moving clusters. The basis of Stenger's and my micorwave plasma experiments was to induce mechanical sound energy into the plamsa by making the arc sing. We never got it working. John Lazar of Los Vegas claims to be making ball lightning through ultrasonic injection. The Griggs machine works with ultrasonic energy. Are there vibrations in the electrondes of the cold fusion cells? Help me on this one. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 16 23:26:41 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18883 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 23:26:38 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18824 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 23:26:22 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id CAA06433; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 02:25:05 -0400 Date: 17 Oct 95 02:23:17 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: Whose energy? Message-ID: <951017062316_100060.173_JHB47-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: "And you have a built in excuse to hire fetching maidens to keep the cisterns full. :-)" John, Are we supposed to be conserving energy or what!? By the way folks, is there any method of eliminating the huge routing list which comes with every message via the internet? It takes up a full screen on my setup, and anything less like conservation I have yet to meet in the IT field. There must be some clever software to parse out the rubbish. Oh yes, while on that tack, would contributors please desist from including huge tracts of old messages when commenting on them. I would imagine that all who are that interested have archived past messages and really don't need more than a reference. The odd quote from a text is acceptable, but long tracts can cost the recipient both server and line time charges. TIA. Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 17 01:09:29 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06771 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 01:09:27 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA06750 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 01:09:22 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA01017; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:09:21 +0100 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:09:21 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tapping energy In-Reply-To: <951016155918_125239451 mail04.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 16 Oct 1995 Puthoff aol.com wrote: > With regard to Schaeffer's question as to higher/lower energy states if ZPE > were to be tapped. > > Take the simple example of the Casimir plate experiment, which proves the > principle of tapping the ZPE. Begin with 2 plates far apart, universe full > of ZPE. ZPE density between the plates is slightly less that that outside > the plates because of the somewhat restricted mode density. Therefore, > radiation pressure pushing plates apart is somewhat less that that outside > pushing them together, and so we have the inverse 4th-power law of attractive > Casimir force (see Milonni, "Radiation Pressure from the Vacuum: Physical > interpretation of the Casimir Force, Phys. Rev. A 38, 1621, 1988). As the > plates move together, more interior modes are eliminated, the ZPE in those > modes being converted into kinetic energy of the plates moving together, > until the plates hit and turn into heat. Therefore, one would say that > universe with lots of ZPE and plates far apart is metastable, decays to > universe with less ZPE and plates together, leaving as exhaust less ZPE, some > heat and a lump of metal from what used to be 2 separated plates; overall > energy is conserved, of course. > > Now of course it doesn't do any good to have to pull the plates apart for the > next part of the cycle, because one would have to put in as much energy as > originally obtained. However, if one arranges for metastable balls of charge > in a plasma or metstable bubbles in a turbulent fluid to collapse by this > process, and doesn't expend energy to recycle, then one is ahead (as in hot > fusion) if the energy it takes to "ignite" the process is less than what one > gets out of the process. > > Principle looks promising; what we need is a workable engineering embodiment. > > Hal Puthoff aol.com > At last an expert comes out to tell us what ZPE is; this is what I read some time ago - in fact it might have been Puthoff's papers on the subject. While you're at it, Hal, could you now give us an idea of the potential magnitude of this effect? Say you have two metal plates, very thin, each 1/2 mol, and they permanently crash together; what is the resulting heat, what are the variables we have to give numbers to, etc? This sort of info gets us out of the realm of some mystery force that might just give us infinite energy, into that of a known phenomenon that we can get a handle on to some extent. Interesting. I assume, though, that this Casimir thing has no relation to vacuum fluctuation? Now you'll see Britz the Skeptic throwing a bone to the TB's: in the above, Hal reiterates what I myself have said a number of times: you can't get energy out of a process relying on the transition from a higher state to a lower one, indefinitely, because you need either to elevate something to the higher state first (as in mechanical stress of D-charged PdD, etc), or you have to bring something back up from the lower state to repeat the cycle. Unless, of course, you permanently leave behind Mills' hydrinos, or the fused lump of metal referred to above by Hal. However, there is a way out: what we really want is to concentrate energy, not necessarily to produce it for nothing. Taking the Casimir force as an example: if, after the two metal plates have done their thing and given us a bit of heat, we take them out of our little system into the external world, and let that world pry them apart again, using the dilute energy out there, we have the makings of a cycle. What we are then doing is to bring work done in a large external volume, into our little system space, to be released as high-density energy. Something like this is done by these heat pumps some people have under their lawns. They are a sort of reverse refrigerator, trying to cool down the soil under the lawn, and releasing heat into the house. The sun works hard to warm up the soil again and this seems to be a free-lunch heating system and works very well, cutting down heating bills tremendously (you do have initial costs of course). The sun provides the lunch. All this can be done without mirrors, or violating a single known law of physics. -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 17 01:18:32 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07887 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 01:18:31 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07880 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 01:18:26 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA01159; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:18:28 +0100 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:18:27 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: whyzpe In-Reply-To: <199510161723.NAA17618 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Bill Page wrote: > FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser writes: [...] > > I figure, If you can believe my figuring, that pressures of 20,000 > > atm or greater ar needed to induce the condensation. > > Such pressures are easily obtained by chemical explosively induced > hydrodynamic implosions such as those utilized in fission weapons. > Do you think that ZPE plays a role in such devices? > > > This kind of pressure is produced in palladium electrodes. > > This has been very strongly disputed by various people. [see R. Oriani, > The Physical and Metallurgical Aspects of Hydrogen in Metals, proceedings > Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1994] While I find this "ZPE mode" (as opposed to Hal Puthoff's notions) a bit starry-eyed, in fairness I must point out that Frank is probably correct about that sort of pressure. The high overvoltages used in electrolysis, translated by F&P (1989) into a fugacity of 10^26 (widely misinterpreted as an actual pressure), was shown in the 60's by Subramyan and Bockris to lead to actual hydrogen pressures within the Pd, of about 10^4 atm, i.e. roughly what Frank says. Corrosion people know this, it causes the problem of hydrogen embrittlement of metals. You can, of course, get much higher pressures, e.g. in a diamond anvil, up to Mbar. This has been tried (they got 150 kbar), without observing any fusion. -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 17 01:42:51 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10632 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 01:42:50 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA10610 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 01:42:44 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA01277; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:42:45 +0100 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:42:45 +0100 From: Dieter Britz Message-Id: <9510170842.AA01277 kemi.aau.dk> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: whyzpe Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: That should have been the 70's, not the 60's, when the paper by Subramanyan and Bockris was published. Sorry. Dieter alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 17 06:31:56 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19904 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 06:31:53 -0700 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA19890 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 06:31:47 -0700 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id JAA03353; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:30:31 -0400 Date: 17 Oct 95 09:28:44 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Yes, please limit quotes Message-ID: <951017132843_72240.1256_EHB135-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: >INTERNET:VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM Norman Horwood requests: "would contributors please desist from including huge tracts of old messages when commenting on them." I second the motion. When you quote too much it becomes difficult to follow the discussion. Michael Mandeville asks permission to post an earlier message of mine to a web archive page. It did not seem like much of a message to me. Not worth keeping. But Thanks! How nice of you to ask! It is a good idea to ask permission to quote things, rather than just appropriating them. Let me clean up the typos and eliminate the hyperbole, and send a new version by direct e-mail. - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 17 21:53:06 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21838 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 21:52:47 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA21795 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 21:52:30 -0700 Received: from net-2-117.austin.eden.com (net-2-117.austin.eden.com [204.177.170.117]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id XAA17768 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 23:52:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 23:52:20 -0500 Message-Id: <199510180452.XAA17768 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: electron clusters X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:38 PM 10/16/95 -0400, Bill Page wrote: >I'd like to know more about the details of the force that holds a >ZPE-condensed-charge cluster together. Does it have some sort of >essential non-linearity that might give rise to this "pin-pricked ballon" >effect that you mention? Good question. Hal is the real expert here but I believe there's a good chance that it _is_ "linear" in that sense...which, as you observed, presents a problem. >Can you show us a possible "curve of binding energy" for a cluster? Well if you add the 1/r^2 Coulomb repulsion to a 1/r^4 Casimir attraction, you'll get the basic curve. It's repulsive until to get to r=1 (arbitrary small units) and then it switches to attractive. Presumably when you get really close something else kicks in and stops things at some finite size. >How are we to view the electrons? As classical charged particles? >Or in terms of their quantum mechanical wavefunctions? I always think of them as particles....Hal? >What are the typical dimensions of an electron ZPE-condensed-charge >cluster? 1 micron in diameter and containing 10^8 or more (up to 10^11) electrons. Don't know how Cooper pairs compare... >Can we form ZPE-condensed-charge clusters of protons/deuterons as well >as electrons? Well...er....the nucleus of an ordinary atom may just be a ZPE-condensed cluster of protons. The energy density of the ZPE is absolutely astounding. It is so ubiquitous that it underlies a lot of things that we usually take for granted (e.g. stability of the ground state of atoms...in other words, the reason electrons don't spiral into the nucleus). Scott - "Ex vacuo omne" From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 17 22:20:30 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26888 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:20:29 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26844 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:20:07 -0700 Received: from dialup-a8.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a8.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.8]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id PAA27726 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:17:49 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199510180517.PAA27726 tornado.netspace.net.au> From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 04:21:37 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199510152012.PAA20863 matrix.eden.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 15 Oct 1995 15:12:45 -0500, you wrote: >At 10:07 AM 10/15/95, Frank Z: > >> Under these conditions the Casimir force will pull the electrons >> together producing the desired condensation. > >OK, at this point you've created an electron cluster that has ZPF energy in >it. This is because the ZPF did work on the electrons in pushing them >together against the Coulomb repulsion. So we've succeeded in extracting >energy from the ZPF...but is it in a usable form? > >Presumably this energy is stored "in" the charge cluster...actually it is >probably stored around the charge cluster in the very intense electric field >that would exist around it. > >Since the ZPF is inexorably ubiquitous, it is difficult to imagine a way to >get the charge cluster to disrupt and release this energy without having to >put the same amount of energy into disrupting it. > >In other words, just the formation of a charge cluster is nothing special >(e.g. all atoms contain a similar cluster...their nucleus). What is needed >is a non-conservative way to get the ZPF energy out of the cluster. This aint gonna go. Try using the cluster to replace a muon in catalyzed fusion. If the origional gas used to produce the cold plasm is a nice D-T mixture, then you might get some catalyzed fusion this way. > > > - Scott Little "Ex vacuo omne" > EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 17 22:22:32 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27274 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:22:30 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26895 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:20:30 -0700 Received: from dialup-a8.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a8.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.8]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id PAA27733 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:17:54 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199510180517.PAA27733 tornado.netspace.net.au> From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fwd: clusters Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 04:21:44 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199510152330.AA09089 power.gpu.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 15 Oct 95 19:29:43 EST , you wrote: > > -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 > -> FZNIDARSIC AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 > >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 19:12:20 -0400 >From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com >To: p8156 memo.gpuc.com >Subject: Fwd: clusters > > >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >Subj: clusters >Date: 95-10-15 19:12:00 EDT >From: FZNIDARSIC >To: FZNIDARSIC >Scott...Do you work with H. E. Puthoff? A question seems to be how do >electron clusters adsorb energy. From my book on a disk below. The process >of evanescence. Criss to you for free. Many think evanscence is a process >only of reflection. This reflection process is not perfect it is also a >process of adsorption. Why do you think they charge the exhaust on the >stealth bomber..to move the wavelength of evanscence below the radar band. > Here goes. the zero point application of the process. > > > APPENDIX ON EVANESCENCE > > > > In chapter three it was mentioned the dense plasmas > > absorb energy through the process of evanescence. The > > process of evanescence will now be explained. Plasmas > > possess a natural frequency. This frequency is given by > > Equation #7. > > > 0.5 > Natural frequency = (NQ/(e m )) eq #7 > o -e > > Your dimensions don't work out. I believe your equation should be: 0.5 Natural frequency = Q(N/(e m )) o -e [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 17 22:21:58 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27182 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:21:56 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26956 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:20:47 -0700 Received: from dialup-a8.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a8.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.8]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id PAA27768 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:18:27 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199510180518.PAA27768 tornado.netspace.net.au> From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tapping energy Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 04:22:17 GMT Organization: Improving References: <951016155918_125239451 mail04.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:59:18 -0400, you wrote: >With regard to Schaeffer's question as to higher/lower energy states if ZPE >were to be tapped. > >Take the simple example of the Casimir plate experiment, which proves the >principle of tapping the ZPE. Begin with 2 plates far apart, universe full >of ZPE. ZPE density between the plates is slightly less that that outside >the plates because of the somewhat restricted mode density. Therefore, >radiation pressure pushing plates apart is somewhat less that that outside >pushing them together, and so we have the inverse 4th-power law of attractive >Casimir force (see Milonni, "Radiation Pressure from the Vacuum: Physical >interpretation of the Casimir Force, Phys. Rev. A 38, 1621, 1988). As the >plates move together, more interior modes are eliminated, the ZPE in those >modes being converted into kinetic energy of the plates moving together, >until the plates hit and turn into heat. Therefore, one would say that >universe with lots of ZPE and plates far apart is metastable, decays to >universe with less ZPE and plates together, leaving as exhaust less ZPE, some >heat and a lump of metal from what used to be 2 separated plates; overall >energy is conserved, of course. In other words, in this case, the "exhaust" or "ash" consists of two metal plates pressed together. > >Now of course it doesn't do any good to have to pull the plates apart for the >next part of the cycle, because one would have to put in as much energy as >originally obtained. However, if one arranges for metastable balls of charge >in a plasma or metstable bubbles in a turbulent fluid to collapse by this >process, and doesn't expend energy to recycle, then one is ahead (as in hot >fusion) if the energy it takes to "ignite" the process is less than what one >gets out of the process. > >Principle looks promising; what we need is a workable engineering embodiment. > >Hal Puthoff aol.com > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 17 22:49:35 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01360 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:49:33 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01248 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:48:43 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t5RNV-000MNkC; Wed, 18 Oct 95 07:49 EET Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 07:49:24 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: surfdyn et al. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Three P-Patents: Patterson, Piantelli, Potapov. Based on the reproducibility problems encountered in all the CF systems to-date, I have hypothesized in 1992 that cold fusion is actually a form of hypercatalysis. See please: ("Understanding Reproducibility: Topology is the Key" in Fusion Facts, 3, 11, May 1992 pp 19-23, and "The 'Surfdyn' Concept: An Attempt to Solve (or Rename) the Puzzles of Cold Nuclear Fusion" in Fusion Technology 24, 1, Aug 1993 p 122-126 ) The Surfdyn concept -from surface dynamics- is inspired from the theory of creation of active sites in catalysts developed by Prof. V. M. Gryaznov. This is exactly in accordance with the idea of focusing on the "prosaic, boring, low level aspects of material science" requested by Bill Page in a recent message. However, except the experimental reality which continues to stubbornly confirm the catalytic nature of the CF phenomena and the necessity to create catalytic environments to control them, the catalytic/ Surfdyn concept has achieved only a very limited understanding and popularity. Inter alia this is bound to the absence of a real theory of heterogeneous catalysis and to the intellectual beauty and elevation of the alternative, purely nuclear way. (which, as demonstrated by almost seven years of intense efforts, doesn't lead anywhere). The data of two recent developments seem to further confirm catalysis and surfdyn: the Patterson and the Piantelli et al processes/patents. 1) The beads used in the Patterson cell can also be used as catalysts and it seems structure or morphology is more important than the material. Scott wrote: "I certainly have doubts about the CETI cell, despite the huge o- u it shows. I've heard it works with many "active" metals ..Pd, Fe, Cr, etc. Seems improbable, doesn't it?" In my opinion not at all, because it is a non-specific catalytic effect working here and CATALYSIS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CATALYST exactly as CAVITATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WATER. (Just a remark here: the E-Quest process is, I think, a combination of cavitation and catalysis performed by the active centers induced by cavitation on the surface of the Pd targets) 2-The Piantelli et al patent is entitled: "ENERGY GENERATION AND GENERATOR BY MEANS OF ANHARMONIC STIMULATED FUSION" Abstract. A process of energy generation and an energy generator by means of anharmonic stimulate fusion of hydrogen isotopes adsorbed on metal comprising a charging step on a metallic core of a quantity of hydrogen isotopes H and D, a heating step in which said core is heated to reach a temperature higher than Debye's temperature of the material composing the core; a startup step wherein a vibrational stress is produced with a rise time less than 0.1 seconds which activates a nuclear fusion of said hydrogen isotopes; a stationary step during which it is exchanged the heat produced by the H + D nuclear fusion reaction which occurs in the core because of a steady keeping of a coherent multimodal system of stationary oscillations. ........................ It is a technical masterpiece radiating good engineering and intelligence however it is a patent. A patent has to comprise only certainties no alternative or complementary theories or explanations. It is intended for building a technology therefore you wouldn't find any doubts here; the authors know exactly everything: the mechanism, the reactions, the past and the future. The mechanism is, I dare to say, a perfect description of the continuous breeding of catalytically active sites by the surface dynamics processes; the reaction is - beyond any uncertainty- the Schwinger fusion D + H = 3 He + 5.5 MeV going to the lattice. Some gamma radiation was observed but mainly in the shutdown phase. ( Some scientific papers of Piantelli et. al will be published soon). I quote from the patent: "In more detail, after having exceeded the Debye's constant, the probability that the H + D reaction is activated, is greater when the anharmonic terms of the interatomic displacement become important, and this can happen only when the temperature is sufficiently higher than the Debye's constant, at a characteristic temperature for each material. Under these conditions, following the production of a sufficiently strong stimulus by means of an external action, the quanta of vibrational energy crossing the crystal lattice, instead of oscillating in a disorganized manner, coherently interact with following addition of the wave vectors tangentially to the surface of the active core and with consequent creation of amplified energy peaks in particular points (loci). The wave trains which move on the active material of the core, besides creating localized fusions, form a coherent multimodal system of stationary oscillations inside portions of the active material of the core, thus causing a negative change of entropy and consequent discharge of heat, which can be exploited by the generator according to the invention. Subsequently, the stationary wave continues to maintain itself by means of the pump effect produced by the H + D reactions. In fact, because the configuration of the lattice is altered by the localized vaporisations caused by the individual H + D fusions displaced in said loci, the wave vectors add up again in other loci, close to the previous ones but where the lattice is still intact, and activate further H + D reactions. With repetition of the fusions, the core becomes to have a surface with a plurality of equidistant cavities separated by tracts of still intact lattice, and the mass of the active core becomes progressively smaller as a result of successive localized vaporisations." This patent offers a bright perspective both technologically and scientifically; if the authors will publish sound data about He-3 found and deuterium transformed in quantities commensurate with the heat, everything is clear- we have to accept that the heat goes directly to the lattice and than we have a perfect case of Schwinger fusion and this _has_ to be valid for other systems-Patterson, Dufour too. However..let's see the balance of deuterium and energy in this system which is closed during the active period. The following example seems to be an optimal case: Example 2. On a 200 mm long Nickel bar with a diameter of 3 mm, natural hydrogen (D/H = 1/6000) was made to adsorb with the method of immersion in gaseous environment at the critical temperature of 198 deg Celsius and contemporaneous application of a magnetic field of 1 Tesla obtained by means of a coil wound around the core... The chamber containing the bar was then brought to a temperature of 20 deg Celsius above Debye's constant, which, for nickel is 167 deg C. The startup occurred with the electric striction method, or in other words, by applying to the core an electrode through which an impulse of piezoelectric nature was transmitted. More precisely, the startup was obtained with an impulse of at least 10 kV and a rise time of 0.1 seconds. During the reaction, a net total average heat of 4.74 MJ was removed per day, for a period of 31 days, after which the reaction was stopped with a slow shutdown. .............................................................. This device has generated an average power of 55 watts and has gave a total of 4.74 x 31 = 146.94 MJ (some 41 kWh) Given that 1MJ = 6.24 x 10 exp 18 MeV the heat developed was equal to 9.17 x 10 exp 20 MeV; given that one atom of deuterium generates 5.5 MeV we get a consume of 1.667 x 1o exp 20 atoms of deuterium. The system being closed it must contain this quantity of deuterium and 6000 times more light hydrogen that's 1.0 x 10 exp 24 atoms of hydrogen. It is obvious that this is a great quantity! The nickel rod has 1.413 cu.cm, 12.57 grams, that's 0.21 moles of nickel and can contain in the best case (H/M =0.7) 0.14 atom-moles H + D -0.84 x 10 exp 23 atoms-and this at least ten times less than necessary considering that the system can arrive to a state of complete depletion in deuterium. The free volume in the reactor is maximum 2oo mL and contains a negligible quantity of hydrogen. (0.01 moles) Conclusions? There are three possibilities: a) I am in great hurry and have made a blunder. b) The system is not closed and is continually fed with hydrogen. c) An other source is at work. Nuclear? Don't think so! Your opinion, friends? Best greetings from Peter! P.S. About Potapov: According to the Moldavian patent of the Yusmar, the bypass pipe is intended for more safety and to smooth sudden changes of the pressure. (Dr. Onoochin, quoted by Chris). That's patent literature- study it and learn the mythology of a process. For history you need know-how too. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 18 01:51:07 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26356 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 01:50:54 -0700 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA26335 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 01:50:40 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id EAA09899; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 04:49:18 -0400 Date: 18 Oct 95 04:47:54 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Hypercatalysis Message-ID: <951018084753_100433.1541_BHG39-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: to:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Peter, I did the same arithmetic on the Piantelli claims once, and I got the same answer. If it is d-p fusion then it isn't - if you see what I mean. It would have to be p-p or something.(!) I don't like any of this stuff. If Piantelli really has solved his problems, and the thing really works reasonably reliably, then that's great and I think the process is *potentially* the best one of the bunch. But the theories sound like bunk. Sounding like bunk is no reason for saying that it *is* bunk, but the arithmetic just doesn't support d-p fusion. Yes, the trials and tribulations of CF research do indicate that something related to catalysis is happening. It is often said that catalysis (and its biological 'equivalent' of enzyme chemistry) is a function of setting up interesting 'electron environments', which might be where Hal Puthoff comes in. Rather than saying that CF is hypercatalysis, we might say that catalysis and CF share problems and solutions, so they may be effects from the same kind of process. I'm not denying that there is some pretty strong evidence for nuclear effects in CF, but they would - the way I see it - be further effects with the same basic cause. Look, I know that this is wild speculation, which usually (and rightly) brings down the wrath of all concerned. However, I do feel that a common factor in all of this could well be (or at least be largely the effect of) a presently not-well-understood effect of highly distorted electron distributions. I'm not competent to see how that might tap the ZPE by distorting the ZPF, or how it would permit previously unrecognised nuclear reactions. Maybe by so badly distorting that overcoming the Coulomb barrier was easier, I don't know. But that would not, I think, overcome the problem of radiationless nuclear effects, so I'd lean towards 'ZPF-tapping or something non-nuclear' as the source of the thermal energy. All of which is just really thinking out loud, and not intended very seriously. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 18 02:13:43 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28556 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 02:13:42 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA28488 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 02:13:10 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t5UZ6-000MNmC; Wed, 18 Oct 95 11:13 EET Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 11:13:35 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: surfdyn et al 2. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Norman, Catalysis is a form of synergetical cooperation between two levels of organization of matter; it can be very complex in the most fundamental cases- see e.g. photosynthesis. Not limited to chemistry, it's a fundamental phenomenon. As I wrote in my previous message which has arrived to vortex this Monday, (probably lost in a typhoon of ZPE messages) I consider that both catalytic centers and cavitation bubbles are openings of very narrow space-time channels through which energy can be captured from the profound (sub-nuclear level), call it vacuum, ZPE or how you will. Fusion is a secondary phenomenon. Just happens sometime and deceives the scientists. In the surfdyn et. al posting it is demonstrated that the most promising CF system CANNOT BE NUCLEAR! It cannot be chemical either and therefore we have to construct a new paradigm. Do you know my paper "A Paradigm Too Far?" from Fusion Facts Jan. 1995 or/my IE no 1 paper " Why Technology First?"; I am explaining there my CF philosophy and strategy. I any case I am an adept of ZPE. Details not known but will be found. Catalysis, surfdyn, nuclearity, isotopic democracy, the energy of the profound level- all this are components of the paradigm to come. All the best wishes from Peter! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 18 03:48:24 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06173 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 03:48:03 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA06112 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 03:47:21 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t5W2V-000MNuC; Wed, 18 Oct 95 12:48 EET Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12:48:02 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: thanks, Chris! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thank you Chris! I wanted to tell that I consider that ZPE is the solution and I am a supporter or advocate of it. Cannot see an other way at the moment. Please let me know if you have received my message Monday and your what is your opinion about Prof.Davies- do you know him? Other: couldn't you help me with the Potapov patents? I want to translate them for the group. Peter From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 18 06:58:26 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00353 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 06:58:11 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA29993 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 06:57:07 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA05764 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:56:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199510181356.AA05764 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:56:01 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: PUTHOFF aol.com To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: reqinfo Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 09:54:10 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wrote to the University of Illinois about their CETI cell tests. Attached is the response. I'm hearing that water heating home applicationsmay be as little as 6 months to a year away. Frank Z -> PUTHOFF AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> ROGER W KARN -> JOSEPH J BATTISTA JR -> JOHN G HERBEIN -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> williams ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 07:20:58 -0500 From: williams michael j To: p8156 memo.gpuc.com Subject: Re: reqinfo Frank, we don't have anything published yet as we are still in the testing and evaluation stage. We are attempting to verify CETI's claims and to make some improvements in the design. We had a cell in operation for a week prior to the SOFE conference and it was running at about 5 watts excess power with 0.25 watts input. Some aspects are proprietary but I can say that the cell is about the size of a D cell battery and uses 1mm microspheres as the cathode media. It uses light water as the electrolyte which is allowed to flow through for calorimetry. So far no substantial radiation products have been detected. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 00:38:42 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17502 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 08:44:12 -0700 Received: from head.globalcom.net (head.globalcom.net [204.111.1.35]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA17489 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 08:44:06 -0700 Received: from 204.111.1.83 (eb1ppp19.shentel.net [204.111.1.83]) by head.globalcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id LAA28704 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:45:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199510191545.LAA28704 head.globalcom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 12:42:13 -0500 From: VISOR globalcom.net Subject: Re: ZPE not a good idea! To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <9510181830.AA06581 sun18.aic.nrl.navy.mil> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Ralph, Boy, I wish you could of been the military officer in charge of the Manhattan Project. Maybe you could have agreed with the scientists that were unsure about the splitting of the atom and saved the world a great deal of heartache and the US taxpayers about half a trillion dollars. Great letter! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 18 23:46:32 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00940 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 11:31:12 -0700 Received: from Sun0.AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (sun0.aic.nrl.navy.mil [192.26.18.51]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00847 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 11:30:52 -0700 From: hartley aic.nrl.navy.mil Received: from sun18.aic.nrl.navy.mil by Sun0.AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA27525; Wed, 18 Oct 95 14:30:43 EDT Received: by sun18.aic.nrl.navy.mil; Wed, 18 Oct 95 14:30:43 EDT Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 14:30:43 EDT Message-Id: <9510181830.AA06581 sun18.aic.nrl.navy.mil> To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: ZPE not a good idea! Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: One upon a time there were beings that lived on the surface of a soap bubble. They didn't walk around on top of the bubble but rather were true two dimensional objects. In fact they were made of those iridesent swirls that can often be seen on bubbles (which do in fact have quite complex structure). A few of these bubble beings were physicists. They in due time discovered all the laws of soap bubble physics. Some of their models of the bubble itself (which they could probe using small vibrations in the surface) included a term representing surface tension. It was pointed out by freshman physics students that this surface tension could be interpreted as an energy density, and that the energy contained in one mm^2 was orders of magnitude more than a bubble being used to swirl around all his life. The experts all agreed that this energy was absolutely beyond reach. They were wrong. A crackpot, working in his (two dimensional) garage, reasoned that if he could make a large enough vibration in the membrane he could extract some of that energy through some sort of non-linear process. He built a device that generated vibrations and focused them to a point. He was successful. The vibrations generated displacements well beyond the linear range of the surface. In fact, they produced a hole. To us the results are predictable. Without the topological constraint of the continuous surface the surface tension energy was free to be released. In simple terms the bubble burst. The crackpot, the skeptical experts, and all the other bubble beings were destroyed instantly. I leave it as an exercise to prove that the ONLY way they could have extracted the surface tension energy is by putting a hole in the bubble. I suppose it is theoretically possible for them to produce stabilized holes, but they would be just like nuclear waste - only worse, nuclear waste can never destroy the universe. Anyway, they only got one chance, and they blew it! They did not live happily ever after. This parable illustrates why I thing going after "Zero Point Energy" is not such a good idea. What is referred to in recent posts as zero point energy in this list is more properly termed "vacuum energy". It is the energy of the ground state of (for example) the electromagnetic field. The energy is certainly very large, in fact straightforward calculations give infinite values that are swept under the rug by mathematical tricks (presumably the actual energy is finite because the theory dosn't apply beyond some energy scale). This energy is generally believed to be unavailable because there are no lower energy states (hence the term ground state). However we do not claim to know all the laws of physics, especially at high energies, so it is possible that what we think of as the ground state is actually a false (metastable) ground state. Presumably a potential barrier or symmetry keeps the true ground state empty. There is some precedent for this idea. In some theories of the very early universe there was a time (the inflationary era) when the universe was in just such a "false vacuum" state. Some sort of symmetry breaking made the "true" vacuum accessible and released all the energy that made the big bang so hot. If someone somehow were to release the vacuum energy and make the lower energy state accessible, the results would be similar to what happened to the bubble. The new ground state would spread at the speed of light. The measured physical constants of our universe (coupling constants, particle masses etc.) are greatly affected by the fluctuations that constitute the vacuum. In the new, lower energy, vacuum they would all effectively be different. The inside of this "hole" in the universe would have different physical laws and would in any case be incredibly hot (all that energy has to go somewhere). In simple terms the universe would burst. If I thought there was any real prospect for success in tapping this energy I would be a lot more worried than I am. But those of you who think I am wrong, and that ZPE is a potentially unlimited source of energy, should ask yourself one question. Is an UNLIMITED source of energy really such a good thing? Ralph Hartley hartley aic.nrl.navy.mil From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 18 23:42:45 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22379 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:49:45 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA22342 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:49:35 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA18251 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:43:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510182143.RAA18251 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:58:49 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, Thanks for your replies to me questions concerning ZPE etc. Scott Little wrote: > >>What are the typical dimensions of an electron ZPE-condensed-charge >>cluster? > >1 micron in diameter and containing 10^8 or more (up to 10^11) electrons. > >Don't know how Cooper pairs compare... Oh, MUCH bigger than I thought. I was thinking about 2 or 4 or so electrons. These clusters are macroscopic in the quantum mechanical sense. Why so many? Are smaller clusters possible? If not why not, etc. > >>Can we form ZPE-condensed-charge clusters of protons/deuterons as well >>as electrons? > >Well...er....the nucleus of an ordinary atom may just be a ZPE-condensed >cluster of protons. The energy density of the ZPE is absolutely astounding. Hmmm... what about the other more well known nuclear forces (strong and weak)? I thought we already had pretty reasonable "shell" type models for the nucleus without accounting for the Casimri interaction. > It is so ubiquitous that it underlies a lot of things that we usually take >for granted (e.g. stability of the ground state of atoms...in other words, >the reason electrons don't spiral into the nucleus). Ah, just how much of quantum mechanics are we throwing out here? What about bound states etc. Well, actually from reading some of the papers on Statistical Electrodynamics (SED), I do have some ideas about this but I think you should be careful in such sweeping statements as the above. My understanding is that SED so far has only been able to partially reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics (or more properly I suppose Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)). Could you or Hal provide us here with some sort of "undergraduate level" tutorial on the subject? Bit by bit as time permits is ok with me. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 18 23:42:45 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22379 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:49:45 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA22342 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:49:35 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA18251 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:43:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510182143.RAA18251 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:58:49 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: D Scott, Thanks for your replies to me questions concerning ZPE etc. Scott Little wrote: > >>What are the typical dimensions of an electron ZPE-condensed-charge >>cluster? > >1 micron in diameter and containing 10^8 or more (up to 10^11) electrons. > >Don't know how Cooper pairs compare... Oh, MUCH bigger than I thought. I was thinking about 2 or 4 or so electrons. These clusters are macroscopic in the quantum mechanical sense. Why so many? Are smaller clusters possible? If not why not, etc. > >>Can we form ZPE-condensed-charge clusters of protons/deuterons as well >>as electrons? > >Well...er....the nucleus of an ordinary atom may just be a ZPE-condensed >cluster of protons. The energy density of the ZPE is absolutely astounding. Hmmm... what about the other more well known nuclear forces (strong and weak)? I thought we already had pretty reasonable "shell" type models for the nucleus without accounting for the Casimri interaction. > It is so ubiquitous that it underlies a lot of things that we usually take >for granted (e.g. stability of the ground state of atoms...in other words, >the reason electrons don't spiral into the nucleus). Ah, just how much of quantum mechanics are we throwing out here? What about bound states etc. Well, actually from reading some of the papers on Statistical Electrodynamics (SED), I do have some ideas about this but I think you should be careful in such sweeping statements as the above. My understanding is that SED so far has only been able to partially reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics (or more properly I suppose Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)). Could you or Hal provide us here with some sort of "undergraduate level" tutorial on the subject? Bit by bit as time permits is ok with me. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 18 15:03:45 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA25627 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:03:42 -0700 Received: from karloff.lanl.gov (karloff.lanl.gov [128.165.16.190]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA25603 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:03:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199510182203.PAA25603 mail.eskimo.com> Received: by karloff.lanl.gov (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA041353810; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:03:30 -0600 From: Ron McFee Subject: Schwinger Fusion To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 16:03:29 MDT Cc: mcfee lanl.gov, pbradely@lanl.gov, joy@lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page requests: >Could you review for us what "Schwinger fusion" is? Specifically, how does >it avoid the generation of high energy radiation, while generating thermal >energy in a lattice (or in a sonicly driven collapsing bubble in water)? Considering Peter's post on the Piantelli patent this is certainly apropos. Julian Seymour Schwinger who died July 16, 1994 was one of the outstanding physicists of the twentieth century. He is best remembered for contributions to quantum electrodynamics for which he received the Noble Prize with Richard Feynman and Shin-Itiro Tomonaga in 1965. His career covered many different aspects of modern theoretical physics. He published over 200 papers. These included works on elementary particles, field theory, sonoluminescence, and cold fusion. It is interesting to note that the attempt to explain the anomalous energy production in hydrogen loaded metal lattices and cavitation device by the ZPE advocates is rooted in Schwinger's quantum electrodynamic treatment of vacuum polarization and his work on Casimir forces between conducting plates in a vacuum which derive from mirror images of virtual charged particles of the vacuum. One of his greatest achievements in my opinion was his hypothesis regarding the fusion of hydrogen nuclei in solid lattices which was made to explain the Pons Fleischmann results regarding their experiments with deuterium loaded palladium. The experimental effect of excess energy production in the hydrogen loaded lattices, I am now calling condensed matter nuclear fusion (CMNF) to allow for the inclusion of possible energy production in cavitated water. The theoretical explanation, I am calling "Schwinger fusion" or more properly the Schwinger hypothesis pending full scientific proof. Apparently, from Peter's posting on the new Italian patent, the Piantelli group has done just this. Simply stated Julian hypothesized that hydrogen isotopes were fusing in the lattice when either a proton and deuteron or two deuterons occupied the same lattice site by the reactions p + D -> 3He + 5.5 MeV D + D -> 4He + 23.7 MeV with the released energy being adsorbed as millions of phonons. Phonons are quantized lattice vibrations or heat. The two atoms of hydrogen in the same lattice site can be thought of as an excited helium nucleus even though they are separate by considerable distance. What is missing is some mechanism by which this excited nuclear state can decay to the ground state of helium. Nature apparently provides this by a surprising ability of the lattice to collectively absorb the nuclear energy when enough hydrogen has been dissolved into the hydrogen saturated lattice. This quantum collective adsorption of the nuclear energy is the key to understanding this newly discovered process. It is the inverse process to that which produces lasing in lasers. In a laser stimulated emission adds small amounts of light quanta to a macro quantum state. In Schwinger fusion a large quantum of energy of several MeV is parceled either directly or through stages into millions of sub eV phonons. Peter Hagelstein with his phonon laser got this backwards. He heard the same talk by Julian Schwinger at the First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion Salt Lake on March 29, 1990 that I did. I wonder why he didn't understand this and has come up with so many different and contradictory "weird" theories since that time. This collective adsorption of the nuclear energy by the hydrogen and/or metal lattice explains why there is not the obvious ionizing radiation that is associated with many other nuclear processes such as fission and thermonuclear fusion. This lack of obvious nuclear processes except for the small amounts of tritium and neutrons that was first observed in the heavy water electrolysis is why so many physicist have remained skeptical over the last several years. It is not too much of a theoretical hand wave to extrapolate Schwinger's theory to the liquid state for the cavitation phenomenon. (Hand waving is the strongest tool of the theoretical physicist if you haven't noticed.) The hydrogen in the water molecules provide the same collective adsorption of energy that they did in the hydrogen loaded lattices. The cavitation probably produces atomic (non- molecular monatomic hydrogen) by breaking the molecular bonds of the water vapor in the cavity. This monatomic hydrogen enters the water and is attracted to the hydrogen via molecular forces. It is preferentially attracted to the deuterium in the water forming an excited helium nucleus that can decay via the collective adsorption. ZPE note: If you wish, you can think of the 3He or 4He that is formed as collapsed Casimir plates. The Schwinger hypothesis lends itself to direct experimental verification. a) 3He and 4He are produced commensurate with the energy production. b) In the light water or natural hydrogen devices the deuterium should be depleted. After sufficient depletion the reaction should cease. c) The reaction rate should increase with the temperature until either the lattice melts or the water turns to steam. d) In which case the process should cease. That is a run away nuclear reaction should not occur. There may be some exceptions, but they should be unusual occurances. There is list of Julian's papers on cold fusion, sonoluminescence, phonon representations and Casimir forces in the first issue of "Cold Fusion" magazine which was published May 1994 on page 17. I will post these if anyone requests. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 18 23:54:06 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA06406 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:42:30 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA06211 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:41:51 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA02096 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Wed, 18 Oct 1995 18:41:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199510182241.AA02096 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 18 Oct 1995 18:41:27 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: ZPE #3 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 18:40:49 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> FRANK ZNIDARSIC Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 18:26:15 -0400 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com To: p8156 memo.gpuc.com Cc: Puthoff aol.com Subject: ZPE #3 I would like to start by stating that I have been greatly inspired by Hal Puthoff. I met him once..I think I adsorbed alot of knowledge during that brief visit..maybe perhaps by osmosis. Could be the reverse happened to him. We hope not. I believe that in many ways my work complements his. Puthoff has shown how to produce high density electron clusters and how these cluster release energy. I feel that he has left a lot of open questions. The comment, "How do we recharge the clusters..by putting them out in the sun?" hits to the point. The clusters are not the ultimate source of the continuing energy. They act only as a catalyst through which the negative gravitation potential of the universe is extracted. In review. I have shown in my Genesis paper that the positive energy of the universe is equal to the universe's negative gravitation potential. I used one of my rules in this paper ,the conservation of energy. This is a good paper in its own right independent of any application connected to cold fusion. The calculations are my own and from what I can tell I am the first to do them. In my second paper, I have shown (based on the principle of the conservation of momentum) how local energy flows are linked to the negative gravitational potential of the universe. I concluded that local energy flows are linked to remote regions of the universe by "an interplay of transient interactions" Also, if I must say so myself, another blockbuster of a paper. Now for the best of all my 3d paper. This paper has the potential to rock the foundations of modern science. Bill Page you should appreciate it. I invite your comments. To start Bill Page mentioned David Bohm...Bohm's theory was based on the premise that matter waves we real. This idea has some problems. All real waves propagate. Why dont matter waves propagate? Keep in mind that matter acts like a standing wave. What makes the wave stand? Another mystery is why does matter shrink and swell with velocity. Nick Herbert writes in Quantum Reality "The fact of the matter is that nobody really knows these days how an electron, or any other quantum entity, actually possesses its dynamic attributes" Current theory accounts for thses problems by stating that matter waves are not real, they are only waves of probability. As such they contain no energy. An imaginary place of residence was invented for these probablility waves called configuration space. I think this is a bunch of bunk! D. Bohm thought the idea was bunk. Bohm came up with the idea that the wavefunctions of matter are real. These wavefunctions were guided (as you stated Bill) by a Pilot wave. This wave was hidden from view and has quasi-magical properties. In my opinion Bohm subsitituted one form of bunk for another. He was, however, on the right track in his belief that matter waves are real. I will now show that matter is composed by real waves. These real waves are held in place by real forces. When you read the paper think, eat, and live by my third rule.. Nature is built upon underlying symmetries. Why is this paper very important in the understanding of zero point energy? It is because gravity contains negative energy. If we understand how gravity is generated we can begin to control it. If we can produce extra gravity we will produce extra energy. A lot of you may be thinking. Wait gravity unites with EM at extremely high temperatures!...stop that thought NOW.. .I am not talking about a unification with electromagnetism. Hold on to your seats....now for the paper. Title: THE SOURCE OF INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS Author: Frank Znidarsic P.E. FZNIDARS GPU.COM, ELECTRICAL ENGINEER WITH THE PENN ELECTRIC CO. JOHNSTOWN, Pa. COMMENTS: 8 PAGES ASCII TXT FILE. NEW ENERGY PROJECT, Submitted to the Canadian Journal of Physics, July 94 resubmitted Jan 95 Texted in the DOS editor. If the math does not text, down load this paper into DOS then in dos EDIT filename.txt REPORT-NO: SPECIAL ENERGY PROJECT ABSTRACT Present quantum theory is very exact in its representation of atomic and nuclear interactions. This theory represents matter as a series of superimposed probability waves. This superposition of component waves is known as a Fourier addition.1 The waves of matter, like all other waves, should propagate into space. According to present theory the propagation of the wave states of matter is inhibited by the Fourier addition of an infinite number of component waves. 2 This addition of component waves localizes the wavefuctions of matter. This author questions if an infinite number of states can exist within a finite universe. It has not been possible to reconcile gravity with the current model of matter. A new model of matter will be developed. This model will show that the energy of matter is localized by a reflection at the potential well of matter. The model requires no infinities, probability waves, or special reconciliation with gravity. The fundamental postulate of the new model requires the production of a gravitational field. 3 INTRODUCTION Present theory identifies matter as a source of gravitational and inertial mass. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity demonstrates that an applied force also produces a gravitational field. Photons have no rest mass. According to existing theory photons do, however, have a gravitational mass that is proportional to their rest energy. Present theory states that there are three sources of gravitational mass. These sources are: 1. Matter 2. Force 3. Photons (and all other energy flows) This author will show that there is only one source of mass. This one source is an applied force. It will be shown that at all inertial and gravitational mass is a direct result of an applied force. INERTIAL MASS An analysis will now be done that will describe inertial mass in terms of an applied force. Consider a photon trapped in a perfectly reflecting containment. (see fig. #1) ---------------------- | p \ | | 1 \ | A| / |B -------> X | p / | r | 2 | ---------------------- |-------- K ----------| FIGURE #1 This photon in a containment model is a simplistic representation of matter. The photon represents the matter wave function. The wavelength of the photon corresponds with the Compton wavelength of matter. The containment represents a potential well. This analysis considers only the momentum of the photon. The containment will be considered to be at rest. The photon is ejected from wall "A" of the containment, its momentum is p . The photon now travels to wall "B". It's 1 hits wall B and immediately bounces off. Its momentum is p . The photon now travels back to wall "A", immediately 2 bounces off, its momentum is again p . This process repeats 1 continuously. If the energy in the containment is carried by a number of photons evenly distributed throughout the containment, the momentum carried by this energy will be distributed evenly between the forward and backward traveling components. The total momentum of this system is given in equation #1. p =(p /2 - p /2) Eq #1 t 1 2 The momentum of a flow of energy is given by equation #2. p = E/c Eq #2 E /c = E /c - E /c #3 t 1 2 Given the containment is at rest. The amount of energy in the containment remains fixed, the quantity of energy traveling in the forward direction equals the quantity of energy traveling in the reverse direction. This is shown in equation #4. E = E Eq #4 1 2 Substituting Eq. #4 into Eq. #3 yields Eq #5. p = (E/2c)(1 - 1) Eq #5 t Equation #5 is the total momentum of the system at rest. If an external force is applied to the system its velocity will change. The forward and the reverse components of the energy will then doppler shift after bouncing off of the moving containment walls. The energy of a photon varies directly with its frequency. Given that the number of photons in the containment is conserved, the amount of reflected energy will vary directly with the energy of the reflected photons. This is demonstrated by equation #6. E = E (f /f ) Eq. #6 2 1 f i Substituting Eq. #6 into Eq #5. yields eq. #7. p = (E/2c)((f /f ) - (f /f )) Eq #7 t f i f i Equation #7 is the momentum of the system after all of its energy bounces once off of the containment walls. Equation #7 shows a net flow of energy in one direction. Equation #7 is the momentum of a moving system. The reader may desire to analyze the system after successive bounces of its energy. This analysis is quite involved and unnecessary. Momentum is always conserved. Given that no external force is applied to the system after the first bounce of its energy, its momentum will remain constant. Relativistic doppler shift is given by equation #8. 2 2 .5 (f /f ) = (1-v /c ) /(1 +- v/c), Eq #8 f i v = velocity with respect to the observer c = light speed f / f = frequency RATIO f i + or - depends on the direction of motion Substituting equation #8 into equation #7 yields equation #9 _ _ | 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 | E | (1-v /c ) (1-v /c ) | p = ---| --------- - ----------- | Eq #9 2c | (1-v/c) (1+v/c) | |_ _| _ _ | 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 | = E |(1+v/c)(1-v /c ) (1-v/c)(1-v /c ) | -- | -------------- - ----------------- | 2c |(1+v/c)(1-v/c) (1-v/c)(1+v/c) | |_ - _ _ | 2 2 0.5 | = E | (1-v /c ) (1+v/c-1+v/c) | -- | -------------------------- | 2c | 2 2 | | (1+v /c ) | - - Ev = --------------- 2 2 2 0.5 c (1+v /c ) 2 Substituting mass for energy, M = E/c Mv = ------------ 2 2 0.5 ( 1+v /c ) Eq #10 The result, equation #10 is the relativistic momentum of moving matter. This first analysis graphically demonstrates that inertial mass is produced by a containment force at the potential well of matter. A fundamental change in the frame of reference is produced by the force of containment. This containment force converts energy, which can only travel at light speed, to mass, which can travel at any speed but light speed. The containment force also results in the dynamic attributes of matter. As stated, the original wavelength (L) of the photon represents the Compton wavelength of matter. L = h/Mc Eq #11 c c = (f)(L) Eq #12 Substituting Eq #12 into Eq. #11 yields Eq #13 the Compton frequency f of matter. c 2 f = Mc /h c c A doppler shifted component of the original frequency was produced by the reflection at the containment wall. Classical doppler shift is given by Eq #13. f = f (1 +- v/c) Eq #13 2 1 A beat note is formed by the mixing of the doppler shifted and original components. This beat note is the de Broglie wave of matter. Given both waves are in phase at the containment wall. The beat note extends from the wall to the point at which the waves again come into phase again. The length beat note is defined by equation #14. sin(f +6.28n) = sin((f )(1 + v/c)) Eq. #14 c c 2 2 sin(Mc /h + 6.28n)) = sin((Mc /h)(1+v/c)) Taking the arcsin of Eq #14 yields Eq #15. 2 2 Mc /h + 6.28n = Mc /h + Mvc/h Eq #15 6.28n = Mvc/h Eq #16 The right side of Eq. #16 is the quantumized frequency of the beat note produced by the mixing of the original wave and its doppler shifted reflection. This is the de Broglie frequency. Substituting Eq #12 into Eq #16 yields Eq. #17 the de Broglie wavelength L of matter. d 4 L = h/(MV) Eq #17 d The dynamic deBroglie wavelength of matter results from the interaction a real wave and a force. GRAVITATIONAL MASS Einstein's principle of equivalence states that gravitational and inertial mass are the same. 5 Gravitational mass then must be generated by the same mechanism that produces inertial mass. The reflection of the energy off of the walls of the containment must also generate the gravitational mass of the energy in the box. It is well known that the gravitational field can generate a force. This the gravitational force is given by equation #18. The force of gravity = mg Eq #18 It is less well known that the application of a force also induces a gravitation field. The application of a force must induce gravity in order to conserve a symmetrical relationship between the forces. For example, a changing magnetic field will induce an electrical field and conversely a changing electrical field will induce a magnetic field. Likewise the application of a force also 6 induces a gravitational field. The application of a force must also produce gravity in order to conserve momentum. If mass is pushed into the established field of other mass time is required for the gravitational field of pushed matter to reach the other mass. To conserve momentum during this interval an induced gravitational field is required. The relationship between the induced gravitational field and the force of acceleration as demonstrated by General Relativity is given by equation #19. 7 2 Field gravity = (G/(c r))(dp/dt)*i Eq #19 i = unit vector in direction of the force of acceleration G = the grav constant r = the grav radius dp/dt = Force Each time the photon strikes the wall of the containment it produces a gravitation field according to equation #19. An exact mathematical analysis of the the box = k/c r = the distance to point X The far gravitational field at point X is the vector sum of the field produced by the impacts on walls A and B. Field = 1/r field from wall A - 1/r field from wall B (at X) 2 2 = (G/(c (r+k))) dp/dt - (G/(c r)) dp/dt Eq #20 2 2 simplifying = -(G/c )(dp/dt)(k/(r +rk)) Taking the limit to obtain the far field. 2 2 2 2 lim -(G/c )(dp/dt)(k/(r +rk)) = -(G/c )(dp/dt)(k/r ) as r>>k Substituting for dp/dt in the box model. dp/dt = /\ p / /\ t = (2E/c)/(k/c) = 2E/k In order to remain consistent with the first argument only half of the energy will be considered to be impacting on wall "A" of the containment. The other half of the energy will be considered to impacting on wall "B" of the containment. A factor of 1/2 is introduced as a result of this qualification. 2 2 Field = 1/2(G/c )(2E/k)(k/r ) (at X) 2 Substituting mass for energy, M =E/c 2 Field = -GM/r Eq #21 (at X) The result, equation #21, is Newton's formula of gravity. 8 This second analysis clearly shows that gravitational mass is produced by the force of containment at the potential well of matter. PHOTONIC MASS A photon has no rest rest mass therefore the source of the gravitation mass of a photon cannot be mass. The source of the gravitational mass of a photon will now be demonstrated. Hubbles' constant expresses the expansion space in units of 1/time. Ordinarily, the effects resulting for the Hubble expansion are quite tiny. At great distances and at high velocities significant effects do, however, take place. As a photon travels through space at the high velocity of light it red shifts. This red shift may be considered to be the result of an applied force. This force is produced by the acceleration given in equation #19. Acceleration = Hc Eq #22 H = Hubble's constant, given in units of (1/sec) c = light speed To demonstrate the gravitational relationships of a photon the principle of the conservation of momentum will be employed. According to this principle exploding bodies conserve there center of gravitational mass. Mass M ejects a photon while over the pivot I. (Ref fig #2) |----S -----|------- S ----------------| 1 2 mass photon _________________________________________ ^ I PIVOT FIGURE #2 The gravitational center of mass must remain balanced over the pivot point I. Mass M is propelled to the left velocity at v and the photon travels to the right at velocity c. The 1 product of the velocity and time is the displacement S. Setting the products of the displacements S and the gravitational masses Mg equal yields equation #23. Mg S = Mg S Eq #23 1 1 2 2 2 2 GMS /r = (G/c ) (force) S /r 1 2 2 2 GMS /r = (G/c ) dp/dt S /r 1 2 2 GM(v t) = (G/c ) dp/dt (ct)r 1 2 Substituting, dp/dt = Ma = MHc = (E/c )Hc = EH/c 2 G(Mv )t = (G/c )(E/c)Hctr 1 Setting momentums equal p = p = Mv = E/c 1 2 1 2 Gp t = (G/c p Hctr) 1 2 c = Hr Eq #11 The result, equation #12, shows that the gravitational mass of a photon is produced by the it force it experiences as it accelerates through Hubble's constant. The result is true only under the condition where the speed of light is equal to the product of Hubble's constant and the radius of the universe. The gravitational radius of the photon is the radius of the universe. These qualifications are essentially consistent with the known cosmological constants. CONCLUSION It has been shown that the application of a force is the exclusive mechanism by which all inertial and gravitational mass is generated. A reflection takes place at matter's potential well. This force produced by this reflection induces the gravitational field of matter. This reflection, like all reflections, is a result of a change in the product of a substances elasticity per unit of mass. This author believes that there is an elastic limit associated with free space. As this elastic limit is reached the elasticity of 9 free space changes producing reflections. A new model of matter has been developed that shows that acceleration of energy at matter's potential wall is the source of the gravitational and inertial mass of matter. This model is so simple that once it is seen it appears to be almost self evident. The gravitational mass of a photon was shown to be produced by the acceleration of the photon through Hubble's constant. This analysis shows that there is a relationship between the speed of light, Hubbles's constant, and the radius of the universe. A profound, yet simple, model has been developed. This model demonstrates the mechanism though which all gravitational fields are generated. The scope of the symmetrical relationship that exists between force and gravity has been exposed. This author believes that this new understanding will lead to the development of gravitational technologies. 10 NOTES 1. Joseph Fourier showed that any wave can be written as a sum of sin waves in the 19th Century study "La Theorie analytique de la chaleur." 2. E. Schrodinger referred to such a localization as a "Gaussian wave packet." 3. Gilbert N. Lewis demonstrated the relationship between external radiation pressure and momentum. Gilbert N. Lewis, Philosophical Magazine, Nov. 1908 4. French aristocrat Louis de Broglie described the electrons wavelength in his Ph.D. thesis in 1924. De Broglie's hypothesis was verified by C. J. Davisson and L. H. Germer at Bell Labs labs. The mechanism through which elementary particles can possess dynamic attributes, such as the de Broglie wavelength, has been a central mystery in the field of quantum physics. 5. Einstein's principle of equivalence was experimentally confirmed by R.v. Eotos in the 1920's R.v. Eotvos, D. Pekar, and Feteke, Ann. d. Phys 1922 Roll, Krotkov and Dicke followed up on the Eotvos experiment and confirmed the principle of equivalence to an accuracy of 10EXP in the 1960's R.G. Roll, R. Krotkow & Dicke, Ann. of Physics 26, 1964 6. Danish physicist Han Christian Oersted first discovered that and electric current produces a magnetic field in 1820. English scientist Michael Fariday demonstrated that a changing magnetic field produces an electric current in 1831. 7. A. Einstein, Ann. d. Physics 49, 1916. 8. Sir I. Newton, PHILOSOPHICA NATURALIS PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA (1687) 9. For leptons this elastic limit is equivalent to -24 3.42 x 10 Farads. This author believes that capacitance in a non-local phenomena. 10. The discovery of the symmetrical relationship between the electric and magnetic fields by Oersted and Faraday is the basis of our current electro-technologys. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 19 00:27:29 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25392 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 23:53:08 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA25336 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 23:52:51 -0700 Received: from dialup-a50.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a50.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.50]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id QAA08602 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 16:50:32 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199510190650.QAA08602 tornado.netspace.net.au> From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 05:54:22 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199510180452.XAA17768 matrix.eden.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 17 Oct 1995 23:52:20 -0500, you wrote: >At 01:38 PM 10/16/95 -0400, Bill Page wrote: > >>I'd like to know more about the details of the force that holds a >>ZPE-condensed-charge cluster together. Does it have some sort of >>essential non-linearity that might give rise to this "pin-pricked ballon" >>effect that you mention? > >Good question. Hal is the real expert here but I believe there's a good >chance that it _is_ "linear" in that sense...which, as you observed, >presents a problem. > >>Can you show us a possible "curve of binding energy" for a cluster? > >Well if you add the 1/r^2 Coulomb repulsion to a 1/r^4 Casimir attraction, >you'll get the basic curve. It's repulsive until to get to r=1 (arbitrary >small units) and then it switches to attractive. Presumably when you get >really close something else kicks in and stops things at some finite size. > Thomas N. Lockyer makes an interesting point on his Web page (http://www.best.com/~lockyer), about magnetic repulsion overruling electrical attraction, when a positron-electron pair is formed, while the two are still close together. A similar mechanism, may contribute to cluster forming between like charges at close range. >>How are we to view the electrons? As classical charged particles? >>Or in terms of their quantum mechanical wavefunctions? > >I always think of them as particles....Hal? > >>What are the typical dimensions of an electron ZPE-condensed-charge >>cluster? > >1 micron in diameter and containing 10^8 or more (up to 10^11) electrons. > >Don't know how Cooper pairs compare... > >>Can we form ZPE-condensed-charge clusters of protons/deuterons as well >>as electrons? > >Well...er....the nucleus of an ordinary atom may just be a ZPE-condensed >cluster of protons. The energy density of the ZPE is absolutely astounding. > It is so ubiquitous that it underlies a lot of things that we usually take >for granted (e.g. stability of the ground state of atoms...in other words, >the reason electrons don't spiral into the nucleus). > > >Scott - "Ex vacuo omne" > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 19 00:41:51 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03262 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 00:41:49 -0700 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA03252 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 00:41:45 -0700 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA17173; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 08:41:49 +0100 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 08:41:49 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, mcfee@lanl.gov, pbradely@lanl.gov, joy@lanl.gov Subject: Re: Schwinger Fusion In-Reply-To: <199510182203.PAA25603 mail.eskimo.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ron tells us about the Schwinger fusion scenario. This is described in brief in Schwinger, Prog. Theor. Phys. 85 (1991) 711, "Nuclear energy in an atomic lattice", as well as elsewhere. Note that Schwinger favours the pd fusion reaction, as do other theorists. The problem with that is that it results in 3He, which noone has ever detected, certainly not in amounts anywhere close to being commensurate with claimed excess heat. So there is another mystery to explain: why is dd favoured, when theorists all agree that pd is more likely? And if it is, light water CNF goes back to being unexplained - unless you want to postulate dd fusion there as well. The meeting of two d's in light water is extremely unlikely. Ron, please distinguish between aDsorbed (accumulating at an interface) and aBsorbed (going into a volume). -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 19 01:24:30 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08398 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 01:24:28 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA08317 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 01:23:57 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t5qHF-000MNkC; Thu, 19 Oct 95 10:24 EET Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:24:36 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ron, Thank you for the posting re. Schwinger fusion. A method usable for direct confirmation/refutation of the Schwinger hypothesis is by working with de-deuterated water or hydrogen-these cannot act as fuels for the CF devices if the hypothesis is valid. If "isotopic democracy" (hydrogen and deuterium are equi- performant) is true and the clue is capture of energy from vacuum, the devices will function unperturbed with this "isotopically pure" fuel. What data is available for the known systems? Piantelli's patent says: "The type of hydrogen to be absorbed in said core is preferably natural or, in other words, having a ratio between isotopes D and H of about 1/6000. It is however possible to obtain reaction also with natural hydrogen depleted or enriched with deuterium, with a ratio of isotopes D to H in any case higher than 1/80000 and preferably comprised between 1/10000 and 1/1000" Quite a peculiar reaction kinetics has to be at work in order to explain these large limits. For the other devices: can somebody from the Group ask Patterson and Cravens, Klein, or George Miley about the CETI cell; was it tested with de-deuterated water? The same has to be known for the NTT device, for Dufour's sparking apparatus (I have written him) and for the Mills heat generator. It is interesting to remark that both Griggs and Potapov claim that their generators can be o/u with non-aqueous fluids-oils. Comments? Best regards, Peter PS. Can you tell me what's the highest isotopical purity of water/hydrogen products available?  From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 19 03:12:21 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19693 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 03:12:10 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA19675 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 03:12:04 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id GAA18021; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 06:10:49 -0400 Date: 19 Oct 95 06:09:26 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: Schwinger Fusion Message-ID: <951019100926_100060.173_JHB56-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ron, I must thank you for your extremely enlightening (for me!!) last post. There is, I suppose pedantic, point on which I would appreciate clarification. The use of the terms "absorption" and "adsorption" and I quote you: >> ability of the lattice to collectively absorb the nuclear energy when ^^^^^^ enough hydrogen has been dissolved << and >> This quantum collective adsorption of the nuclear energy is the key to ^^^^^^^^^^ understanding this newly discovered process. << I was always led to understand that there were discrete differences between the two terms, absorption being the process of incorporation of one substance by another. Adsorption being the "condensation" of a gas on to a surface. Are you using the terms in their pc forms or more loosley or even interchangeably, or am I just out of date ? Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 19 06:43:36 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19130 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 06:43:23 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA19072 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 06:43:10 -0700 Received: from net-1-183.austin.eden.com (net-1-183.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.183]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id IAA19348; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 08:43:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 08:43:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199510191343.IAA19348 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: electron clusters X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:58 PM 10/18/95 -0400, Bill Page wrote: >Oh, MUCH bigger than I thought. I was thinking about 2 or 4 or so >electrons. These clusters are macroscopic in the quantum mechanical >sense. Why so many? Are smaller clusters possible? If not why not, >etc. LANL has reported observing some 2, 4, 8, etc. clustering in some work they were doing a while back but the setup was very different. Hal, could you give us a brief description of that work? Anyway, the ones Shoulders made with spark discharges all seemed to be at least 10^8 electrons. >>Well...er....the nucleus of an ordinary atom may just be a ZPE-condensed >>cluster of protons. >I think you should be careful in such sweeping statements as the >above. Point very well taken, Bill. I am quick to make such statements because I dislike quantum mechanics (because I will never understand it on a fundamental level). However, I stand in absolute awe of the successes QM has had in predicting real-world phenomena. My sincere hope is that SED/QED will provide a completely parallel model to QM. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 00:49:57 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03894 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 07:45:59 -0700 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03829 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 07:45:45 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id KAA12611; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:44:26 -0400 Date: 19 Oct 95 10:42:52 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: News from Naval Research Lab Message-ID: <951019144251_72240.1256_EHB40-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: >INTERNET:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Ralph Hartley informs us that we may be toying with Forces Beyond Our Control, and poking into things Man Was Not Meant To Know. This reminds me of the speculation by some physicists before the first atomic bomb test that the State of New Mexico might get wiped out, or possible the entire planet. They thought the atoms in the atmosphere might join in the chain reaction. I gather Ralph is saying it might be worse than that. It is difficult to react to such speculation. I guess Ralph is serious . . . It would be inadequate to merely reply: "I hope you are wrong." Let me offer one reason to suspect this nightmare scenario is wrong. It seems to me that every source of energy we humans have discovered so far has also been found in a naturally occurring form. Fire and electricity are common on the earth's surface. Fire has often gotten out hand, burning cities and forests, but nature and modern fire department regulations limit the damage. Some energy sources, like fission, are extremely rare on earth, at least in their concentrated form. However there is good evidence that spontaneous chain reactions have occurred in naturally formed fission reactors, in highly concentrated uranium ore in Africa. Plasma fusion may only occur in stars, but there is evidence that it is seen on earth in ball lightning. Some people have speculated that cold fusion occurs in the earth at sites with concentrated Pd or Ni ore. Many microscopic CF events underground might be the source of the earth's heat, which cannot easily be explained by conventional theory. If it is possible to tap ZPE energy, my hunch is that nature has probably already tapped it, and when we look for them we will find naturally occurring ZPE reactors. Perhaps they are widespread. We will find the reaction is self limiting. Perhaps these mysterious gigantic cylindrical stellar explosions that reach light years across space are fueled by ZPE. Who knows? On a disquieting note, perhaps those gigantic explosions originate in garage laboratory experiments on planets orbiting doomed stars. Anyway, here is a happier news item also from the Naval Research Lab in Washington. On Friday October 20, David Nagel, Superintendent of the Condensed Matter and Radiation Sciences Division, will be giving a lecture on cold fusion at the Philosophical Society of Washington at the Cosmos Club. The title is "Whatever Happened to 'Cold Fusion'?" The Philosophical Society is, quote: "The Oldest Scientific Society in Washington, Founded 1871." (I guess they are still wet behind the ears by U.K. standards.) In previous years the Society has hosted lectures by other leading CF scientists, including Talbott Chubb. Dave has been a quiet but powerful supporter of CF for a long time. This is the first time that he has stepped into the limelight as far as I know. The abstract is hard hitting: "'Cold Fusion' is now ignored, disdained and even mocked by scientists and the public. This is due to a variety of mistakes by scientists and the government, and the unwillingness of journal, magazine and newspaper editors to pay attention to this topic. But, does this mean that nothing is being done, or should be done, in response to questions raised by work on 'cold fusion'? Several hundred people world-wide are spending full or part time trying to get to the bottom of the mysteries which followed from the 1989 announcement by Pons and Fleischmann. The fifth international conference in Europe earlier this year attracted 200 people, half of them with industrial connections, mainly from Japan, Italy, France and the U.S. There are active programs in Russia, India and China. A framework for organizing work on 'cold fusion' will be presented, along with some of the data which cannot, in the opinion of the speaker, be attributed to fraud or error. If correct, these data would strongly indicate that nuclear reactions are behind some of the observations. They do not support the view that such reactions are ordinary fusion; hence, 'cold fusion' is merely a label and not an assertion of what is happening. It will be argued that government funding of work in this area would not be wasteful, since hydrogen science and technology are accepted fields of inquiry. They form the basis of a large and growing industry in the U.S. and abroad." - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 19 07:56:58 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06667 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 07:56:57 -0700 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA06652 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 07:56:51 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id KAA07462; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:55:34 -0400 Date: 19 Oct 95 10:54:49 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: ZPE not a good idea. Message-ID: <951019145448_100433.1541_BHG32-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com I would suggest the following counter to Ralph's interesting idea. The universe - last I heard - is very big and very old. In such a large and old place, there is certainly room for plenty of other scientifically-minder civilisations to have flourished. I would suggest that in so great an expanse of space and time, other such societies might - almost must - have explored physics at least as far and presumably much further than we have. They would have tried to tap the ZPE. Accordingly, they either failed or their success didn't much matter in terms of the universe. Which is not of course to say that they didn't pop the bubble in their own area .... Another problem is this. It is virtually impossible to find any artificial process which can never occur in nature. There is even a supposed former 'fission reactor' of natural origin somewhere in W Africa. Even a fission explosion is not inconceivable in so vast a universe. If tapping ZPE is possible, then it happens in nature and is relatively safe. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 00:45:55 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17730 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 08:44:58 -0700 Received: from escape.com (escape.com [198.6.71.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA17681 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 08:44:47 -0700 Received: (from chope localhost) by escape.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id LAA26785 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:28:59 -0400 From: Charles Hope Message-Id: <199510191528.LAA26785 escape.com> Subject: Re: electron clusters To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:28:59 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199510191343.IAA19348 matrix.eden.com> from "Scott Little" at Oct 19, 95 08:43:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 631 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > has had in predicting real-world phenomena. My sincere hope is that SED/QED > will provide a completely parallel model to QM. Parallel? QED is based firmly on QM, as is the idea of ZPE, to my knowledge. I understood it ZPE to be a direct "consequence" of Heisenberg's Uncertainly Principle. Isn't this like hoping thermodynamics would replace classical mechanics? > > Scott Little > EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (ema __________________________________________ Optic options, run shinstopper skinpopper. Charles From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 00:52:24 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25823 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:16:10 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA25714 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:15:33 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (scott.dsis.dnd.ca [131.136.15.26]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA28830 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510191607.MAA28830 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:12:28 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: >At 05:58 PM 10/18/95 -0400, Bill Page wrote: >>I think you should be careful in such sweeping statements as the >>above. > >Point very well taken, Bill. I am quick to make such statements because I >dislike quantum mechanics (because I will never understand it on a >fundamental level). Ah, Scott, you must be yet another victim of that "conspiracy" that I referred to a few days ago concerning the deliberate attempt by "them" to make quantum mechanics obscure and distasteful to those people who are exactly those who otherwise would be the most inclined to use it! I think the problem most people have with quantum mechanics is the extent to which it departs from ordinary intuition. The way quantum mechanics is taught, it leaves the "real world" of "real things" and enters the world of abstract mathematics at a very early stage. The conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics encorporates an essentially probablistic view about the nature of the world and places severe limitations on what types of questions about the nature of realty are even meaningful at all. Much of the mathematics of quantum mechanics is expressed in terms of multi-dimensional or even infinite dimensional spaces which are extremely difficult to visualize using our built-in geometrical intutition. Contrary to what some people have claimed, this doesn't have to be the case. General relativity, while probably equally as abstract in terms of its mathematics, never had such problems with obtaining an intuition understanding of what was being discussed. And the mental images provided by Einstein and others have a strong appeal to geometry. It is well known that Einstein never liked the conceptual approach taken in quantum mechanics despite make several very important contributions to it himself. Concerning quantum mechanics: honestly, I don't think it is true that you "will never understand it on a fundamental level". This sort of statement is typical of someone who has a "mental block" like many people experience while learning mathematics. After my own undergraduate physics education, I had such a mental block concerning quantum mechanics for almost all of 15 years. During that time I did read a lot of stuff about the foundations of physics and quantum mechanics in particular, but I can't say I really appreciated much of it. Actually, I was also rather lucky to have worked with and maintained a personal friendship with one of my favorite undergraduate physics teachers since those early days. He has sporadically tried to re-encourage me to really understand what I was critising all that time. He also happens to be someone who met David Bohm personally on several occassions and very much admired his work. In the intervening years, I had taken several more theoretical physics courses as time permitted. And I had read David Bohm's little book, "Causuality and Chance" during that early period and when his most recent book "The Undivided Universe" was published post-humously, (jointly with B.J. Hiley), I was finally convinced that I could and did understand most of the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. > However, I stand in absolute awe of the successes QM >has had in predicting real-world phenomena. My sincere hope is that SED/QED >will provide a completely parallel model to QM. [First let me correct my nomencature from a previous message. I referred to SED as standing for Statistical Electrodynamics - it should have been Stochastic Electrodynamics... well almost the same thing, but not quite.] QED is the relativistically compatible field-theoretic extension of quantum mechanics. Aside from Feynman's idosyncratic but very useful diagram notation, it is really just the natural extension of the early work on relativistic quantum mechanics and as such, it does not come with any fundamentally new ideas for the intuition. Feynmann's main conceptual tool is based on his "path integral" approach which does attempt to re-introduce a more intuitive notion of particle and particle trajectory into quantum mechanics, but the result is still a very "unrealistic" notion where we must think of a particle moving from A to B by somehow simultaneously moving "by all possible routes" from A to B and then "summing" over all these possibilities. No one seems to have any good ideas about what this might really mean in physically intuitive terms. SED (as I understand it so far at least, please anyone correct me where I am wrong) takes a different approach. It starts back with the intuitively appealing classical concept of a particle, but adds the notion that the detailed motion of particles is in part determined by an essentially random process (stochastic) that is driven by the interaction between the electrically charged constituents of matter with the ubiquitous background ZPE field. The notion that such a ZPE field might exist was a result of QED, but in SED I think its existence is taken as a premise on which the rest of SED is built. But this is radically different than ordinary quantum mechanics, so theorists delight in being able to prove, in many special cases at least, that SED produces the same results as quantum mechanics and QED. de Broglie's and Bohm's approach however is quite different. It is usually presented by pointing out that the most fundamental equation in quantum mechanics (Schrodinger's equation) really has fundamentally two interpretations, one in which it describes the evolution of the complex number valued "probability amplitude" in the way usually discussed in introductory quantum mechanics. The other interpretation, which is obtained by a simple symbolic manipulation involving separating the two real parts of the complex expression, however shows that Schrodinger's equation can also be viewed as simply encoding in a compact way the usual classical equation for the motion of a particle *plus* an additional force that derives from a new sort of field. The simple way to think of this is just that the "wave" described by Schrodinger's wave equation is what must be generating this new force. So from Bohm's point of view, quantum mechanics is about *both* particles and waves. All the rest of ordinary quantum mechanics can be derived from the alternate starting point. The result is a theory which appeals much more strongly to our ordinary intuitions about reality and is one in which there are no "forbidden" questions, etc. Unlike de Broglie's very early writing and some recent popularizations of quantum mechanics, Bohm does *not* refer anything so peculiar as "matter waves". Is that some sort of cross between a particle and a wave - whatever that might mean? No. In Bohm's view, at the abstract level of description represented by quantum mechanics matter *is* composed of particles with well-defined, exact positions at each point in time, whose motion is affected not only by the more well known "classical" fields such as those derived from electromagnetism, but also by a quantum mechanical field represented most directly simply by the quantum mechanical wavefunction itself. But Bohm's approach and SED may not be so different fundamentally. It seems possible that some ZPE field might be the ultimate "source" of the forces (quantum potential) which Bohm views as being "directed" by the quantum wave function. Many of the possible details of this are still actively being worked out by theoreticians. It seems to me, however to be basically just a question of where you want your theory building to start. The main results are still the same. [Sorry to make this so long. I guess I am succuming to the tendency of all those who think they have (finally) learned something, to want to demonstrate it and "preach" it at every instance available. I apologize, but for one final word.] I am a bit worried that many of the currently prevalent attempts, by people who are easily labelled as "weird scientists", at building new theories in order to account for such putative new phenomena such as "CF" and "O/U" are simply reacting to the fact that they never really understood what quantum mechanics was really saying. And I am afraid that to some extent this might also extend to some of the ZPE-based theories. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 00:49:21 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29856 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:32:32 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29733 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:32:06 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (scott.dsis.dnd.ca [131.136.15.26]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA28872 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510191624.MAA28872 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:29:18 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Schwinger Fusion Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ron, thankyou very much for your posting on Schwinger's theories. I think it provides an excellent basis for further discussion. Ron McFee wrote: > ... > > In Schwinger fusion a large quantum of energy of several MeV >is parceled either directly or through stages into millions of sub eV phonons. Of course, almost everyone else is saying that this is what is most impossible about many of the "CF" theories. I have never found anything written by Schwinger that demonstrates that this might be possible in any other than that "hand waving" way that you point out is an essential technique in this type of theory. >Peter Hagelstein with his phonon laser got this backwards. He heard the >same talk by Julian Schwinger at the First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion >Salt Lake on March 29, 1990 that I did. I wonder why he didn't understand >this and has come up with so many different and contradictory "weird" >theories since that time. I don't see Hagelstein's theories in this light. Rather it seems to me that he is struggling exactly with this question of how it might be possible that MeV energies might some how turn into millions of phonons. He is using the phonon laser concept as a means to provide this type of de-excitation (yes, perhaps in reverse). >... > >This collective adsorption of the nuclear energy by the hydrogen and/or metal >lattice explains why there is not the obvious ionizing radiation that is >associated with many other nuclear processes such as fission and thermonuclear >fusion. A big question for me is: How can any such putative process be so effective as to *completely* eliminate any measurable radiation (in most cases). Surely lattice defects and other disruptions would interfere with such processes. Then why don't we see any of the more well known types of radiation generating processes going on? > >ZPE note: If you wish, you can think of the 3He or 4He that is formed as >collapsed Casimir plates. Really? > >The Schwinger hypothesis lends itself to direct experimental verification. >... This is good and I do agree that Schwinger's hypothesis at the very least does serve as a basis for the formulation of good "CF" experiments. Such experiments should focus, I think, on showing the existence of these collective effects, preferrably in situations not necessarily involving "CF" reactions, if possible. > >There is list of Julian's papers on cold fusion, sonoluminescence, phonon >representations and Casimir forces in the first issue of "Cold Fusion" magazine >which was published May 1994 on page 17. I will post these if anyone requests. > Yes, I would like to see this list. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 00:46:10 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00970 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:36:09 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA00867 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:35:47 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (scott.dsis.dnd.ca [131.136.15.26]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA28891 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:29:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510191629.MAA28891 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:34:28 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" (Peter) wrote: >... > >PS. Can you tell me what's the highest isotopical purity >of water/hydrogen products available? > I don't know the direct answer, but I do know that such deuterium depleted water is available from producers of heavy water such as Ontario Hydro in Canada as a natural by-product of heavy water production. Of course there is normally very little demand for it, but a representative of Ontario Hydro did tell me when we met at ICCF5 that their deuterium deplete water was available from the most of the same suppliers who supply heavy water commericially. If you are interested, I could dig out his name, address, etc. and obtain more exact information on how to obtain such water as well as its specifications. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 00:46:12 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22601 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:04:42 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA22520 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:04:22 -0700 Message-Id: <199510191604.JAA22520 mail.eskimo.com> Received: by power.gpu.com id (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:03:54 -0400 Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:03:54 -0400 Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-0); Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:03:54 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: explosion Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 11:57:53 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 No No No the universe will not explode. The energy produced by a falling object is ZPE. Lots of things have fallen and the univeerse has not exploded. Per my paper. Force induces gravity. Do you feel the weight of your body pressing down upon your seat. That's a force. Force induces gravity. The force associated with being in the gravitational well of earth generates the kinetic energy of a body that falls to earth. That's the process..in a one shot deal.....There is a way to cycle the process....to follow. Frank Z From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 00:51:38 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08114 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:05:11 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA08020 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:04:53 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (scott.dsis.dnd.ca [131.136.15.26]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA28981 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:58:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510191658.MAA28981 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:03:48 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: ZPE #3 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 > -> FRANK ZNIDARSIC > > ... > >Now for the best of all my 3d paper. This paper has the >potential to rock the foundations of modern science. Bill >Page you should appreciate it. I invite your comments. For some probably egoistic reason this statement does greatly amuse me! Perhaps I need to apologize in advance... >To start Bill Page mentioned David Bohm...Bohm's theory was >based on the premise that matter waves we real. No, I did not exactly say that. I did not use the term "matter waves" at all. Please refer to my recent reply to Scott Little for many more details. (Perhaps too many.) > This idea >has some problems. All real waves propagate. Why dont matter >waves propagate? Who said they don't propogate? Also, it is important in this discussion to distinquish between waves and fields. It is true that propogating waves are one of the type of solutions that are typically considered in many of the well known field equations. But that is not the only sort of solution. > Keep in mind that matter acts like a standing wave. In what way? >What makes the wave stand? Isn't this just definitional? I don't understand this apparently rhetorical question. > Another mystery is why does matter >shrink and swell with velocity. Ah, isn't this the subject of special relativity? > Nick Herbert writes in >Quantum Reality "The fact of the matter is that nobody really >knows these days how an electron, or any other quantum entity, >actually possesses its dynamic attributes" This is a very major over statement of the actual state of affairs in theoretical physics. > >Current theory accounts for thses problems by stating that matter >waves are not real, they are only waves of probability. As such >they contain no energy. An imaginary place of residence was invented >for these probablility waves called configuration space. > >I think this is a bunch of bunk! Configuration space is a construction of mathematics. In that sense all of mathematics is imaginary. I agree that multi-dimensional spaces are un-intuitive, but that by itself does not make them any more or less real. > D. Bohm thought the idea >was bunk. Not to my knowledge. Bohm's theories still require that the wavefunction be defined over the configuration space of the system. > Bohm came up with the idea that the wavefunctions >of matter are real. No, this idea really originated with de Broglie. By your use of the word "real" I will assume you are talking about something intuitively tangible and objectively real - even measurable, in the positivist sense. I am not sure at all that this is what Bohm had in mind. > These wavefunctions were guided (as you >stated Bill) by a Pilot wave. No, it is the particle that is guided by the wavefunction. > This wave was hidden from view and >has quasi-magical properties. In my opinion Bohm subsitituted >one form of bunk for another. He was, however, on the right >track in his belief that matter waves are real. I think you should really go back and read what de Broglie and Bohm wrote about this subject. I think you are grossly mis- representing their views. > >I will now show that matter is composed by real waves. These >real waves are held in place by real forces. When you read >the paper think, eat, and live by my third rule.. >Nature is built upon underlying symmetries. > > ... None of these rules seem to have helped me to understand what you are getting at in this series of papers. I would like to see something more down to earth, like how to calculate the excess ZPE derived energy in some specific situation such as the ZPE-clusters that have been observered. I don't think it is necessary to start with cosmology to arrive at such a calculation. Taking too big of a "wack" at established theories just seems to make your writing look like just more "weird science" to me. Sorry, I don't mean to sound as if I am capable of really "standing in judgment" of your work. Its not that at all. Its just that I do not find anything accessible in your writing that applies to the subjects of "CF", "O/U" or even ZPE for that matter. And I suppose, the style of the writing, itself puts me off a little. Too grand for my tastes. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 00:53:03 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA28945 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 16:46:34 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA28792 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 16:46:05 -0700 Received: from dialup-a31.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a31.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.31]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id JAA12885 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:43:24 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199510192343.JAA12885 tornado.netspace.net.au> From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Cluster catalyzed fusion Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 22:47:29 GMT Organization: Improving X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: All the talk of electron clusters has set me thinking, and I would like to present the following possibility for your consideration. Suppose that as each electron is added to an electron cluster, it radiates away the energy of its condensation, in the form of a photon. It seems likely to me that the frequency of this photon will increase with each successive addition,(but maybe not). When such a cluster reaches a given critical size (somewhere between 5 and 1E6 electrons?), the cluster takes on the ability of a negative muon to catalyze fusion reactions. This is however not really a catalysis, as the cluster is destroyed in the process. Consider for a moment, the following reaction between 60Ni and H. 60Ni + H ----> 61Cu + 4.8 MeV (I) Because there is only one end particle, such a reaction would normally be very unlikely. However the presence of a whole bevy of electrons in the form of the cluster, in the very near neighborhood of the reaction, allows it to proceed by dumping the energy of the excited nucleus into the electron cluster. Some of the fusion energy is used to "put back in" the energy that was initially radiated away in the form of photons when the cluster was formed, and the remainder is distributed evenly across the now separate cluster electrons as kinetic energy. It is an interesting side note, that 61Cu is unstable, and normally decays by electron capture with a half life of 3.33 hours, with a decay energy of 2.23MeV. I presume that this is normally in the form of a gamma ray. However the fact that it decays by electron capture, and the fact that at the moment of its creation, there are many electrons very close to hand, may result in a huge reduction in this decay time. Consequently, it is possible that the decay also happens at the moment of creation, allowing also this energy to be distributed among the many remaining electrons of the cluster. Interestingly, exactly the same story can be told for 61Ni + H ----> 62Cu + 5.9 MeV (II) followed normally by 62Cu + e- ----> 62Ni + 3.9 MeV (e.c.) (III) Also, similar stories might be told for D, e.g. 60Ni + D ----> 62Cu + 11.4 MeV (IV) "followed" immediately by III as above. or 62Ni + D ----> 64Cu + 11.8 MeV (V) and 64Cu + e- ----> 64Ni + 1.67 MeV (VI) (normally 61% e.c. 39% e- decay, however once again the presence of many close electrons may alter the odds in favour of e.c.) The net result of all of these reactions is the consumption of hydrogen, and a shift in isotope ratios of the host metal, with excess heat being liberated in the form of many low energy photons, and many low energy electrons. These electrons will also result in some soft x-rays (depending on the size of clusters involved). I further suggest that electron clusters may actually be relatively common in metals, or more precisely, on or near the surface of metals, and may contribute to the work function of a metal. It is due to their presence on the surface, that Ken Shoulders manages to "produce" them. In other words, they already exist, and are "liberated" from the metal surface, by the highly concentrated field at the tip of a stylus. Perhaps they are a consequence of the large discontinuity in the lattice of a metal, that a surface represents. They may also play a role in normal chemical heterogeneous catalysis. If the energy of condensation does indeed increase with the size of a cluster, then an electron in the outer shell of a normal atom, may well find it energetically more favourable to join a cluster, than to remain bound to its original atom, thus "leaves home", and leaves behind an ion that is then free to partake in other chemical reactions. The energy liberated by such reactions is then partially used to free an electron from a cluster, resulting in a net catalytic effect. In other words, the reaction doesn't happen if there is no net energy gain from the overall reaction, however it is speeded up by the process, if it is energetically possible. This scenario has the advantage that it does explain excess energy using normal hydrogen, without resorting to the normally very slow H-H fusion process. It also explains the lack of high energy reaction products, and also explains isotope shifts in metals. It is even possible that if sufficiently heavy isotopes are formed, these sometimes result in alfa decay, which would explain small, amounts of helium, though not commensurate with heat production. Furthermore, it requires no great departure from currently understood physics. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 19 17:41:54 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13699 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 17:41:51 -0700 Received: from karloff.lanl.gov (karloff.lanl.gov [128.165.16.190]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA13674 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 17:41:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199510200041.RAA13674 mail.eskimo.com> Received: by karloff.lanl.gov (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA142669680; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 18:41:20 -0600 From: Ron McFee Subject: Natural Processes To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 18:41:19 MDT Cc: mcfee lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter, thanks for the information on the Piantelli patent. It is quite interesting that they have the "F" word (Fusion) in the title and abstract. The Italian patent office has set a good example for the rest of the world. That they claim the process is p D fusion means that they probably have good measurements of 3He. I look forward to seeing their articles in Nuovo Cimento. Jacques Dufour was in Los Alamos in May of this year, and I asked him about 3He measurements. He thought at that time the 3He to 4He ratio was anomalously high in his experiments. Chris writes: >Another problem is this. It is virtually impossible to find any artificial >process which can never occur in nature. There is even a supposed former >'fission reactor' of natural origin somewhere in W Africa. Even a fission >explosion is not inconceivable in so vast a universe. Right. There were actually several sites in Gabon in a uranium rich ore body which went critical off and on 1.8 billion years ago when the uranium isotopic concentration of 235U was 3% rather than the present 0.72%. There is a good "Scientific American" article about this published July 1976 by George Cowan of Los Alamos. It was first discovered when it was noticed that there was a slight depletion of 235U in the uranium. When resources become available, we should check the deuterium to protium ratios of various hydrated minerals to see if there has been any depletion over time of deuterium. I wonder if natural wave action in the oceans would produce small amounts of fusion. Obviously it can not be much or we would not have any deuterium left. This assumes that the Potapov mechanism is the same p D fusion as is claimed by the Piantelli patent of course. It could be that dissolved gases in waves suppress the effect. Norman and Dieter are quite correct. Adsorption should have been absorption in my last post. My spell checker and editor have been properly chastised. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 19 23:51:49 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24885 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 23:51:46 -0700 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA24875 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 23:51:42 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id CAA28759; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 02:50:26 -0400 Date: 19 Oct 95 23:58:56 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Schwinger Fusion Message-ID: <951020035855_102021.3045_EHT84-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Based on what Ron McFee wrote, The protons or deuterons are overcoming a 2.3 newton repulsive force at 10 Fermi or around 15 newtons at 4 Fermi separation distance. Based on high pressure research by geophysicists H.K. Mao and Peter M. Bell at the Carnegie Geophysical Laboratory in Washington D.C. hydrogen solidifies at room temperature under a pressure of 57 kilobars (838,000 psi). To my knowledge and based on a conversation with H.K. Mao about a year or so ago, no anomalous heat was observed in these experiments. The experiments are conducted at pressures to 500 kilobars and beyond with the goal of 2.5-3 megabars where it is thought that the hydrogen will become a metallic "plasma". Surely the reactions mentioned would have taken place in these experiments. To achieve the 3 megabar pressure the volume of the compression sample will be reduced by a factor of four. In all honesty there just doesn't seem to be much of a possibility for this type of fusion to be taking place. F.J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 00:01:15 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26350 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:01:12 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA26330 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:01:05 -0700 Received: from net-1-169.austin.eden.com (net-1-147.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.147]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id CAA07313 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 02:01:01 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 02:01:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199510200701.CAA07313 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: how to get ZPE X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I enjoyed the soap bubble story and have to admit that I've had a few daydreams about such catastrophic events but I feel like Chris has the correct view of the probability of this....zilch. Back to the central issue, then: can we get at zero-point field energy? It is widely accepted that the ZPF spectrum show a cubic increase in energy density with frequency. This is the only distribution which is Lorentz-invariant...i.e. does not exhibit detectable Doppler shifts when one is moving thru it at constant velocity. This means that the vast majority of the energy in the ZPF is at extremely high frequencies. Is is conceptually possible to construct an engine which absorbs ZPE in the form of high frequency photons, extracts some useful energy from them and then discards them as low energy photons? Or would such an engine necessarily violate the 2nd law of thermo? A somewhat parallel situation involves the heat energy in an ordinary room. The molecules in the room do not all have the same thermal energy but instead there is a distribution of energies which extends upwards quite a ways (i.e. some of the molecules in a room are significantly "hotter" than the mean). Can we construct an engine which absorbs heat from these hot molecules, extracts useful energy, and then discards heat at a lower temperature...still above the mean temperature of the room? From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 00:47:54 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03158 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:47:51 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03150 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:47:47 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id DAA19042; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 03:46:30 -0400 Date: 20 Oct 95 03:43:23 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: how to get ZPE Message-ID: <951020074323_100060.173_JHB66-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, >> Can we construct an engine which absorbs heat from these hot molecules, extracts useful energy, and then discards heat at a lower temperature...still above the mean temperature of the room? << Well, the Hilsch tube separates hot gas molecules from the cooler ones by vortex - a purely physical process of centrifuging. Unfortunately the input energy to produce the vortex is greater than the energy available from the hot molecules. However, what if it were possible to create the vortex by some rotating electrostatic field, and then put a heat exchanger into the hot part and transfer the energy to an external engine? You could also utilise the coolth. A kind of molecular heat-pump. Just doodling folks. Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 05:41:15 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05724 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 05:41:14 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA05690 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 05:41:05 -0700 Received: from dialup-a17.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a17.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.17]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id WAA07219 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 22:38:45 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199510201238.WAA07219 tornado.netspace.net.au> From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Schwinger Fusion Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:42:47 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199510182203.PAA25603 mail.eskimo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 18 Oct 95 16:03:29 MDT, you wrote: [snip] >There is list of Julian's papers on cold fusion, sonoluminescence, phonon >representations and Casimir forces in the first issue of "Cold Fusion" magazine >which was published May 1994 on page 17. I will post these if anyone requests. > > >Regards, Ron > Ron, It would be nice if these could be put on a web site. Perhaps J. Logajan will come to the party (John?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 04:56:22 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00376 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 04:56:19 -0700 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA00368 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 04:56:15 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA09515; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:54:57 -0400 Date: 20 Oct 95 07:52:13 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: QM & QED? Message-ID: <951020115213_102021.3045_EHT96-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wish that there would be less talk about QM and QED and how great the science is, and more focus on how these can be applied to the triatomic water molecule and how it can absorb energy whether from photons, zpe or getting hit with a baseball bat, and then dumping this energy when stimulated to do so. I think it is fundamental that absorption of energy puts the molecule in a lessor bound state, almost to the point of dissociation, and release of this energy lets the molecule get back to the more bound (ground)state. Surely with present day high speed computers these states and energies can be found. End of gripe! F.J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 07:11:10 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22062 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:11:07 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA21930 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:10:24 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t6I81-000MNrC; Fri, 20 Oct 95 16:08 EET Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 16:08:57 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: crucial experiment Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Re: Crucial Experiment. Dear Bill Page, Thank you for the info re. industrial deuterium depleted water. We have such a factory in our country too, however I am interested in ultra-pure water. Actually many reagent manufacturing companies are selling deuterium depleted water with a deuterium content of 100 times smaller than the natural abundance. ........................................................... In your opinion, colleagues is this absolutely relevant for a CRUCIAL EXPERIMENT ? If a Patterson Cell is working normally with such a water can we conclude that Schwinger fusion is NOT the explanation? If the cell doesn't work, it's a strong proof for p-d fusion, if deuterium is not necessary for triggering of the reaction? .............................................................. Dear Ron, The Piantelli Patent contains an apparent contradiction between the title plus description on one part and the examples on other. Their paper will be published first in the proceedings of an Italian symposium. I heard nothing about He-3 only about some weak gamma-rays. Jacques's ICCF-5 paper in the final version states clearly; "No signatures (of fusion reactions) above background were found" Excess energy was confirmed- and he concludes: "We think that explaining the phenomenum by a rearrangement of the binding between the proton and the electron, due to the confinement in the metal lattice , is more plausible ( although not known ) than invoking highly improbable fusion reactions. We intend to put more efforts in the understanding of this reaction" I have the same aim, but I need your help- can we organize the crucial experiment? All the best wishes from Peter! PS. "I am very interested in the Universe- I am specializing in the Universe and all that surrounds it" (exactly as Peter Cook) and therefore Ralph's posting has remembered me horror stories about spatial weapons worked out by the Soviets. However, I believe that the space-time channels through which the primordial energy can be harnessed are very narrow. If not, not.  From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 07:37:00 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28111 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:36:59 -0700 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA28104 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:36:55 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id KAA06529; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:35:37 -0400 Date: 20 Oct 95 10:31:54 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: H2O, Anecdote or Antidote? Message-ID: <951020143154_102021.3045_EHT140-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It takes a temperature of about 2800 deg, K to get about 11 percent dissociation of water (.25 ev). Yet there is a small autoionization at room temperature. Is this because of stored up metastable states that are pushing one of the protons toward dissociation of the molecule? A few years back there was a push for using strong magnets fixed so that like poles working against each other put in the water makeup line for boilers, did something to the water that supposedly made the salts settle out of the boiler water thus preventing boiler corrosion and buildup of deleterious mineral deposits. Also on the market is a "catalyst activated water" in a small bottle that when added to a gallon of "ordinary water" gives the water amazing properties that make it beneficial for everything from washing the dog, and mosquito bites, to treating whatever ailment that one is afflicted with. Now there's all of these CF phenomena! Truly an amazing compound. Is the depletion of these ordinary states going to adversely affect the world's water supply? F.J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 07:43:38 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29058 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:43:36 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA29037 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:43:30 -0700 Received: from net-1-109.austin.eden.com (net-1-109.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.109]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id JAA04361; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:43:29 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:43:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199510201443.JAA04361 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: electron clusters X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:28 AM 10/19/95, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: >Parallel? QED is based firmly on QM, as is the idea of ZPE, to my >knowledge. I understood it ZPE to be a direct "consequence" of >Heisenberg's Uncertainly Principle. >Isn't this like hoping thermodynamics would replace classical mechanics? It's a bit of the old "chicken and egg" problem. Yes, you do have to assume the existence of the ZPF which can most easily be thought of as the result of the uncertainty principle...but from there, you can apparently use classical arguments to come up with at least some of the things QM predicts....I think. Right, Hal? From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 08:00:52 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01996 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:00:51 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA01981 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:00:45 -0700 Received: from net-1-109.austin.eden.com (net-1-240.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.240]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id KAA06385 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:00:42 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:00:42 -0500 Message-Id: <199510201500.KAA06385 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: electron clusters X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:12 PM 10/19/95 -0400, Bill Page wrote: >I am a bit worried that many of the currently prevalent attempts, by >people who are easily labelled as "weird scientists", at building new >theories in order to account for such putative new phenomena such as >"CF" and "O/U" are simply reacting to the fact that they never really >understood what quantum mechanics was really saying. I think you're right on target here. >And I am afraid >that to some extent this might also extend to some of the ZPE-based >theories. Some, maybe...but there are a great number of really smart guys who are hard at work pursuing what appear to be rigorous work in this area. By the way, Bill, have you seen "Inertia as a zero-point field Lorentz force", Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff, Phys Rev A Vol 49 No 2.? If the theory proposed therein proves to be correct (several groups, including us, are currently trying to design a suitable experiment) ZPE will be "put on the map" in a big way. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 08:21:35 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05978 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:21:31 -0700 Received: from escape.com (escape.com [198.6.71.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA05951 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:21:25 -0700 Received: (from chope localhost) by escape.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id LAA00256 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:05:42 -0400 From: Charles Hope Message-Id: <199510201505.LAA00256 escape.com> Subject: Re: Cluster catalyzed fusion To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:05:41 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199510192343.JAA12885 tornado.netspace.net.au> from "Robin van Spaandonk" at Oct 19, 95 10:47:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1593 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > All the talk of electron clusters has set me thinking, and I would > like to present the following possibility for your consideration. > Suppose that as each electron is added to an electron cluster, it > radiates away the energy of its condensation, in the form of a photon. > It seems likely to me that the frequency of this photon will increase > with each successive addition,(but maybe not). When such a cluster If the energy always increased with each successive electron, it would act rather as a singularity and grow forever. So there must be a threshold point; the attractive force of the cluster may increase for the first set of electrons, but thereafter it must level off and approach zero, and eventually be "overcome" by the negative Coulomb repulsion of the electrons. Would such an event produce a sweep of EM frequencies from high to low, as successive electrons fall in to a cluster and lose successively decreasing amounts of energy? Come to think of it, the force that attracts the electrons is said to be equivalent to gravity, yes? Why then doesn't the electron cluster recruit other particles that are not electrons? There are particles that are somewhat more massive, and should be attracted that much more. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, > Learns all his life, > And leaves knowing nothing. > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > Charles From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 08:07:56 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03079 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:07:55 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA03045 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:07:45 -0700 Received: from net-1-109.austin.eden.com (net-1-240.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.240]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id KAA07266 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:07:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:07:44 -0500 Message-Id: <199510201507.KAA07266 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: K capture X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: What do we think about the process of K wave capture. The K wave is > near the nucleus. > Do you mean "electron capture"? If so, this is not mysterious to me...perhaps because I'm familiar with it. A number of radioactive elements decay in this manner, often producing a rather clean source of K x-rays of the resulting atom (e.g. Fe-55 sources emit Mn K x-rays). Very useful for x-ray fluorescence analysis, the one thing I can claim to be an expert in (20 years designing, building, supporting industrial XRF analyzers...excellent experience...glad it's over!). Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 08:10:57 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03481 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:10:55 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA03469; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:10:51 -0700 Received: from net-1-109.austin.eden.com (net-1-240.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.240]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id KAA07636; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:10:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:10:50 -0500 Message-Id: <199510201510.KAA07636 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Vortex From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: H2O, Anecdote or Antidote? X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:31 AM 10/20/95 EDT, Sparber wrote: >Now there's all of these CF phenomena! Truly an amazing compound. >Is the depletion of these ordinary states going to adversely affect the world's >water supply? Fred, here goes a typical skeptic remark but I can't help myself: Don't you think that if the world's most heavily researched substance had such energy states we'd already know about it? Yes, there are oddities going in in CF cells but I see no solid evidence that it's due to shrinking water molecules. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 07:28:56 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26502 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:28:53 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26428 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:28:37 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA12362 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:28:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199510201428.AA12362 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:28:23 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: K capture Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 10:27:42 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 What do we think about the process of K wave capture. The K wave is near the nucleus. Ni --> Fe the energy difference is only about 500,000 electron volts. Frank Z From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 08:53:49 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04184 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:53:17 -0700 Received: from escape.com (escape.com [198.6.71.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04168 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:53:12 -0700 Received: (from chope localhost) by escape.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id LAA03352 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:37:24 -0400 From: Charles Hope Message-Id: <199510201537.LAA03352 escape.com> Subject: Re: electron clusters To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:37:24 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199510191607.MAA28830 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> from "Bill Page" at Oct 19, 95 12:12:28 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5119 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Ah, Scott, you must be yet another victim of that "conspiracy" that I > referred to a few days ago concerning the deliberate attempt by "them" > to make quantum mechanics obscure and distasteful to those people who > are exactly those who otherwise would be the most inclined to use it! Why do you imagine this conspiracy was perpetrated, to reduce competition in the field of physics? It seems that such behavior would be unprecedented. > > I think the problem most people have with quantum mechanics is the > extent to which it departs from ordinary intuition. The way quantum > mechanics is taught, it leaves the "real world" of "real things" and > enters the world of abstract mathematics at a very early stage. The > conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics encorporates an > essentially probablistic view about the nature of the world and > places severe limitations on what types of questions about the > nature of realty are even meaningful at all. Much of the mathematics > of quantum mechanics is expressed in terms of multi-dimensional > or even infinite dimensional spaces which are extremely difficult > to visualize using our built-in geometrical intutition. Contrary to > what some people have claimed, this doesn't have to be the case. Your "real world" intuition comes from a brain that was evolved to be efficient as seeing tree branches as you swing through them, reading emotional expressions on the faces of troupe members, and using high tech instruments as the stick and stone. Your intuitional education comes from little Billy Page over there in the crib, tossing his blocks around the room and watching his mobile spin. There is no good reason why this hardware/software combination should be good at any passing understanding of the facts of reality at a dozen orders of magnitude in either direction. Therefore "intuitiveness" makes for a poor epistemology, or judge of theory. Most civilians have mental blocks against mathematics anyway, due to culture and millions of dysfunctional math teachers. There are a few different mathematical ways of doing QM, as we all know: There's Heisenberg's matrices, Schroedinger's wavefunctions and integrals, and Dirac's bra/ket formalism. Bra/ket is the coolest. The matrices aren't hard, although they are counterintuitive if you are attached to the notion of multiplicative commutation, which fails with matrices. When we speak of infinite-dimensional spaces, it's a joke. Dimension isn't meant in terms of spatial dimension; it means something totally different. It means anything which can somehow work somewhat like a real dimension mathematically. The analogy is totally mathematical and shouldn't be construed as geometric. > > General relativity, while probably equally as abstract in terms of > its mathematics, never had such problems with obtaining an intuition > understanding of what was being discussed. And the mental images > provided by Einstein and others have a strong appeal to geometry. > It is well known that Einstein never liked the conceptual approach > taken in quantum mechanics despite make several very important > contributions to it himself. > Do you know many people that can visualize 4-spacetime; understand intuitively the rotation of a hypercube and its projections upon 3-space, or "feel" the effects of curved spacetime? I suspect it might be remotely possible, after years of meditation, altered states, psychodrugs, and luck. > > de Broglie's and Bohm's approach however is quite different. It > is usually presented by pointing out that the most fundamental > equation in quantum mechanics (Schrodinger's equation) really has > fundamentally two interpretations, one in which it describes the > evolution of the complex number valued "probability amplitude" in > the way usually discussed in introductory quantum mechanics. The > other interpretation, which is obtained by a simple symbolic > manipulation involving separating the two real parts of the complex > expression, however shows that Schrodinger's equation can also be > viewed as simply encoding in a compact way the usual classical > equation for the motion of a particle *plus* an additional force > that derives from a new sort of field. The simple way to think of > this is just that the "wave" described by Schrodinger's wave > equation is what must be generating this new force. So from > Bohm's point of view, quantum mechanics is about *both* particles > and waves. All the rest of ordinary quantum mechanics can be > derived from the alternate starting point. The result is a theory > which appeals much more strongly to our ordinary intuitions about > reality and is one in which there are no "forbidden" questions, etc. > This approach constitutes only a different interpretation of QM and predicts no different results, is that so? It would be nice if you could post a few equations or point us to a book that does. Someplace around here I have Bohm's Quantum Physics from Dover -- does he speak of these ideas here? I haven't read it in years. > > Cheers, > Bill Page. > > From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 21 01:01:29 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13810 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:31:07 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA13784 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:31:00 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id MAA02045; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:29:35 -0400 Date: 20 Oct 95 12:28:24 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: H2O, Anecdote or Antidote Message-ID: <951020162824_102021.3045_EHT66-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little writes, >Don't you think that if the world's most researched substance >had such energy states > we'd already know about it? I think what we're just finding out will answer that question for you! F.J.Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 08:24:17 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06652 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:24:16 -0700 Received: from roimar.imar.ro (roimar.imar.ro [193.226.4.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA06577 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:23:58 -0700 Received: by roimar (MX V3.1C) id 17297; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 17:32:00 0200 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 17:31:55 0200 From: itimc roimar.imar.ro To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Message-ID: <0099829A.6A711260.17297 roimar> Subject: Arndt. Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Dear Bill Beaty, My friend Dave Moon from Minnesota has found the author of the paper entitled "Vortex Cavitation". I believe that we need the experize of Dr. Arndt for solving the difficult problems bound to the Griggs , Potapov, Huffman heat generators. May I ask you to have the kindness to invite Roger Arndt to join our group? See please Dave's letter. Thank you, Peter ...... Dear Peter, Finally tracked down Dr. Roger E.A. Arndt. He is on sabbatical at the National Science Foundation near Washington, D.C. We talked on the phone, nice visit. He seems to have interest in contacting you, Dr. Potapov, etc. Will send him I.E. #3, Potapov article from I.E. #2, Grigg's article from CF #2, your address, e-mail, Yuri's address. I have faxed to Gene Mallove of this contact. Dr. Arndt is at: National Science Foundation Division of Chemical and Transport Systems 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 U.S.A. E-mail: rarndt nsf.gov Fax: (703) 306-0319 All best, Dave Moon P.S. Dr. Arndt said he has been to Romania twice. -- ... From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 21 01:20:57 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15325 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:36:24 -0700 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM (GAV.GAT.COM [192.5.166.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA15291 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:36:16 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510201636.JAA15291 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 9:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:37:27 -0800 To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: Fusion vs. density Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: If compressing hydrogen isotopes to high density produces enhanced fusion rates above the well known D+D and D+T reactions, then the ones who would know about it are the "H" bomb designers. Fusion bombs operate by imploding solid LiD, with a bit of tritium added as an ignition booster, very rapidly to something on the order of 1000 times solid density. Nowadays the bombs are designed in detail by computer, and bomb tests (used to) validate the theoretical predictions by experiment. Any anomalies of significance would have been noticed. However, the information not publically available. (I have never worked on bomb design, so anything I say on this subject is gleaned from public information.) Inertial fusion in the laboratory tries to replicate this extreme fast- compression-to-thermonuclear reaction route, using small pellet or capsule "targets" blasted simultaneously from many directions (to maintain spherical symmetry) by a very short, very intense laser or ion beam pulse. The USA has the world's biggest facilities, and the main real program goal was to improve the physics basis of the computer models fora bomb design by controlled laboratory experiments. Now that the cold war has ended, some of the scientific results are being slowly declassified. Russia and France had similar, but smaller programs. The Japanese group at U. Osaka has a laser driven inertial fusion facility. There the actual long range goal is useful fusion energy. Although not as big as the biggest in the USA, it is still a substantial and well equipped facility. The Japanese scientists publish openly. Compressions to ~100 times solid density have been achieved. They have never mentioned any anomolous fusion. Note that in all the above the plasmas are HOT, from ~100 eV in small inertial confinement to ~100 keV in bombs. (When we thermonuclear fusioneers talk about hot, we don't mean sparks, lightning and welding arcs, which are all between 1 and 10 eV, much less ordinary furnaces, which are about 0.1 eV.) In magnetic fusion, such as I work in, magnetic fields are used to confine and thermally insulate hot deuterium or DT plasma. Here densities are low, on the order of 10e-6 that of gas at STP. Temperatures range all the way from "cold" 10 eV plasmas in the early days to 40 keV in some experiments today. (About 10 keV is needed to ignite a self sustaining fusion reaction, if the thermal insulation is also good enough. Todays experiments are a bit short on this latter parameter, but steady progress is being made on improved confinement. The other alternative, bigger plasmas = thicker insulation, is guarenteed to work and, therefore, is the basic approach of the proposed ITER international fusion burn reactor. However, over the long run we would like to replace brute force by cleverness.) Back to my point, these experiments are well studied. There has never been any evidence for anomalous energy release, at least not in the form of neutrons or gammas, both of which are readily detected and routinely measured. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 21 01:03:02 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03044 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:49:19 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA02920 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:49:00 -0700 Received: from net-1-109.austin.eden.com (net-1-125.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.125]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id MAA26544 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:48:57 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:48:57 -0500 Message-Id: <199510201748.MAA26544 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: nickel hydride X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Does this compound actually exist? It's not in my copy of "the rubber bible", or my Merck, or my Chem Engr's Handbook, or the 1970 Britannica which has quite a good article on hydrides and lists 20 or 30 of them with properties. If so, can you provide its heat of formation? Typical values (from the Britannica) are -20 kcal/mole...i.e. it generates heat upon formation. Thanks. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 21 01:18:48 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21836 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:00:11 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA21619 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:59:27 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA03906 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:59:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199510201659.AA03906 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:59:09 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Response Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 12:58:30 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:51:22 -0400 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com To: p8156 memo.gpuc.com Subject: Response Bill thank you for you comments. Let's talk about them. 1. The dynamic attribute I was referring to was the DeBroglie wavelength, not the Lorentz contraction. 2. I have a problem with wave solutions that allow for standing waves. All the waves I know about propagate. Did you ever see a sound wave hang around? Did you ever see water waves hang motionless in a pond? Did you ever see a photon sit still? Gravity waves also propagate. In fact, all waves propagate. Its a property of simple harmonic motion. Probability waves must also propagate..that is..if they are in any way connected to reality. It's true that local fields stay put, but they are attached to something. I never saw a magnetic field without the magnet. If there is a wave solution that hangs around, I have never seen it. Clearly there is a fundamental problem with a theory that allows such solutions. 3. My theory is based on the idea that a force contains the wavefunctions of matter. Using very simple algebra I have shown that the inertial mass, the gravitational mass, and the deBroglie wavelength fall out of such a solution. This idea is big..but its not Weird. 4. I am getting to the connection to zero point energy. Before I can do this we must first understand about the zero energy universe and the symmetrical relationship between force and gravity. These ideas are simple well, founded and will provide us with a deep new understanding about matter and energy. 5. I can't help it I write big. I am fairly large myself. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 21 01:17:56 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA29275 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 16:17:55 -0700 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA29243 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 16:17:46 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00546 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 19:16:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 19:16:21 -0400 Message-ID: <951020191620_49936425 mail04.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tapping energy Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To answer Dieter Britz about size of Casimir-Force energy extraction, relationship of Casimir force to vacuum fluctuation ZPE, etc. 1. With regard to the standard Casimir collapsing-plate scenario, optically-polished, square-meter plates collapsing from macroscopic distances (e.g., 1 meter or infinity, essentially the same) to one-micron spacing would yield half a nanojoule, and if the collapse took place in a millisecond, that's only half a microwatt - not much to write home about, but still (in my opinion) a principle here worth pursuing. 2. Yes, the Casimir force *does* have to do with the vacuum fluctuation zero-point energy (ZPE). The vacuum fluctuation ZPE spectrum of the electromagnetic field in free space is a cubic-frequency distribution rho = h-bar X omega-cubed/2 X pi-squared X c-cubed joules per meter-cubed per unit frequency interval in radians/sec. This is just the mode density in free space times (h-bar omega/2) zero-point energy per mode. These vacuum-fluctuation EM fields are just like any other EM fields and satisfy boundary conditions like any others (e.g., tangential electric fields go to zero at the boundary of conducting plates in the Casimir setup). The attractive Casimir force is then the result of the decreasing vacuum-fluctuation modes between the plates as the plates move closer and closer during collapse, due to the fact that longer-wavelength modes simply can't exist in the crowded space and still satisfy the boundary conditions (like cavities below cutoff). Since these modes have energy and momentum, the outside radiation pressure wins over the inside, resulting in the inverse 4th law attractive Casimir force and inverse cubed-law Casimir energy, all the result of vacuum fluctuation energy. 3. For a general description of the above in not-too technical form see my paper H. Puthoff, "The energetic vacuum: implications for energy research," in Speculations in Science and Technology, vol 13, p. 247, 1990. For a somewhat more technical short paper about energetics and thermodynamcs of above see Cole and Puthoff, "Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum," in Physical Review E, vol 48, p. 1562, 1993. 4. Although the collapse of plates together, converting ZPE into heat, as in 1. above is not much, the prospect of collapsing balls of charge, converting ZPE into stored coulomb electric field energy is possibly of interest, depending on how small the balls of charge can collapse. Although I've done calculations, it's hard to quantify since we don't know at which point instabilities will disrupt collapse. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 16:28:57 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01908 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 16:28:54 -0700 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA01878 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 16:28:44 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04848 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 19:27:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 19:27:21 -0400 Message-ID: <951020192719_49945046 mail06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tapping energy Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin, I would say that the ash in the Casimir plate experiment is the plates together, yes. Hal From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 17:21:55 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13648 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 17:21:48 -0700 Received: from karloff.lanl.gov (karloff.lanl.gov [128.165.16.190]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA13627 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 17:21:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199510210021.RAA13627 mail.eskimo.com> Received: by karloff.lanl.gov (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA292204895; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 18:21:35 -0600 From: Ron McFee Subject: Schwinger references To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 18:21:34 MDT Cc: mcfee lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here is a partial list of Julian Schwinger's papers on cold fusion, sonoluminescence, phonon representations, and Casimir forces. Courtesy of Gene Mallove and company. Quoted from the first Issue of "Cold Fusion" magazine, May 1994, Vol. 1, No. 1., p. 17. I have added a couple of new references. "Nuclear Energy in an Atomic Lattice," Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, March 28-31, 1990, Salt Lake City, pp. 130-136. "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis," Zeitschrift Fuer Naturforschung, Vol. 45, No. 5, May 1990, p. 756. "Cold Fusion: Does it Have a Future?" in Evolutional Trends of Physica Science, Springer Verlag, 1991 (From a talk delivered in Tokyo, 1990) (Also published in Cold Fusion magazine, May 1994, Vol 1. No. 1, pp. 14-17). "Phonon Representations," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol 87, September 1990, pp. 6983-6984. "Phonon Dynamics," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Vol 87, November 1990, pp. 8360-8372. "Nuclear Energy in an Atomic Lattice-Casual Order," Prog. Theor. Phys., Vol 85, No. 4, April 1991, pp. 711-712. "A Progress Report: Energy Transfer in Cold Fusion and Sonoluminescence," a lecture delivered at MIT and at the University of Pennsylvania, autumn 1991. "Casimir Energy for Dielectrics," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 89, May 1992, pp. 4091-4093. "Casimir Light: Photon Pairs," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 90, May 1993, pp. 4504-4507. "Casimir Light: Pieces of the Action," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 90, August 1993, pp. 7285-7287. "Casimir Light: Field Pressure," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol 91, July 1994, pp. 6473-6475. "Cold Fusion Theory - A Brief History of Mine'" Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Maui, Vol. 4, July 1994, pp. 1-1,1-9. (Also published in "Infinite Energy" magazine, Vol. 1, No. 1, March-April 1995, pp. 10-13.) Regards, Ron From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 21 01:11:34 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA10242 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 17:07:41 -0700 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA10164 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 17:07:17 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA05996 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 20:05:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 20:05:57 -0400 Message-ID: <951020200555_49976108 mail04.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: how to get ZPE Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott asks whether it might be posible to build a machine that extracts higher-energy ZPE photons and downshift them to lower frequencies, generating useful energy in the process. As it turns out, there is a similar process already published by Booth, "Energy extraction from the quantum electrodynamic fluctuations of the vacuum state," Speculations in Science and Technology, vol 10, No. 3, p 201 1986 (I think). It goes like this. A laser is used to excite an atom on the lower side of its lifetime-broadened transition frequency spectrum. The atom then decays "spontaneously" somewhere within its broadened linewidth, which on the average will be at a higher frequency than that at which the absorption took place. What does this have to do with the ZPE? It is that the ZPE plays a significant role in so-called "spontaneous" emission, which is not so spontaneous but rather is stimulated emission, stimulated by ZPE vacuum fluctuations. Se April 1993 Scientific American for readable article on "Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics" for description of vacuum-stimulated spontaneous emission. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 20 17:25:26 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA14373 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 17:25:24 -0700 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA14360 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 17:25:20 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25548 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 20:24:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 20:24:03 -0400 Message-ID: <951020202402_49990168 mail02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Charles Hope says doesn't ZPE come from QED, so how can QED be replaced by a ZPE-based theory? It turns out (series of paper by Boyer of CCNY and others, starting in the '60's) that one can *begin* with a postulate of a cubic-frequency *classical* ZPE distribution and start there to derive QM results. Example: If one takes a harmonic oscillator and places it in a classical background random fluctuating EM field with a cubic-frequency distribution, one finds that the effect of the random background field is to "jiggle" the oscillator motion such that delta-X times delta-p is h-bar/2, etc.; that is, one *derives* Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as an effect of the random background field without recourse to a QM explanation. One also gets a ground-state energy for the oscillator of h-bar X omega/2, as in QM, for the oscillator, etc., etc. To cut to the chase, Milonni of LANL showed in a 1976 Physics Reports article that as far as dipole interactions with radiation fields goes (most of what QM deals with) the so-called stochastic electrodynamics approach postulating a classical background field of the right spectral deistribution, and the QM approach in the Heisenberg representation, both result in equations of the same form, so the answers have to be the same. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 21 05:34:27 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12478 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 05:32:40 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA12464 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 05:32:25 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA06150 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Sat, 21 Oct 1995 08:32:13 -0400 Message-Id: <199510211232.AA06150 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Sat, 21 Oct 1995 08:32:13 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: force/gravity Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 08:31:35 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Cc: Puthoff aol.com Subject: force/gravity I've been trying to tell the story of where ZPE comes from. We seem to be stuck on the point of force and gravity. We must understand this point before I can explain the rest of the story. Perhaps my claims have been a bit to much and that may have distracted from what I was trying to say. I'll tone it down a bit. This is last I have to say on the subject. Maxwell qualified the symmetrical relationship that exists between the electric and magnetic fields. This relationship states that a changing electric field will induce a magnetic field. This may seem like a mute point at his time, however, all of our electrical technologies are based on this relationship. Electric field = K dI/dt Einstein qualified the symmetrical relationship that exists between force and gravity. This relationship states that a changing momentum (a force) will induce a gravitational field. Currently this relationship is applied in gravitational wave technology. Astrophysists attempts to detect gravitational waves are based upon this relationship. They are trying to detect the 1/r (not 1 /rr) field induced when two massive objects orbit each other in space. Gravity = (G/ccr) (dp/dt) I have applied the relationship to a quantum model of matter. I have not throw out all that exists. I have just added force to the existing models of matter. This I have done in my paper "The Source of Gravitational and Inertial Mass". Puthoff has done the same..His paper "Gravity as a zero point Fluctuation Force" The title says it all. He added force to a quantum model and got gravity. Puthoff's model tells us what the force is. My model tells us how this force is linked to the negative gravitational potential of the universe. Maxwell's qualification of the relationship between force and gravity started the electrical age. I believe that Puthoff's and my qualification of the relationship between force and gravity has started the gravitational age. I hope that comment is not to strong I believe it. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 21 18:56:23 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA13145 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:53:39 -0700 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA13131 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:53:33 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id VAA24873; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 21:52:16 -0400 Date: 21 Oct 95 21:50:46 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Quantized ZPE? Message-ID: <951022015046_102021.3045_EHT82-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: When one goes back to the safe and secure Bohr model and assumes that the select orbits cannot lose energy because they are in synchronization with select frequencies of the zero point field it tends to explain why these orbits cannot lose energy by synchrotron radiation. The Larmor formula for synchrotron radiation loss: W = .66 ke^2 a^2/c^3 joules/second can be equated with a zpe frequency by W= hf where k is 4*pi*8.85E-12, e is the charge of the electron 1.6E-19 coulombs, a is the centripetal acceleration of the electron (v^2/r) it can also be the the acceleration of the electron oscillating back and forth (dv/dt) and c is the velocity of light. So it looks like the frequency f = .66 ke^2 a^2/hc^3 and collecting all of the constants: f = n*8.5E-21*a^2, where n is an integer,are these the quantized ZPE frequencies that satisfy the loss less Bohr orbit criteria? Can this system account for extraction of energy from the zero point field such as by water and other atomic (nucleus-electron systems)? F.J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 22 03:38:56 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26004 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 03:38:55 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25872 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 03:37:37 -0700 Received: from dialup-a42.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a42.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.42]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id UAA22519 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 20:35:01 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199510221035.UAA22519 tornado.netspace.net.au> From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cluster catalyzed fusion Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 09:39:06 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199510201505.LAA00256 escape.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99c/16.133 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:05:41 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: >> >> All the talk of electron clusters has set me thinking, and I would >> like to present the following possibility for your consideration. >> Suppose that as each electron is added to an electron cluster, it >> radiates away the energy of its condensation, in the form of a photon. >> It seems likely to me that the frequency of this photon will increase >> with each successive addition,(but maybe not). When such a cluster > >If the energy always increased with each successive electron, it would >act rather as a singularity and grow forever. So there must be a >threshold point; the attractive force of the cluster may increase for the >first set of electrons, but thereafter it must level off and approach >zero, and eventually be "overcome" by the negative Coulomb repulsion of >the electrons. Agreed. > >Would such an event produce a sweep of EM frequencies from high to low, >as successive electrons fall in to a cluster and lose successively >decreasing amounts of energy? > >Come to think of it, the force that attracts the electrons is said to be >equivalent to gravity, yes? Why then doesn't the electron cluster recruit >other particles that are not electrons? There are particles that are >somewhat more massive, and should be attracted that much more. Maybe it does. In fact maybe it attracts entire nuclei, resulting in the occasional fusion rection :-)}}} > >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* >> Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, >> Learns all his life, >> And leaves knowing nothing. >> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* >> >> > > >Charles > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 22 03:38:45 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25914 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 03:38:00 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25879 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 03:37:43 -0700 Received: from dialup-a42.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a42.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.42]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id UAA22535 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 20:35:24 +1000 (EST) From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 09:39:29 GMT Organization: Improving Message-Id: <3089d420.15425356 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <951016011906_124828507 mail06.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <951016011906_124828507 mail06.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99c/16.133 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 16 Oct 1995 01:19:06 -0400, you wrote: >Scott and I continue to have this running discussion as to whether it takes >the same amount of energy to disrupt a ZPE-condensed-charge cluster as is >stored in it. I think not, in the same sense that it does not take the same >amount of energy to cause a balloon to burst with a pin as is stored. All it >takes is a concentrated imbalance of force at one location (as in the >pin-pricked balloon) and the stored energy itself will do the rest of the >job. What think the rest of you? > >Hal Puthoff > Hal, In your recent reply to my comment on the aluminum plates being "ash", you essentially concede that the Casimir force is conservative in nature, yet here you appear to be implying that a charge cluster may not be. Does this mean that you believe other than Casimir forces are involved in the formation of charge clusters, and if so when will your ground-breaking paper on non-conservative ZPE related forces appear? :-)}}} Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 22 09:05:21 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29762 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 09:05:01 -0700 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29744 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 09:04:56 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id JAA18598; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 09:04:53 -0700 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 09:04:52 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: H2O, Anecdote or Antidote? In-Reply-To: <199510201510.KAA07636 matrix.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 20 Oct 1995, Scott Little wrote: > Fred, here goes a typical skeptic remark but I can't help myself: Don't you > think that if the world's most heavily researched substance had such energy > states we'd already know about it? Scott, I caught myself nodding in agreement, but then I realized that the H2O metastable state issue is the same as the vortex energy anomaly issue! For example, if someone discovered excess energy in a particular H2O boil/condense cycle, wouldn't everyone jump on it and research it to death immediately? But a few months back, I recall discussion on s.p.f. about just such a fact, the upshot was that this anomaly is even somewhat well known, but since it seemingly violates conservation of energy, it is an embarassment which is swept under the rug, and most who encounter it wish it would go away. Amazing! Exactly the opposite of the reaction one would expect from scientists. (Unless one has read Kuhn, etc.) I'm convinced that MANY unexplored interesting nooks and crannies exist in physics, which up until recently have been avoided for the same reason. I wouldn't be too suprised if several paradigm shifts await us all, and big ones too, on the order of radioactivity triggering off the creation of QM. Also, Mr. Sparber doesn't seem to be espousing the same "shrinking molecules" as has cropped up in CF theory. His idea seems closer to phosphorescence, with the water being "charged up" by photons only in certain specific situations, and only dumping photons in other rare situations. What if it took X-ray flux to excite the metastable state? This shouldn't happen with a molecule, but perhaps its combination into H2O opens up a high-energy metastable state in the oxygen atom. X-ray flux would energize the water only at the top of the ionosphere, and would happen with water being delivered from cosmic sources, such as the (disproved?) continuous mini-comet bombardment. But if the metastable state has an immense halflife, then after hundreds of millions of years, the oceans might be 100% metastable. ( Insert standard apology for wild speculation here ;) ) Another connection. Ever hear of Yul Brown's "Brown's Gas" devices? He claims that the gases evolved from electrolysis have some weird characteristics. If an *oxygen* metastable state existed, then electrolysis might not release the stored energy immediately, and anomalies would not be observed in electrolysis. Is there anomalous energy output when the H2/O2 gases from electrolysis are burned? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 22 09:40:10 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05344 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 09:40:08 -0700 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05320 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 09:40:01 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07492 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 12:38:45 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 12:38:45 -0400 Message-ID: <951022123844_129936260 mail02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin notes that my answer to his question concerning the "ash" in Casimir ZPE energy extraction reaffirms that the Casimir force is conservative; which leads to the question as to how charge clusters could on average be used to release vacuum energy. One possible solution is in this direction. The Casimir force is attractive for certain geometries (e.g., plates, cylinders, parallelpipeds, wedges, toroids) and repulsive for others (e.g., spheres, cubes). This leads to the possibility that the Casimir force, conservative though it is, can release vacuum energy both on explosive as well as collapsing motions. Therefore one can conceive of a filament or toroid of charged plasma extracting energy from the vacuum during its collapsing phase, the geometry then becoming distorted as it comes into contact with boundaries and fields (such as striking an anode) at which point, approximating a spherical blob of plasma, it is the Casimir force itself in its explosive phase that releases additional energy to reverse the cycle. Obviously, a very complex difficult-to-analyze situation. It's one hypothesis. If correct, the formation and dissolution of a charge cluster would involve two vacuum energy inputs, one during the collapse phase, one during the disruption phase. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 22 11:20:36 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22912 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 11:20:34 -0700 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA22899; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 11:20:30 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id LAA01987; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 11:20:28 -0700 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 11:20:27 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com cc: freenrg-list mail.eskimo.com Subject: Irving Langmuir discovered charge clusters? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Everyone, please take a look at the BALL LIGHTNING PLASMA TUBE file I've just placed on WWW in Weird Science, under NOT YOUR AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird.html Below is an excerpt. I wonder if these "globules" are the same as Shoulders' EV particles. If so, then Langmuir found a way to make pea-sized charge clusters in low pressure gas. He even may have duplicated Shoulders' use of EVs to create an oscilloscope display. ************************************************************************ ...If an ordinary horseshoe magnet is brought near the tube, the arc is deflected, as is any conductor carrying a similar current. At the same time the yellow skin appears on the opposite side of the arc on the side not in contact with the wall. As the magnet is brought nearer, the yellow skin becomes brighter and thinner, and curiously begins to act like a liquid. Slowly, tiny drops of golden yellow liquid fire are formed. They move along the surface, only to break away and fall, molten spheres of bright white light into the arc. By regulating the intensity of the magnetic field, these droplets or globules, ranging from a few tenths mm up to 5 or 6 mm in diameter (about the size of a pea) can be made to form slowly and detach themselves singly from the skin of the arc. By proper combination and longitudinal and transverse fields the globules may often be made to move upwards or downwards in the arc parallel to its axis for distances of to 5 or 10 cm, 2 to 4 inches. Under certain conditions the globules have been observed to move very slowly so that their motions through the arc could be easily followed by the unaided eye. But more often they move with the velocity of about a foot per second, and thus appear as brilliant lines or filamentary streamers. See Fig. 3 where several streamers with nearly parallel paths are shown. These streamers are formed by the influence of the magnetic field, and vary in appearance with the magnitude of the current flowing through the arc. If this current is varied, the motion of the streamers will be correspondingly affected. Thus, by superimposing an alternating current on the direct current fed to the anode, that is, the disc electrode, the streamers of individual globules will move in a sinusoidal path. That is, they will appear as a sine wave which is characteristic of alternating currents. The streamers will reproduce accurately the wave shape of the current even (Continued on page 284) .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 22 11:04:27 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20122 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 11:04:09 -0700 Received: from ddi.digital.net (ddi.digital.net [198.69.104.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA20114 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 11:04:05 -0700 Received: from [198.69.104.102] (pm2_2.digital.net [198.69.104.102]) by ddi.digital.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA10500 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 14:03:08 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 14:02:02 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tilleyrw digital.net (Robert Tilley) Subject: Re: H2O, Anecdote or Antidote? Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Fri, 20 Oct 1995, Scott Little wrote: > >anomalies would not be observed in electrolysis. Is there anomalous >energy output when the H2/O2 gases from electrolysis are burned? > If you will look at the "Horizon Technology" home-page, you will see some information on this very subject. Gary Hawkins says there that H2 and O2 must be burned in a stoichiometric ratio for the "Brown" affects to be observed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | "Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, | | and why. Then do it." -- Lazarus Long | |--------------------------------------------------------------------| | Robert Tilley || tilleyrw digital.net || "Once upon a time..." | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 22 12:19:12 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05006 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 12:19:02 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA04983 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 12:18:56 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id PAA14376; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 15:17:39 -0400 Date: 22 Oct 95 15:15:31 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: H2O Energy Storage? Message-ID: <951022191530_102021.3045_EHT32-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A If one takes the oxygen atom completely stripped of it's eight electrons,the energy release on getting back one electron at a time is: 1st 13.6(8^2) = 870 ev measured values 870 ev 2nd 13.6(7^2) = 666 ev 739 ev 3rd 13.6(6^2) = 490 ev 138 ev 4th 13.6(5^2) = 340 ev 113 ev 5th 13.6(4^2) = 218 ev 77 ev 6th 13.6(3^2) = 122 ev 55 ev 7th 13.6(2^2) = 54 ev 35 ev 8th 13.6(1^2) = 13.6 ev 13.6 ev The H-OH bond energy is about 498,000 joules/mole of bonds (5.2 ev) or a UV photon of 238 nanometers or less wavelength would be required to break this bond. The residual O-H bond requires about 4.44 ev or about 280 nanometers wavelength or less for disruption.The 185 nanometer photons from a mercury arc can do this under low pressure to vacuum conditions.(or the 90 nanometer UV in a hydrogen discharge). Water vapor carried into the upper atmosphere and redeposited on the earth as rain could be getting "primed" with the UV that isn't stopped by the ozone layer. Given the possibilities for energy storage in the triatomic 10 electron water molecule, it would be no surprise that the overunity energy effects are solar in origin. The experiments that would be required to find anti-stokes (Raman) type absorption spectra though simple in principle would require some rather elaborate experimental apparatus. F.J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 22 11:58:28 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00566 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 11:58:26 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00525 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 11:58:14 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA05853 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Sun, 22 Oct 1995 14:58:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199510221858.AA05853 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Sun, 22 Oct 1995 14:58:02 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: TheAnswer Date: Sun, 22 Oct 95 14:57:24 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> FRANK ZNIDARSIC --------------------- Forwarded message: From: MAILER-DAEMON aol.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) To: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: 95-10-22 14:32:23 EDT page down please ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >>> RCPT To: ----- Original message follows ----- Return-Path: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Received: by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15004 for fznidarisc gpu.com; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 14:30:26 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 14:30:26 -0400 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com To: fznidarisc gpu.com cc: Puthoff aol.com Subject: TheAnswer Hal, That you for your question about if it takes as much energy to form an electron cluster as it takes to break the cluster apart. That question cuts to the core. A answer can be found in the conservation rules and by the study of the symmetrical relationship between force and gravity. For example, let us say you throw a ball. By conventional wisdom you have transferred positive energy from your body into the kinetic motion of the ball. Let's look at things a bit differently, a way that will shed a lot of light on the subject. Let us say instead that negative gravitational potential was transferred from your body to the ball. The transfer of the positive kinetic energy was a secondary effect, it followed the negative gravitational potential. This is very powerful way of looking at the things because in involves the concept of symmetry and it allows us to examine the forces involved in the process of energy transfer. In review again. A symmetrical relationship exists between force and gravity, similar in many respects to the relationship that exists between the electric and magnetic fields. This follows my rule a belief in symmetry. In the relationship force (a changing momentum) represents gravitational potential. The integration of this potential through a distance represents negative gravitational energy. In the case of the ball the force came and went. Energy was transferred. In general, in a case where a force is applied during the period of positive energy transfer a negative amount of gravitational potential energy is transferred. In short energy is transferred not created. Now let's examine a falling object. Conventional wisdom states that gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy as a mass falls. What is gravitational potential energy? Let's us assume that we have two identical masses at the gravitational midpoint between the earth and the moon. Due to some tiny fluctuation one mass starts falling towards the earth and the other towards the moon. Each mass now acquires a differing amount of gravitational potential energy, depending on which way it falls. Does the rest mass of the object falling towards the earth suddenly increase because it has acquired an increased gravitational potential energy. I think not. If that were the case the rest mass of every object in the universe would increase as the deepest black hole acquired a bit more mass. Conceivably mass could fall into this deepest black hole. Does the gravitational potential energy mass an object depend on that? Again I think not. To understand what is really happening let us assume you are lowered to earth by a machine that takes the energy produced and places it in a battery. Energy is transferred from you to the battery...where else could it come from? You have less mass energy than you should..an impossible situation. After you arrive on earth you notice that you are heavy..gravity is pulling on you. THIS FORCE REPRESENTS A NEGATIVE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL! In my way of thinking the negative gravitational potential that you lost in the fall is compensated for by the negative gravitational potential induced by the continuing force of gravity. This is the genesis process. More energy remains after the event. Total energy = your energy lost + the energy that follows the negative grav pot produced by the force of your weight +the energy in the battery In general in a system where the force remains after the positive energy is transferred energy is produced by the genesis process (not transferred)...think about it. Now let us assume that we turn gravity off. You say WAIT! We can't do that!" Remember my three rules on the conservation of momentum, energy, and a belief in symmetry. It says nowhere, "THOU SHALL NOT SWITCH OFF A FORCE FIELD!" We could do it..if we didn't violate our three rules in the process..and we knew how. It happens with other force fields, for example, we can switch off an electromagnet. Let's look an superconducting electromagnet. We first charge up the coil with electrical energy. As a metal object is drawn into it the energy required to draw the metal into the magnet is extracted for the store of electrical energy we placed in the magnet. The magnet changed. You fall as per my example...energy is drawn from you, however, the loss made up by the additional positive energy that followed the negative gravitational potential produced bythe force of your weight on earth. This idea is very important. Now we switch off gravity...Did we violate our conservation laws? No! The energy in the battery remains the energy in the battery. The increased negative gravitation potential energy you acquired from the force is gone. The positive energy associated with it also goes away...this is not a violation of the conservation of energy. We don't know how to switch off gravity..but Hal you are right we can switch off the Casimir force. After the process is complete the energy of the system is conserved but you have less mass energy than you should. That can't be..It is not allowed...At least in this universe anyway. This deficit of energy is made up for by a gravitational exchange interaction. This is explained in my paper to follow, "The Logos" Mihai you will probably like my paper the logos..Bill you may hate it. Chriss I can't guess what you think  CHAPTER 6 THE LOGOS Since antiquity the universe was thought to be permeated by a force that imparts structure to the material world. Some of the earliest references to this idea are found in the Hindu scriptures. These scriptures were originated by the ancient Indus Valley civilization at about 3,000 BC. The concept of the Brahman is described in these scriptures. The Brahman is the basis of the material world, the force that holds all things together, and the hidden power that is latent in all things. Later references to this concept were developed in ancient Greece at about 500 BC. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus spoke of the concept of the Logos. According to Heraclitus the Logos is the source of all order. This source of order is hidden in a deeper reality. Heraclitus believed that seeing this deeper reality is reserved only for the Gods and for those few humans who can escape conventional modes of understanding. The concept of the Logos was taken up by Philo, a central figure in Judaism, at about 10 AD. Philo concluded that the Logos was the divine power that mediated the universe. To Philo the Logos was the mind of the universe. In the 19 century Thomas Young, who discovered the wave nature of light, described an ether. Young's ether is the medium in which light travels and matter rests. His ether fixes the speed of light and sets the elementary constants. Throughout recorded history the concept of a force that gives form and function to the material world has been described by philosophers, theologians, and scientists. In 1887 the Michelson Morley experiment failed to detect Young's ether. Since that time the concept of an ether has been abandoned by the scientific community. The abandonment of the concept of an ether has resulted in an atomic information crisis. All atomic and sub-atomic particles are identical to other particles of the same type. For example each electron "knows" how much to weigh, what its wavelength should be, and how fast to spin. Without a force that exchanges information, how do elementary particles "know" what to be? If elementary particles are not restricted to definite states of being (quantum states) the universe would be without form or function. Present quantum theory does not embrace the idea that an external source of information determines the quantum states. Claude E. Shannon developed the science of information in 1948. Shannon showed that information is a measurable commodity. As a commodity, information can only obtained through a communications channel. A long range communications channel or exchange force must exist that sets standard of being for elementary particles. Astronomers reading spectral lines with the help of telescopes have found that all elementary particles in the universe are identical. The only known force with sufficient range to set standards across galactic distances is gravity. During the 17 Century French philosopher Rene Descartes described gravity as whirlpools of invisible matter that tend to suck things down towards the center. In 1968 Andrei Sakharov suggested that a relationship exists between the zero point energy of atoms and gravity. Dr. H. E. 1 Puthoff Director of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Austin Texas greatly developed this idea in the mid 1980's. In the late 1980's, Engineer Frank Znidarsic followed up on the ideas of these three great men. Znidarsic concluded in his book "Elementary Antigravity" that gravitational exchange forces establish the condition of stability in matter. Stable matter 2 is restricted to certain spin and vibrational states. These spin and vibrational states manifest themselves, most fundamentally, in the value of Plank's constant and the Compton wavelength. After the magnitudes of these two constants are set, only classical physical interactions are required to establish the remaining structure in matter. For example, this author has shown, in Chapter 5 (Equation 5-9), that the Compton wavelength of matter is fundamental to the deBroglie wavelength of matter. The deBroglie wavelength, in turn, establishes many parameters associated with the atom. Plank's constant is a second fundamental parameter. This constant is given in units of angular momentum. The angular momentum associated with the ground state (zero point) energy level of an atom is equal to Plank's constant. The angular momentum of every other electron in an atom is an integer multiple of Plank's constant. Plank's constant and the Compton wavelength establish all parameters associated with the atom. Pick Icon 1-3 As can be seen, the Compton wavelength and Plank's constant form a foundation. This foundation determines the structure of the material world. You will not be able to follow the non text math analysis without reading about four more chapters on my disk. Some of the math did not text..but by this point you should have the drift of the idea liked it or rejected it. I suggest you skim to the conclusion. Free space has a material elastic limit. This elastic limit is expressed as a quantum of capacitance Cq. A circuit will resonate at the Compton wavelength if its capacitance and inductance are set to the quantum limits. A relationship between the quantum of capacitance and the Compton wavelength was developed in chapter 4, (Equation 4-5). This relationship will now be reintroduced as Equation 6-1. Bad texting here .5 w = 2cc(C L) -12 (Compton) q = 2.426 x 10 meters, Eq. #1 c = light speed -19 L= 4.85 x 10 henrys -24 C = 3.419 x 10 farads q A relationship was developed, in Chapter 4 (Equation 4-9), between the quantum of capacitance and the structure of the universe. The capacitance of a sphere as large as the universe is given by Equation #2. 16 Cu = 4ce r = 1.422 x10 Farads Equation #2 o Cu = The capacitance of a sphere as large as the universe. 26 r = the radius of the universe = 1.278 x 10 meters 12 e = 8.85 x 10 coul}/ n-m} o The quantum of capacitance may be determined by dividing equation #2 by the square root of three times the number of baryons in the universe. This was done in equation #3. 3 0.5 C = C /(3 #B) Equation #3a q u 0.5 -24 Cq = 4ce r/(3 #B) = 3.419 x 10 Farads Equation #3 o Cq = The quantum of capacitance 78 #B = The number of baryons in the universe = 5.741 x 10 Equation #3 shows that the quantum of capacitance is related to the radius of the universe. The quantum of capacitance varies directly with the radius of the universe, or in other words, the elastic limit of free space varies as free space stretches. The rate at which the radius of the universe is increasing is given by Equation #4. Equation #4 sets the rate of change in the radius of the universe equal to the product of Hubble's constant (H in units 1/sec) and the radius of the universe (r, in units of meters). 8 Rate of change = d(r)/d(t) = Hr = c = 3 x 10 meter/sec Eq #4 Equation #4 reveals that the edge of the universe is moving outward at the speed of light. As the radius of the universe changes so does the quantum of capacitance. A mathematical operation called the derivative expresses the rate of change of one variable with respect to another. Taking the derivative of Equation #3 yields Equation #5. 0.5 d(Cq)/d(t) = 4ce /(3 #B ) * d(r)/d(t) Equation #5 o Substituting Equation #4 into equation #5 gives the rate of change of the quantum of capacitance. -42 8.02 x 10 farads/sec The quantum of capacitance changes as the universe expands. This change produces a magnetic vortex effect. This vortex is spatially similar to the spiraling magnetic field that follows a moving electron. Plank's constant is is the physical manifestation of this spinning effect. Rene Descartes idea that gravity produces whirlpool effects has now been reintroduced on microscopic scale. This whirlpool effect, determines Planks's constant, fixes the angular momentum of an atom's electrons, and drives the zero point energy of an atom. The reader with no interest in mathematics may skim to the conclusion and still grasp the essence of the chapter. The relationship between the change on a capacitor and the energy in the capacitor is given by Equation #6 Energy = 1/2 CV} Equation #6 C = Capacitance in Farads V = Voltage in volts Setting the energy equal to the mass energy of the electron yields Equation #7. 2 M c = 1/2 CV} Equation #7 -e c = light speed -31 M = 9.1 x 10 kg -e A charge voltage relationship exists between the mass energy of the electron and the quantum of capacitance. This relationship is given in equation #8. M c} = (137/4*3.14)CqV} Equation #8 -e 137 = The fine structure constant C = The quantum of capacitance. q The relationship between the charge and voltage on a capacitor is given in Equation #9. V = Q/C Equation #9 -19 Q = The electric charge in coulombs, 1.6 x 10 coulombs C = The capacitance in farads V = The voltage in volts Substituting equation #9 into equation #8 yields Equation #10. M c} = (137/4c)Q}/Cq Equation #10 -e The varing capacitance of a stretching universe produces a current flow. This relationship is expressed in Equation #11. M c} = (137/4c)/\Q}//\Cq Equation #11 -e Solving Equation #11 for d(Q)/d(t) yields Equation #12. The flow of electrical charges d(Q)/d(t) is equal to the current flow I. 0.5 d(Q)/d(t)= (4c M c} d(Cq)/d(t))/137) Eq #12 -e -28 = 2.454 x 10 amps This current is associated with each baryon the total current produced by all baryons is given by Equation #13. 0.5 -28 11 I = 2.454 x 10 (#B) / c = 1.87 x 10 amps Eq #13 The reason for the factors of #B and c in this relationship is unknown. Any ideas? The constant #B is sum of the number of protons and neutrons in the universe. The square root #B is the baryonic gravitational coupling constant. This constant was determined in Chapter #4 (Equation 4-8). The current (I) produces a gross magnetic field (B) which can be thought of as the gravitational magnetizing current of the universe. This gross magnetic field is given by Equation #14. 5 B = I u = 2.35 x 10 webers Equation #14 o This gravitational magnetizing flux lies in the 4th dimension on a line between past and future. As the universe expands at the speed of light, matter moves through this magnetizing flux. Just as charged particles moving at right angles through a magnetic field develop a torque, matter moving through this magnetizing flux is propelled along spiraling paths. This spiraling effect is the magnetic moment know as the Bohr Magneton (Descartes whirlpool effect). The minimum of angular momentum described by Plank's constant is determined by the magnitude of the Bohr Magneton. The Bohr Magneton is given in units of joules/weber. The product to the gravitational magnetizing flux and the Bohr Magneton equals the zero point energy of an atom (See Equation #15). Energy zero point = -(T)(B)(Z) Equation #15 5 B = 2.35 x 10 webers Z = the atomic number -24 T = the Bohr magneton = 9.273 joules/weber For hydrogen with Z equal to one. -18 -(T)(B)(Z) = -2.179 x 10 joules = -13.6ev Eq #16 The known value of the zero point energy of the hydrogen atom has been derived in Equation #16 from the change in the elastic limit of free space. This demonstrates the correctness of the author's arguments. CONCLUSION A relationship has been developed between Plank's constant and the expansion of the universe. The universe has an elastic limit associated with it. This elastic limit is the quantum of capacitance. This quantum of capacitance increases as the universe stretches (expands). A force is produced by this increase in the quantum of capacitance. This force results in the minimum of momentum described by Plank's constant. In brief, the elastic limit of free space is the medium and the Compton wavelength and the Bohr Magneton are the message. The Compton wavelength and the Bohr Magneton determine the standard states of being (quantum states) for atoms. Atoms are the material form of the universe. They control all functional possibilities. This work demonstrates that zero point energy levels are driven by the expansion of the universe. New energy devices that extract this zero point energy will harness the immense power of the expansion of the universe. This work is consistent with the author's previous work. This logical consistency indicates that the authors ideas represent a correct model of reality. NOTES 1. Soviet Physics Dacklandi Page 1040, 1968 Andrei Sakharov 2. Elementary Antigravity Vantage Press, 1989, Frank Znidarsic 3. Refer to chapter #4, Equation #8.  --OAA15013.814386709/emout05.mail.aol.com-- From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 22 16:38:40 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA28585 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 16:38:37 -0700 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA28564 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 16:38:30 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id QAA00645; Sun, 22 Oct 1995 16:38:28 -0700 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 16:38:28 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: H2O Energy Storage? In-Reply-To: <951022191530_102021.3045_EHT32-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 22 Oct 1995, Frederick J Sparber wrote: ... > The experiments that would be required to find anti-stokes (Raman) type > absorption spectra though simple in principle would require some rather > elaborate experimental apparatus. But your talking here about a population inversion. If the water vapor was nearly 100% in the metastable state, it would become transparent to the frequency which would otherwise be pumping it into that state. So, if you started with "uncharged" water vapor, you'd record an absorbtion line initially, but the amount of absorbtion would decay exponentially over time. If everyday water is already "charged," it would lack these absorbtion bands (or they would be much smaller than expected.) So perhaps the experiment would be structured to detect small changes in UV absorbtion spectra after water is subjected to some mechanism which "dumps" the stored energy. Pass it through a YUSMAR? Use it as the working gas in a plasma torch? Run it through a "Brown's Gas" welder? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 03:32:29 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18895 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:01:14 -0700 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA18857 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:01:01 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id MAA21821; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 12:59:41 -0400 Date: 23 Oct 95 12:58:27 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: H2O Energy Storage? Message-ID: <951023165826_102021.3045_EHT35-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 22 Oct 1995, William Beaty wrote: >So perhaps the experiment would be structured to detect >small changes in UV absorbtion spectra after water is subjected to some >mechanism which "dumps" the stored energy. >Pass it through a YUSMAR? >Use it as a working gas in a plasma torch? >Run it through a "Brown's Gas" welder? I would opt for the plasma torch approach. It would be interesting to see if some steam taken off one of the stages in a steam power plant turbine could be boosted in this way for possibly as much as an order of magnitude energy increase, sort of an afterburner. I'd bet that EPRI would be willing to take a look at that! Might also be of interest as a spacecraft propulsion means. F. J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 03:32:31 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27100 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:37:37 -0700 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA26984 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:37:09 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id KAA12318; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:36:29 -0700 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:36:29 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: Arndt. In-Reply-To: <0099829A.6A711260.17297 roimar> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 20 Oct 1995 itimc roimar.imar.ro wrote: > Dear Bill Beaty, > > My friend Dave Moon from Minnesota has found the author of the paper > entitled "Vortex Cavitation". I believe that we need the experize of > Dr. Arndt for solving the difficult problems bound to the Griggs , > Potapov, Huffman heat generators. > May I ask you to have the kindness to invite Roger Arndt to join > our group? > See please Dave's letter. > Thank you, > Peter Peter, I sent an invitation to Dr. Arndt this morning. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 03:41:04 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA06381 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 17:58:06 -0700 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA06328 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 17:57:50 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id UAA25825; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 20:49:14 -0400 Date: 23 Oct 95 20:46:49 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Cc: Peter Unwin <100063.244 compuserve.com> Subject: H20 Stored energy & Cerenkov glow Message-ID: <951024004648_102021.3045_EHT63-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In the (old?) swimming pool reactors the blue glow was attributed solely to the cerenkov radiation. Any chance that there is release of H2O metastable energy states accounting for part of this? F.J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 05:41:07 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18148 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 04:06:07 -0700 Received: from head.globalcom.net (head.globalcom.net [204.111.1.35]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18043 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 04:05:40 -0700 Received: from 204.111.1.76 (eb1ppp12.shentel.net [204.111.1.76]) by head.globalcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id BAA24057 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 01:10:56 -0400 Message-Id: <199510240510.BAA24057 head.globalcom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 01:12:14 -0500 From: VISOR globalcom.net Subject: magnetic vortex To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortex, Do any of the great minds of Vortex have knowledge of experimentation on magnetic liquids? I had in mind to produce a vortex by subjecting this magnetic liquid to a rotating magnetic field. In this way allowing for new ways of investigating the vortex in action. Also, I have found reference to something called "magnetic phantoms". The reference was in a paper on experimental work conducted in the Soviet Union. This would seem to be an actual case where a magnetic fields produced by special a toroid would continue in free space after the toroid was removed. I know this is far fetched, but with this group anything is possible. All comments welcome. _____________(.)(.)________________________________________ The answer is only important if you ask the right question! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 03:41:39 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14415 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 03:49:25 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14331 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 03:48:55 -0700 Received: from dialup-a21.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a21.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.21]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id TAA23929 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 19:15:14 +1000 (EST) From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: H2O Energy Storage? Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 08:19:33 GMT Organization: Improving Message-Id: <308b3216.2737681 mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99c/16.133 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 22 Oct 1995 16:38:28 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: >On 22 Oct 1995, Frederick J Sparber wrote: >... >> The experiments that would be required to find anti-stokes (Raman) type >> absorption spectra though simple in principle would require some rather >> elaborate experimental apparatus. > >But your talking here about a population inversion. If the water vapor >was nearly 100% in the metastable state, it would become transparent to >the frequency which would otherwise be pumping it into that state. So, if >you started with "uncharged" water vapor, you'd record an absorbtion line >initially, but the amount of absorbtion would decay exponentially over >time. If everyday water is already "charged," it would lack these >absorbtion bands (or they would be much smaller than expected.) So perhaps >the experiment would be structured to detect small changes in UV absorbtion >spectra after water is subjected to some mechanism which "dumps" the >stored energy. Pass it through a YUSMAR? Use it as the working gas in a Surely if this is the energy source of the YUSMAR, then as the water is continually recycled, it should stop producing excess heat after a time? I would imagine that this source of energy would be nowhere near as concentrated as fusion, thus I would not expect the effect to last too long. >plasma torch? Run it through a "Brown's Gas" welder? > >.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. >William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 >EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ >Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 05:51:42 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16585 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 08:22:15 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com ([148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA16332 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 08:20:50 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA06188 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:17:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199510241517.AA06188 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:17:01 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: PUTHOFF aol.com To: TCVFRANK aol.com To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: creiteria Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 11:16:21 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> TCVFRANK AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> PUTHOFF AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 The energy produced in cold fusion, ball lightning, and the cavitation machines may come from one of two sources. 1. Energy Transfer. It could be nuclear, chemical, or mechanical energy transferred in by some conversion process. 2. It could be new energy produced by the genesis process. For genesis to take place a field with a negative amount of energy must be produced. energy total = positive energy - negative energy = 0 What fields contain negative energy. 1. Gravity? Yes (energy is produced by the falling process) 2. Electromagnetism No (It takes positive energy to form a photon or to energize a magnet) 3. Casimir Yes (The casmir force is spontanious- requires no energy source..Do you all agree?) For genesis to occur the field must effect the Logos (ref to my earlier paper) Tests for affecting the logos are. a. Produces a gravitational red shift. b. Attracts all matter. c. Is spontanious d. Slows time. What forces meet this requirement? a. Electromagnetism No b. Gravity Yes c. Casimir I thinks so...not sure. Hal Help! To use the force in a cyclical fashion the force must be switchable. What forces can be turned off and on (or shielded) a. Electromagnetism Yes b. Gravity No c. Casimir Yes Conclusion...The Casimir force is the only force that can produce continously produce energy through a genesis process. Note: NO conservation laws are violated by the process! Let's talk about it some more. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 05:34:09 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14422 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 08:10:55 -0700 Received: from roimar.imar.ro (roimar.imar.ro [193.226.4.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA14273 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 08:10:19 -0700 Received: by roimar (MX V3.1C) id 19222; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 16:35:11 0200 Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 16:35:06 0200 From: itimc roimar.imar.ro To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Message-ID: <009985B7.240BE8C0.19222 roimar> Subject: problem? Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, This is a test message: Is vortex interrupted or my e-mail is out? Or both? Or there are no more messages? Peter From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 05:51:33 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07406 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:03:28 -0700 Received: from head.globalcom.net ([204.111.1.35]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA07342 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:03:16 -0700 Received: from 204.111.1.83 (eb1ppp19.shentel.net [204.111.1.83]) by head.globalcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id NAA00493 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 13:19:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199510241719.NAA00493 head.globalcom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 13:21:17 -0500 From: VISOR globalcom.net Subject: test To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortex, Do any of the great minds of Vortex have knowledge of experimentation on magnetic liquids? I had in mind to produce a vortex by subjecting this magnetic liquid to a rotating magnetic field. In this way allowing for new ways of investigating the vortex in action. Also, I have found reference to something called "magnetic phantoms". The reference was in a paper on experimental work conducted in the Soviet Union. This would seem to be an actual case where a magnetic fields produced by special a toroid would continue in free space after the toroid was removed. I know this is far fetched, but with this group anything is possible. All comments welcome. _____________(.)(.)________________________________________ The answer is only important if you ask the right question! _____________(.)(.)________________________________________ The answer is only important if you ask the right question! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 02:51:55 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29789 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 02:51:47 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA29783 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 02:51:45 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id FAA16594; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 05:50:29 -0400 Date: 25 Oct 95 05:47:04 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: vortex Subject: St Petersburg testing Message-ID: <951025094703_100433.1541_BHG87-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex I have heard that testing is now underway in St Petersburg. That's all I know, I'll post more when I have more to post. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 06:39:57 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11606 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 06:39:55 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA11586 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 06:39:40 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t863k-000MNuC; Wed, 25 Oct 95 15:40 EET Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:39:59 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: magnetic fluids Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Re: magnetic fluids, Robert's question. We have in Romania a Research Center for Hydrodynamics, Cavitation and Magnetic Fluids, at the Technical Univ. Timisoara ,Blv. Mihai Viteazu no 1, 1900 Timisoara. The specialist in magnetic fluids is Dr.LADISLAU VEKAS. You can reach them (him) at phone 40-56-204333 ext. 181 fax 40-56-190321. If it doesn't work, I can help you. Peter From fznidarsic gpu.com Wed Oct 25 06:39:05 1995 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA11482 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 06:38:47 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA12840 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L-OWNER ESKIMO.COM); Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:36:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199510251336.AA12840 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:36:36 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: PUTHOFF AOL.COM To: VORTEX-L-OWNER ESKIMO.COM Subject: Re: TheAnswer Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 09:35:47 EST Status: RO X-Status: -> PUTHOFF AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> VORTEX-L-OWNER ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 From: Charles Hope Subject: Re: TheAnswer To: vortex-l eskimo.com user" at Oct 22, 95 02:57:24 pm > > > -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 > -> FRANK ZNIDARSIC > > Hal, That you for your question about if it takes as much > energy to form an electron cluster as it takes to break the > cluster apart. That question cuts to the core. > A answer can be found in the conservation rules and by the study > of the symmetrical relationship between force and gravity. What, do you feel, is the relationship between force and gravity, other than, for instance, F = (GmM/r^2) ? > A changing momentum induces a 1/r gravitational field. > Grav potential = G/cr (dp/dt) > This was for a long time a problem to me because mass induces > a 1/rr field. I found the answer in a dipole. A single pole induces a 1/rr field (this is the near field) the superpostition of two 1/rr fields produces a 1/rrrr field.. Casimir forces add the same way. I superimposed two 1/r fields produced by a gravitational dipole and got the 1/rr field of gravity..as per my paper. > In the relationship force (a changing momentum) represents > gravitational potential. The integration of this potential > through a distance represents negative gravitational energy. In This is what I'm not clear on. I thought that forces could operate upon masses with negligible G fields present. 2 protons have virtually no G interactions, yet can exert tremendous forces from E fields. The relationship between changing momentum and gravity has some very large constants. The effect is 1 x 10 exp -39 smaller than the electromagnetic effect. The forces in matter are quite large. Think of the energy of a nuclear bomb as being trapped in a few grams of matter. Quite a bit of force. It takes a large force to produce a tiny gravitational field. That is why this field is well know only to scientists studying gravitational waves. So what can we do with such a tiny field...levitate...any induced field that we would produce by acceleration would be to small. Did you read my gensis paper? Gravity has a long rang e of interaction. The weekest field will reach out and pull on the entire universe..tiny fields that cannot even be measured have the potential to create a large amount of energy. All energy has associated with it a gravitational field per E = Mcc..This is the connection between Energy, acceleration, and gravity that I have been trying to exploit. Frank Z I didn't get any mail and thought I was pitched out of the group because no-one liked my work. Hope that is not the case. ------------------- Due to the effect | N S | Dipole forces of the other pole -------------------- vary as 1/rr dipole force vary close to a pole as 1/rrrr far from the pole Likewise below. -------------------- | | Gravitational At longer | \ Forces produced by ranges | \ | Acceleration vary as the force | \ 1/r near the point of produced by | / | acceleration. a grav | / dipole |___________________| varies as 1/rr Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 07:50:56 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26966 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:50:55 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA26955; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:50:53 -0700 Received: from net-1-158.austin.eden.com (net-1-158.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.158]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id JAA06448; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:50:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:50:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199510251450.JAA06448 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex vortex From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: magnetic fluids X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Are we talking about true liquids which are magnetic (are there any?) or suspensions of magnetic particles in liquid (e.g. ferrofluids)? Ferrofluidics Corporation 40 Simon Street Nashua NH 03061 603-883-9800 (phone) 603-883-23308 (FAX) Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 07:42:19 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25424 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:42:12 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA25418 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:42:09 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA16879 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510251435.KAA16879 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:51:37 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > >By the way, Bill, have you seen "Inertia as a zero-point field Lorentz >force", Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff, Phys Rev A Vol 49 No 2.? If the theory >proposed therein proves to be correct (several groups, including us, are >currently trying to design a suitable experiment) ZPE will be "put on the >map" in a big way. > Yes, I have read this paper. The result is quite surprizing. But I have a kind of fundamental philosophical problem with the approach. As I understand it, SED more or less starts with the assumptions: 1) classical particle motion 2) background ZPF with cubic spectra 3) Maxwell's Equations (electromagnetic field) My problem is just this: it seems like circular reasoning. If you start by including assumption 1) above, then you have already built-in the notion of inertia. It is just a consequence of the classical equations of motion of the particle. The interpretation of these equations involves the notion that each particle has a positive real-valued intrinsic property called its mass, its "inertial mass", if you like. To talk about the "cause" of the property of inertia - as the above paper proports to do - seems to challenge one the assumptions on which the theory is based. It seems to me that formally one needs to start with something weaker than the assumption of classical motion of particles and then try to derive the classical properties (ie. F=ma) as a consequence of the remaining assumptions. In any case, inertial mass (m) does enter into the classical equations of motion as an external parameter, so the essential claim of the above paper could amount to the idea that m is not a free parameter, but rather determined by electromagnetic interactions with the ZPF in an accelerated frame of reference. We have to be careful that we are not simply replacing one free parameter with some other parameter associated with Puthoff's harmonic oscillator model of a particle. This is not yet fully clear to me. But certainly if solving the "problem of mass" in this way is possible, then this has a major impact on the so called "standard model" of matter based on Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD, yes yet another of these damned three letter acronyms!). QCD is similar to QED but relates quarks and related nuclear forces in the way that QED relates charged particles and electromagnetic interactions. The standard model is an attempt to use QED, QCD and a few other bits and pieces as a "unified" theory of matter. It includes the fabled "Higgs" particle to associate masses with the other "elementary" particles in a much more complicated way than what Puthoff is proposing. [Sorry for all the "". It seems that using a lot of quotation marks, is one of the bad habbits that I have developed when trying to express something in which I don't have a great deal of confidence. ] You may recall that the enormously expensive but now cancelled superconducting supercollider project was intended largely just to try to find this Higgs particle. So, again, this all comes back to trying to go against the main stream developments in physics in the latter half of this century. I think that this is a noble persuit, but one must frequently remind oneself just how enormous a task it really is to replace such a theoretical edifice. It seems to me that what we have at this point is a (growing?) collection of "amusing anecdotal results" that strongly suggest that a major reformulation might be possible, but we are still missing the basic framework of this new theory. [I use the word "amusing" in the way it appears in several advanced physics monographs where the authors cite as "amusing" certain interesting results that do not seem to fit into the main theme of the book. They are "amusing" because they are surprizing almost like a joke being played on the theoretician by nature, or God, if you wish...] Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 07:42:20 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25452 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:42:18 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA25430 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:42:14 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA16882 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:35:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510251435.KAA16882 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:51:40 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Charles Hope wrote: >> >> Ah, Scott, you must be yet another victim of that "conspiracy" that I >> referred to a few days ago concerning the deliberate attempt by "them" >> to make quantum mechanics obscure and distasteful to those people who >> are exactly those who otherwise would be the most inclined to use it! > >Why do you imagine this conspiracy was perpetrated, to reduce >competition in the field of physics? It seems that such behavior would be >unprecedented. > Perhaps you missed my earlier message describing my own personal "nightmare" conspiracy theory connecting P&F's initial research into "CF" with supposed classified results from early thermonuclear explosive tests. As if that was not enough in itself, I extended that conspiracy to include a deliberate (and apparently successful) attempt by the theoretician's of that era (many of whom were also deeply involved in the foundational development of quantum mechanics) to introduce a "mental block" into the new generation of theoretical physicists which would prevent them (at least for a while) from realizing something surprizing and very frightening about the application of quantum mechanics. Yes, such behavior would be very unprecedented - but then many things were unprecedented during that time. I explained that this was just an unsubstantiated "story" and should be taken only for whatever worth one might find in it. But like many such conspiracy theories, it seems to explain the "facts" quite well. >> >> I think the problem most people have with quantum mechanics is the >> extent to which it departs from ordinary intuition. >> ... >Your "real world" intuition comes from a brain that was evolved to be >efficient as seeing tree branches as you swing through them, reading >emotional expressions on the faces of troupe members, and using high tech >instruments as the stick and stone. > >Your intuitional education comes from little Billy Page over there in the >crib, tossing his blocks around the room and watching his mobile spin. > >There is no good reason why this hardware/software combination should be >good at any passing understanding of the facts of reality at a dozen >orders of magnitude in either direction. Therefore "intuitiveness" makes >for a poor epistemology, or judge of theory. I think you missed my point. I am not making any claims about what the ultimate nature of reality may or may not be. This is a transcendent philosophical problem that physics does not attempt to address. There is an old slogan which frequently comes to my mind in this situation that goes: "Physics is not about *why* things happen, but rather about *how* they happen.". In other words, physics is an empirical science and takes a fundamentally pragmatic view of what it is attempting to do. Sometimes this amounts to extreme objectivism and a positivist approach. And sometimes it is much deeper and philosphical in content. Physicists are well known to make use of the even "purer" subject of mathematics in what mathematicians consider a rough-shod way - they do what "works" sometimes without addressing its fundamental consistency (or lack there of) and in so doing sometimes help to spur the development of whole new areas of pure mathematics. And sometimes the mathematics preceeds its use in physics. In any case, what I am saying about "intuition" is just that it is another very useful tool for the physicist. Intuitive thinking (almost by definition) is just that type of thinking that we happen to be rather good at. Among other things, it has certain survival advantages. The point is: if we are going to build models and make theories about reality, why not use the tools that we have at our disposal to the best advantage. This extends from our basic intuitions (which might be more or less sharp and adequate/ inadequate) right up to the most advanced mathematics and computer simulation/computational techniques. > >Most civilians have mental blocks against mathematics anyway, due to >culture and millions of dysfunctional math teachers. Peculiar use of the work "civilian" isn't it? What I was saying is that most physicists have developed as a result of the way they have been taught quantum mechanics a conceptual block against its further development. > >There are a few different mathematical ways of doing QM, as we all know: >There's Heisenberg's matrices, Schroedinger's wavefunctions and >integrals, and Dirac's bra/ket formalism. Bra/ket is the coolest. The >matrices aren't hard, although they are counterintuitive if you are >attached to the notion of multiplicative commutation, which fails with >matrices. I am more concerned about the interpretation of quantum mechanics - its meaning - rather than how to do the calculations. > >When we speak of infinite-dimensional spaces, it's a joke. Dimension >isn't meant in terms of spatial dimension; it means something totally >different. It means anything which can somehow work somewhat like a real >dimension mathematically. The analogy is totally mathematical and >shouldn't be construed as geometric. I find your statement above rather strange. On the one hand you are talking about various mathematical formalisms for calculations in quantum mechanics. On the other, you question the applicability of infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces? What is a "real dimension"? Certainly Hilbert used many "geometric" analogies in his formalism. Also I don't think I clearly understand your distinction between mathematics and geometry. I view geometry as part of mathematics, al beit usually a more "intuitive" part but not necessarily. > >Do you know many people that can visualize 4-spacetime; understand >intuitively the rotation of a hypercube and its projections >upon 3-space, or "feel" the effects of curved spacetime? > >I suspect it might be remotely possible, after years of meditation, >altered states, psychodrugs, and luck. Hmmm... This reminds me of a very interesting lecture that I attended this summer at a conference on computer-based mathematics (CoMaTh). The speaker described his research into abstract knot theory in four dimensions (or more) that utilized many advanced computer visualization techniques. He made the statement that many people suppose that an intuitive understanding of four dimensional structure and motion is enormously more difficult than in three dimensions. But he claims that this is not true! He did not elaborate on any particular theory, but he says that with only a little additional training most people can easily extend their intutions to four or more dimensions. The problem is just that we normally don't experience such phenomena. And he proved it (to me at least) by showing a video tape of many simulated motions of knots in four dimensions, in the process illustrating a result in advanced abstract knot theory. He is currently into the whole subject of "virtual reality" as a way to sharpen our natural intuitions of these and other areas of advanced mathematics. I think I can explain this as follows. Our mental apparatus has evolved to allow us some flexibility to "perceive" three dimensions although basically our visual input is two dimensional. Some significant mental computation is involved in our ability to perceive (visualize) three dimensions, although we are mostly unaware of these mental computations until we are confronted with some sort of "illusion" that confuses our perception (the result of these internal mental computations) - something like an Escher drawing etc. But this same mental computer that works for three dimensions can also be "re-programmed" for more than three simply by being exposed to an enviroment which interacts according to extended mathematical rules. I enjoy thinking about where this type of research may lead. Its sort of like saying: "How can an animal that evolved swinging in trees and running at about five miles per hour, possibly be involved in controlling a device moving at 60 miles per hour sharing a road with other oncoming traffic? How can such an animal possibly control a device moving at 600 miles per hour moving (flying) in three dimensions? How can such an animal navigate a vehicle moving at 60,000 miles per hour all the way to the moon and back! Hmmm, sorry, I get a little carried away... >> >> de Broglie's and Bohm's approach however is quite different. >> ... >This approach constitutes only a different interpretation of QM and >predicts no different results, is that so? This is correct, however there are a number of results of Bohm's interpretation which have no counter-part in the conventional approach. I.e. there are things about which we cannot speak in the conventional interpretation, such as the exact position of a particle and its subsequent trajectory, which *are* included in Bohm's interpretation. In this sense they differ where the conventional interpretation makes no predictions. If you think reality must include particles, then Bohm's interpretation is more "complete". A more refined question might be whether there exists any experiments which could distinquish between these approaches. So far, I think this is an open question, though some proposals have been made. But even more importantly, Bohm's interpretation allows a number of natural extensions of quantum mechanics to new types of theories which might differ from the predictions of quantum mechanics in subtle ways and in special circumstances. > >It would be nice if you could post a few equations or point us to a book >that does. Someplace around here I have Bohm's Quantum Physics from Dover >-- does he speak of these ideas here? I haven't read it in years. > No, Bohm's text on Quantum Physics is largely about the conventional interpretation although he does a better job than most of dealing with some of the sticky interpretational issues such as the Einstein Rosen Podalsky criticisms. I have recently posted some references, but here is a repeat. The book I most currenly most strongly recommend as an introduction is: "The Quantum Theory of Motion" by Peter Holland, Cambridge University Press, Paperback edition, 1995. There is also the very useful book "The Undivided Universe" by D. Bohm & B.J. Hiley, Routledge, 1993 which covers a somewhat different collection of subjects, some more advanced than Holland's book. There are a number of pre-prints available that are currently in the process of getting published and are available via the LANL e-print archives (and others) - just search for "Bohm". If you have access to the World Wide Web and can print postscript format files than you can access a small collection of these papers (including my own contribution to the CoMaTh conference) at URL: http://xfactor.wpi.edu:8080/Bohm Let me know if you have any problems retrieving these. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 07:42:24 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25476 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:42:23 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA25447 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:42:17 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA16886 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:35:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510251435.KAA16886 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:51:45 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: nickel hydride Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: >Does this compound actually exist? It's not in my copy of "the rubber >bible", or my Merck, or my Chem Engr's Handbook, or the 1970 Britannica >which has quite a good article on hydrides and lists 20 or 30 of them with >properties. > >If so, can you provide its heat of formation? Typical values (from the >Britannica) are -20 kcal/mole...i.e. it generates heat upon formation. As far as I know Nickel does not form a stokeometric hydride as such, i.e. it is not a chemical compound, it is more like an alloy of nickel and hydrogen. Hydrogen can be present in the nickel at any ratio up to at least 0.6 H/Ni atom. I think I recall that over most of this range of compositions the heat of formation of the alloy is very slighly negative although it is not especially easy to dissolve hydrogen in the metal - maybe largely because of surface effects. The primary references for this stuff is "Hydrogen in Metals" G. Alefeld and J. Volkl, eds., Springer-Verlag, Vol 1 and 2, 1978. also "Metals-Hydrogen Systems", R. Kirchheim, E. Fromm, E. Wicke, R. Oldenburg; Verlag, Munchen, 1989. And although he doesn't deal much with Nickel, the paper "The Physical and Metallurgical Aspects of Hydrogen in Metals", R.A. Oriani, Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, vol 1., page 18-1; lists a lot of additional references and gives a lot of background. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 07:20:04 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15483 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 06:55:16 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA15347 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 06:54:45 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA04629 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:52:50 -0400 Message-Id: <199510251352.AA04629 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:52:50 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: RAY_CONLEY mckinsey.com To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: EPRI repor Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 09:52:01 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> RAY_CONLEY MCKINSEY.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 To: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser From: Ray Conley Date: 24 Oct 95 18:28:13 Subject: Re: EPRI report Dear Mr. Zindarsic, Thank you for providing the information regarding the EPRI report. I would like to obtain a copy. Could you provide me with the information necesary to obtain this information? I would greatly appreciate any assistance. -Ray Conley (404) 335-3776 You may call EPRI in Palo Alto Ca. (415) 855-2000 fax (415) 855-2954 I will fax you the first few pages. Write to me at. fznidarsic gpu.com with your fax # Mark Hugo at mhugo epri.epri.com Has some inside information. He may send it to you, if you ask. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 08:13:52 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01207 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 08:13:51 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA01181 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 08:13:47 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA17490 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 11:07:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510251507.LAA17490 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 11:23:16 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Response Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank Znidarsic wrote: > > Bill thank you for you comments. Let's talk about them. I am glad that you understood my comments in the spirit in which they were meant. >... > 2. I have a problem with wave solutions that allow for standing > waves. ... The theory of standing waves is well understood in basic physics and electronics. > > 3. My theory is based on the idea that a force contains the > wavefunctions of matter. As far as I can see the above sentence doesn't make any sense. What can you mean by "a force contains"? Wrong verb isn't it? > > 4. I am getting to the connection to zero point energy. Before > I can do this we must first understand about the zero energy > universe and the symmetrical relationship between force and > gravity. These ideas are simple well, founded and will provide > us with a deep new understanding about matter and energy. This is a very peculiar idea. I thought gravity was a force. I think you must be using terminology too loosely or deliberately changing the technical meaning of some of the words. You need to connect your ideas more directly to standard terminology and concepts. > > 5. I can't help it I write big. I am fairly large myself. > I know, we all have this troublesome thing called the ego... As someone who has often made a living as a computer programmer, it puts me in mind of an interesting article on proving the correctness of computer programs by Edgar Dykstra in which he refers to being a "humble programmer". It has always seemed to me that the word "humble" was being used in a rather specialized sense - something like "While acknowledging our limitations as human beings we none the less undertake to do things very much beyond our normal innate abilities. The proper way to do such a thing is to create and use tools which amplify our abilities (mental and physical) and involves something like recognizing the right tool for the job... But in setting out to build such tools, we are in another sense being anything but humble!". Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 08:13:58 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01230 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 08:13:53 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA01197 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 08:13:49 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA17493 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 11:07:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510251507.LAA17493 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 11:23:18 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal Puthoff wrote: > ... The Casimir force is attractive >for certain geometries (e.g., plates, cylinders, parallelpipeds, wedges, >toroids) and repulsive for others (e.g., spheres, cubes). Hmmm... what happened to the 1/r^4 relationship mentioned by Scott Little? A geometry dependent force seems like a radically new idea. What is the relative magnitude of these geometrical effects? What is the appropriate scale of these objects? Aren't we talking about atomic and nuclear dimensions (10^-10 meters 10^-15 meters). How can we define geometrical objects on these scales? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 09:03:51 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10887 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:03:36 -0700 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA10880 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:03:30 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06104 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:02:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:02:11 -0400 Message-ID: <951025120211_77462385 mail06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cluster ca Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Znidarsic asks questions about the comparison between Casimir and gravitational forces. Other than some special cases involving magnetic materials, Casimir and van der Waals forces are attractive (like gravity), have associated with them negative energies (like gravity) corresponding to the attractive forces, and are conservative (like gravity), but differ in having inverse 4th through 7th law forces (instead of inverse square). With regard to "switching off" the Casimir force (which cannot be done with gravity) the issue is a little muddy. It is true that, unlike gravity, the Casimir force is quite geometry-dependent, and therefore a change in geometry can result in a radical change in the magnitude of the force (and even the sign, for that matter; Casimir forces are explosive for a sphere, contractive for a cylinder, etc.); the energy price one must pay from the outside to effect a change in geometry is difficult to determine (balloon pin-prick analogy vs brute-force adiabatic change). Unfortunately, answering the last difficult question is of primary significance with regard to considering the Casimir process as a potential energy-generating process. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 09:06:48 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11464 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:06:47 -0700 Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.37]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA11450 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:06:44 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15882 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:05:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:05:27 -0400 Message-ID: <951025120526_77463237 emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: H20 Stored energy & Cerenkov glow Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: With regard to Sparber's question about blue glow from water-enclosede reactors, the spectrum has a definite, well-understood, broadband frequency dependence for Cerenkov radiation, whereas one would expect a line spectrum from stored metastable energy levels - don't know if the spectrum has been measured, but that's where I would look to decide on this. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 09:04:32 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11008 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:04:32 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA10989 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:04:21 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA13740 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:03:55 -0400 Message-Id: <199510251603.AA13740 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:03:55 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Response Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 12:03:16 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 11:23:16 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Response Sender: owner-vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com Frank Znidarsic wrote: > > Bill thank you for you comments. Let's talk about them. I am glad that you understood my comments in the spirit in which they were meant. >... > 2. I have a problem with wave solutions that allow for standing > waves. ... The theory of standing waves is well understood in basic physics and electronics. No No I am a EE with a PE. Standing waves in electronics are caused by reflections that take place at points where the charactersitic impediance changes. These reflections produce a force this forces is: force in newtons = 2E/c > This force contains the traveling wave and results is a standing wave. The same thing happens here at the power plant..These reflection are related to a number called a power factor. Pf = 1 no reflections. PF < 1 we have standing waves on the power line...We don't want them. I put capacitors on the line to get rid of them. > > The viral therom states that no force free field configurations can exist. In short we can't have a local field that stands in space. Do you know of this therom? Issac Isamov helped develope it. > True it is a classical not a quantum therom.. I can find no logical reason why it should not apply to small systems. Do you?. This is a very peculiar idea. I thought gravity was a force. I think you must be using terminology too loosely or deliberately changing the technical meaning of some of the words. You need to connect your ideas more directly to standard terminology and concepts. > Gravity is a field not a force. It produces a force. It is a field like the electric field.curlf = 0 The first derivative of thegravtation al field is the gravitomagnetic field. It like the magnetic field has >curl. The second derivative is another gravitational field. with curl = 0 and the divergence = 0 ..These concepts are well known. I know, we all have this troublesome thing called the ego... I want to solve the pollution problems of the earth with new energy technology. If that is ego...we need more of it. Frank Z From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 20:25:34 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07179 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:55:08 -0700 Received: from escape.com (escape.com [198.6.71.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA07138 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:55:02 -0700 Received: (from chope localhost) by escape.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id NAA24349 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 13:39:00 -0400 From: Charles Hope Message-Id: <199510251739.NAA24349 escape.com> Subject: Re: electron clusters To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 13:38:59 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199510251435.KAA16882 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> from "Bill Page" at Oct 25, 95 10:51:40 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 12147 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Charles Hope wrote: > > Perhaps you missed my earlier message describing my own personal > "nightmare" conspiracy theory connecting P&F's initial research > into "CF" with supposed classified results from early thermonuclear > explosive tests. As if that was not enough in itself, I extended that > conspiracy to include a deliberate (and apparently successful) attempt > by the theoretician's of that era (many of whom were also deeply involved > in the foundational development of quantum mechanics) to introduce a > "mental block" into the new generation of theoretical physicists which > would prevent them (at least for a while) from realizing something > surprizing and very frightening about the application of quantum > mechanics. Yes, such behavior would be very unprecedented - but then > many things were unprecedented during that time. Do you yourself have any clue as to what they were trying to hide? Cold Fusion? I guess there seemed to me to be gaps in the story. It was extremely interesting and I love conspiracy tales more than the next guy, but I wasn't clear on what exactly they were trying to hide. And I assume that whatever it is, it is more clearly understood using Bohm's interpretation? Further, someone would have to discover "it", develop it to the point of panic--without publishing anything? That's a short time frame, I think. > > >> > >> I think the problem most people have with quantum mechanics is the > >> extent to which it departs from ordinary intuition. > >> ... > >Your "real world" intuition comes from a brain that was evolved to be > >efficient as seeing tree branches as you swing through them, reading > >emotional expressions on the faces of troupe members, and using high tech > >instruments as the stick and stone. > > > >Your intuitional education comes from little Billy Page over there in the > >crib, tossing his blocks around the room and watching his mobile spin. > > > >There is no good reason why this hardware/software combination should be > >good at any passing understanding of the facts of reality at a dozen > >orders of magnitude in either direction. Therefore "intuitiveness" makes > >for a poor epistemology, or judge of theory. > > I think you missed my point. I am not making any claims about what the > ultimate nature of reality may or may not be. This is a transcendent > philosophical problem that physics does not attempt to address. There > is an old slogan which frequently comes to my mind in this situation > that goes: "Physics is not about *why* things happen, but rather about > *how* they happen.". In other words, physics is an empirical science > and takes a fundamentally pragmatic view of what it is attempting to > do. Sometimes this amounts to extreme objectivism and a positivist > approach. And sometimes it is much deeper and philosphical in content. I think I did not make myself clear. There are some who say, in more refined and glorified terminology: "(insert theory here) cannot be true because it doesn't make common sense." This is someone that expects the elements covered by the theory in question to behave as the blocks and toy trucks did when we learned applied physics as infants. This is unreasonable, in my opinion. I see no reason for this condition to hold. This has been the essence of every single attack I have ever seen upon Special Relativity, General Relativity, and the Copenhagen Interpretation, whether made by high school-educated basement inventors, or Doctors of Philosophy. Given the arbitrariness of what we are and what our common sense was made for, I don't buy it. So, I don't care that the Copenhagen Interpretation doesn't "make sense". In fact, I think I rather like it. It's nature's way of telling me that I'm not just peering at my navel, but dealing with something that's really different and interesting. This is how I interpreted your post, and I apologize if I misunderstood. Sometimes my eyes get tired after sitting around for hours and hours filtering megabytes of ascii. > > Physicists are well known to make use of the even "purer" subject of > mathematics in what mathematicians consider a rough-shod way - they > do what "works" sometimes without addressing its fundamental > consistency (or lack there of) and in so doing sometimes help to > spur the development of whole new areas of pure mathematics. And > sometimes the mathematics preceeds its use in physics. > > In any case, what I am saying about "intuition" is just that it > is another very useful tool for the physicist. Intuitive thinking > (almost by definition) is just that type of thinking that we happen > to be rather good at. Among other things, it has certain survival > advantages. The point is: if we are going to build models and make > theories about reality, why not use the tools that we have at our > disposal to the best advantage. This extends from our basic > intuitions (which might be more or less sharp and adequate/ > inadequate) right up to the most advanced mathematics and computer > simulation/computational techniques. > Why not use our intuition? Intuition told Newton that light was corpuscular, told Einstein that the universe was stable, and certainly told many that the Sun tracks around the Earth! Intution can be right on the money sometimes--uncannily so. But it's also the only thing that ever leads us astray. Mathematics never does; our *interpretation* of the equations does! Oh, if we could stare directly at the equations themselves, without silly pictures of field lines, ether jellies, and little marbles flying every which way--because ALL these pictures are wrong! > > > >Most civilians have mental blocks against mathematics anyway, due to > >culture and millions of dysfunctional math teachers. > > Peculiar use of the work "civilian" isn't it? > I just mean non-specialist. Non-professional-math-user (Engineers, Scientists, etc) > What I was saying is that most physicists have developed as a result > of the way they have been taught quantum mechanics a conceptual > block against its further development. > It is my unfortunate understanding that many physicists eschew philosophy. That's probably the fault of modern philosophy eschewing discussions about reality. (In my twisted little universe, hardcore physics is philosophy.) But, in rejecting philosophy they set the question threshold too close--they stop asking why and reach for the calculator. By not understanding deeply the hidden assumptions of what they are doing, they can be led astray, and not only on QM. (I have a wonderful example of a problem in classical mechanics which is difficult if approached from a nonintellectual, plug-and-chug mindset. It caused me great grief and months of thought.) What I'm getting at is that most physicists don't seem to care (as much as I do, anyway) for asking deep questions about interpretations or assumptions or anything. > > > >When we speak of infinite-dimensional spaces, it's a joke. Dimension > >isn't meant in terms of spatial dimension; it means something totally > >different. It means anything which can somehow work somewhat like a real > >dimension mathematically. The analogy is totally mathematical and > >shouldn't be construed as geometric. > > I find your statement above rather strange. On the one hand you are > talking about various mathematical formalisms for calculations in > quantum mechanics. On the other, you question the applicability of > infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces? What is a "real dimension"? > Certainly Hilbert used many "geometric" analogies in his formalism. > Also I don't think I clearly understand your distinction between > mathematics and geometry. I view geometry as part of mathematics, > al beit usually a more "intuitive" part but not necessarily. OK, when I say "real" dimension, I'll be talking about up and down, in and out, left and right, and past and present. There are 4 "real" dimensions, one of time and 3 of space. Historically the mathematical quantities known as vectors were developed to deal with the 3 spatial dimensions. These vectors had certain properties; for instance, given vectors a and b, it is true that a+b = b+a, and that there exists a 0 such that a+0=a, and we can define some sort of multiplication scheme that obeys certain properties, and so forth. These properties make good sense when you are dealing with vectors like force, displacement, etc. Now mathematicians being the wild and crazy guys that they are, abstracted these properties and listed them all (ten in total). Then they searched around for things that were not at all geometric--not "arrows" by any stretch--but could be made to fit these ten abstract properties. They found them. Many functions can fit these conditions. For instance sine and cosine. These aren't geometric "arrows" connecting two points in space, but they can be added, have a zero function, etc. Therefore they are taken as abstract vectors. This is really cool because now we can transport the entire edifice of vector analysis and apply it to anything that fits these ten properties. Is that useful? This is the basis for Fourier analysis and Dirac's most elegant QM notation. The machinery of vectors, matrices, and now certain types of functions treated in a certain way are all related. This is how there are 3 different ways to calculate problems in QM. The "dimension" of the abstract hilbert space is just this sort of dimension. Not a "real", spatial one, but a dimension for this kind of abstract vector space where functions are treated as vectors. This is the source of confusion with regards to infinite dimensional spaces. These are abstract vector spaces where the vectors do not represent displacements in space. On the other hand, I think that when you hear about 10-dimensional theories of everything, they are referring to "real" dimensions. I strongly recommend anyone reading this who knows calculus and doesn't know about abstract vector spaces to learn something about them. I found it to be the deepest culmination of all the math I had learnt at that point. I can suggest books if anyone (but Bill Page) has gotten this far! > > > > >Do you know many people that can visualize 4-spacetime; understand > >intuitively the rotation of a hypercube and its projections > >upon 3-space, or "feel" the effects of curved spacetime? > > > >I suspect it might be remotely possible, after years of meditation, > >altered states, psychodrugs, and luck. > > Hmmm... This reminds me of a very interesting lecture that I attended > this summer at a conference on computer-based mathematics (CoMaTh). > The speaker described his research into abstract knot theory in four > dimensions (or more) that utilized many advanced computer visualization > techniques. He made the statement that many people suppose that an > intuitive understanding of four dimensional structure and motion is > enormously more difficult than in three dimensions. But he claims that > this is not true! He did not elaborate on any particular theory, but he > says that with only a little additional training most people can easily > extend their intutions to four or more dimensions. The problem is > just that we normally don't experience such phenomena. And he proved > it (to me at least) by showing a video tape of many simulated motions > of knots in four dimensions, in the process illustrating a result in > advanced abstract knot theory. He is currently into the whole subject > of "virtual reality" as a way to sharpen our natural intuitions of > these and other areas of advanced mathemati Please please, any information or links you can get on the visualization of higher spaces will be infinitely appreciated! Do you have the name and institution of this gentleman referred to above? This is one of my biggest interests! > http://xfactor.wpi.edu:8080/Bohm > > Let me know if you have any problems retrieving these. Many thanks for the links, which I will be soon pursuing. > > Cheers, > Bill Page. > > Charles From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 12:15:41 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01648 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:15:03 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01621 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:14:59 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA12135 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:14:52 -0400 Message-Id: <199510251914.AA12135 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:14:52 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: dialog Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 15:14:11 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Puthoff writes ... If it takes as much energy to disrupt a cluster as it took to form the cluster no energy will be produced. I suspect this will be the case. It will take as much energy to change the geometry of the cluster as the cluser released during formation. That is why I proposed a new way of thinking. That is. 1. Gravity has negative energy. 2. Gravity is produced by a force according to. Field in newtons/Kg-m = GM/cr In order to generate new energy..We will need a new force.. In order to generate energy continously.. The force will have to be switchable. That's why I studied the process of evanscence. It acts like a new force in that it tends to muff out harmonic motions which are less than the natural frequency of vibration. It is not a translational force. If we move into a dense plasma we will experience the force. This movement in and out of the force producing region does not require energy commenserate with the force. It is a classical force that can effect a quantum system. I've been around and around on some of these ideas. It's like banging my head on a wall. I know there is an answer and I'm determined to find it. Any thoughts? Frank Z From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 20:14:54 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14733 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:45:41 -0700 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA14682 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:45:35 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA03892; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:44:19 -0400 Date: 25 Oct 95 17:34:59 EDT From: Peter Unwin <100063.244 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Introducing myself. Message-ID: <951025213458_100063.244_EHK61-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To all. This is just to indroduce myself to the group. I already know Bill, Frederick, Jed and maybe a few others. Frederick said " take a look" and yes... I got your last email Frederick, too early to be specific. I will just generalise, set out my beliefs and probably (no promises) keep quiet unless prodded. I accept that CF or rather "various anomalous reactions" are possible because I am far from happy that either Einstein's relativity, QM and even standard electrical theory are complete. I therefore reject all statements that CF is impossible made on the basis of what I regard as incomplete theories. I subscribe to Apeiron, to the essense of Petr. Beckmanns ideas on relativity and am particularly interested in electro-magnetic models of particles. Seems to me that QM is just getting deeper into the mire over nucleons. No single model and the maths just gets more bizzare. One observation about CF. From what I have heard, the most promising experiments seem to often use materials from the catalytic group, why this is so seems a good starter to a possible theory. Be glad to know if this lands OK. Perhaps someone will confirm. For the moment I prefer to watch a while. Regards: Peter J. Unwin From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Oct 25 20:23:33 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01778 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:37:20 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA01691 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:37:09 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA14137 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Wed, 25 Oct 1995 18:37:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199510252237.AA14137 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 25 Oct 1995 18:37:01 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Atest Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 18:36:21 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Cc: david vesicle.ibg.uu.se, Puthoff@aol.com Subject: Atest I would like to thank Bill Beaty for providing this forum in which we can discuss our ideas. I would also like to thank Hal Puthoff for his honest answers. I think, finally, that I have the answer. Hal has been hearing from me for years, long before there was a thing called cold fusion. Thanks for bearing with me. I'm going to offer a testable prediction. If this prediction is not correct then my ideas are not correct. To begin: Evanescence is a property of the natural frequency of a plasma. All waves (mechanical, electrical, gravitational, probability, and matter) which have wavelengths longer than the frequency of evanescence will be absorbed into or reflected off of a plasma. The wavelength of evanescence varies inversely with the density of the plasma. I think we all know what it is. Let's apply the field tests I proposed earlier to determine if the process of evanescence can be used to produce energy through the genesis process. Thank's for your response on this one Hal. The fields are switchable. 1. Casimir Yes (switched by a change in geometry) 2. Evanescent Yes (can be switched by movement in and out of the evanescent area.) The energy required to switch the field off is less than the energy produced by the field's past interactions. 1. Casimir I say no. Puthoff says he doesn't know. Thank's for your frankness on this one. It helped me. 2. Evanescent Yes, The energy required to leave the evanescent area is not correlated in any way with the forces imposed by the effect. Interacts with the Logos. What I mean by this is, that the field directly interacts with the zero point Fermi energy levels of matter. See my past paper on the Logos. 1. Casimir Yes 2. Evanescent Yes and No. Depends on its density.. It will interact with the Fermi energy levels if the wavelength of evanescence becomes shorter than the Fermi energy level (wavelength) of a solid. Field contains negative energy. Spontaneity will be used as a test for negative energy. 1. Casimir Yes 2. Evanescent Yes Conclusion The process of Cold Fusion extracts the zero point energy of a solid through a process of evanescence. The process adds additional forces to the system. These forces directly induce a negative gravitational potential. Positive energy follows this negative potential. Test...The Fermi levels within the solid cold fusion electrode are evanescent in a plasma of dissolved hydrogen molecules. This can be directly calculated from the plasma density. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 04:38:55 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00673 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 04:38:42 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA00639 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 04:38:22 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t8LOw-000MNmC; Thu, 26 Oct 95 08:02 EET Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:02:54 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: taxonomy Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: omy October, 25, 1995 Dear Friends, I am very contented because this Internet group seems to last and to be transformed in a friendly small "Cold Fusion" community. Obviously, we too have both discussions and parallel monologs and it is not true that "Communication is the essence of science." It is understanding. Anyway, I also had my monologs here about catalysis, the recirculation tube of the Yusmar, washerology, the difference between know-how and patents, Potapov's rights and so on, all with minimal impact on others own ideas. Today is my 58-th birthday and I will use this opportunity to write an other monolog, about taxonomy, which is my baby. (The classification of the cold fusion systems, I agree with Jed's definition-any system which generates energy much beyond the possibilities of chemistry. Is this OK, Jed?). I am firmly convinced that it is an unique great energy source which feeds all these generators. "Facts are stupid things till brought in connection with some general law" (Louis Agassiz) What follows is a suggestion how to improve the IQ of the facts. There are two special loci with access to the Source of Energy: the catalytic centers and the cavitation bubbles, and I want to repeat here my basic idea: catalysis is important not catalysts; cavitation is the essence not the cavitating liquid. Water is special (you can even drink it in absence of something better) but I bet that it isn't a "sine qua non" requisite of a working device. Both Griggs and Potapov have claimed o/u with hot oil. The presence of a catalytic environment is obvious for the Patterson Power Cell, for the Arata cathode; the Piantelli et al patent describes the dynamic generation of catalytic centers. Less efficient breeding of these can be obtained by sparking as in Dufour's device, by gas discharge (Kucherov), by ionic implant or in the labyrinths of the ionic conductors. The E-Quest device is wonderful- here cavitation generates catalytic centers, it's a combined method. I never considered as plausible diffusion of deuterium in the Pd lattice in this case. Mike Mc. Kubre has done a great job with the classical Pd/ heavy water system and has demonstrated that it doesn't work well in a system which is not intrisically catalytic and that's almost all you can achieve here. My slogan is "Technology First" and I don't believe that the classical system is a serious candidate. An other criterium is "active interfaces' and we have two 'wet' ones: liquid/gas/solid-all the electrochemical systems and a part of the cavitation systems, liquid/gas/liquid systems- actually only the Yusmar is in this category, and one dry one: gas/solid-the NTT ,Kucherov, Piantelli, Samgin, Biberian, Mizuno, Kamada systems. The Arata cell is very interesting because it has a dry, gas/ solid surface in a wet system, and the authors are speaking about spillover deuterium, i.e. they use the jargon of catalysis. The IQ of the facts is much improved if we consider active loci and active interfaces that is, if we define the topology of the cold fusion systems. These two criteria can help us to obtain a vision of the field. And this is only a first step; in order to get at least one small certainty re. the mechanism I have sent a fax to Dr. Patterson asking him to run a cell with de-deuterated water, I consider this the Michelson-Morley experiment of the field. If the cell works it is not p-d fusion and that's a really great step toward the New Paradigm which isn't so far. All the best wishes from Peter! PS. Thursday morning: a newcomer, my namesake Unwin wrote: "From what I have heard, the most promising experiments seem to often use materials from the catalytic group, why this is so seems a good starter to a possible theory". Nomen est omen. Thank you Peter and welcome! Peter From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 04:51:45 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01732 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 04:49:04 -0700 Received: from Sun0.AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (sun0.aic.nrl.navy.mil [192.26.18.51]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA01713 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 04:48:58 -0700 From: hartley aic.nrl.navy.mil Received: from sun18.aic.nrl.navy.mil by Sun0.AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA27683; Thu, 26 Oct 95 07:48:56 EDT Received: by sun18.aic.nrl.navy.mil; Thu, 26 Oct 95 07:48:55 EDT Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 07:48:55 EDT Message-Id: <9510261148.AA01873 sun18.aic.nrl.navy.mil> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Wonderful example (was electron clusters) Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I have a wonderful > example of a problem in classical mechanics which is difficult if > approached from a nonintellectual, plug-and-chug mindset. It caused me > great grief and months of thought. Surely you're not going to leave us hanging like that, are you? What is the problem? Ralph Hartley hartley aic.nrl.navy.mil From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 05:07:33 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04946 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 05:04:52 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA04925 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 05:04:46 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id IAA26694; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:03:29 -0400 Date: 26 Oct 95 08:01:53 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: Hello Peter Message-ID: <951026120153_100060.173_JHB59-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Welcome to the gang Peter, I still have to find that recording of the electron gun shooting single electrons past a gate, but I haven't forgotten you!! >> From what I have heard, the most promising experiments seem to often use materials from the catalytic group, << That is true, except for the water cavitation versions. They seem to be applying brute force, if one is to accept the calculations regarding the conditions pertaining inside the collapsing bubbles. More like hot fusion than cold, but seemingly without detectable radiation, except heat of course. Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 03:59:16 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17992 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:05:20 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA17928 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:05:08 -0700 Received: from dialup-a25.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a25.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.25]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id BAA19772 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 01:02:46 +1000 (EST) From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: creiteria Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:07:19 GMT Organization: Improving Message-Id: <308f232f.2522320 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199510241517.AA06188 power.gpu.com> In-Reply-To: <199510241517.AA06188 power.gpu.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99c/16.133 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 24 Oct 95 11:16:21 EST , you wrote: > > > -> TCVFRANK AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 > > -> PUTHOFF AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 > -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 > >The energy produced in cold fusion, ball lightning, and the cavitation >machines may come from one of two sources. >1. Energy Transfer. > It could be nuclear, chemical, or mechanical energy > transferred in by some conversion process. > >2. It could be new energy produced by the genesis process. > For genesis to take place a field with a negative amount of > energy must be produced. > energy total = positive energy - negative energy = 0 > > What fields contain negative energy. > > 1. Gravity? Yes (energy is produced by the falling process) > 2. Electromagnetism No (It takes positive energy to form a photon > or to energize a magnet) energy is produced when a positively charged object is allowed to approach a negatively charged object. > 3. Casimir Yes (The casmir force is spontanious- requires > no energy source..Do you all agree?) > > > For genesis to occur the field must effect the Logos (ref to my > earlier paper) Tests for affecting the logos are. > > a. Produces a gravitational red shift. > b. Attracts all matter. > c. Is spontanious > d. Slows time. > > > What forces meet this requirement? > > a. Electromagnetism No > b. Gravity Yes > c. Casimir I thinks so...not sure. Hal Help! > > > > To use the force in a cyclical fashion the force must be switchable. > > What forces can be turned off and on (or shielded) > > a. Electromagnetism Yes > b. Gravity No > c. Casimir Yes I don't think so. If you do, then how? > > Conclusion...The Casimir force is the only force that can produce > continously produce energy through a genesis process. > Note: NO conservation laws are violated by the process! > Let's talk about it some more. > > Frank Znidarsic > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 03:56:54 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18045 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:05:29 -0700 Received: from tornado.netspace.net.au (root netspace.net.au [203.10.110.110]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18006 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:05:22 -0700 Received: from dialup-a25.mel.netspace.net.au (dialup-a25.mel.netspace.net.au [203.12.52.25]) by tornado.netspace.net.au (8.7/8.7) with SMTP id BAA19785 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 01:02:56 +1000 (EST) From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: dialog Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:07:29 GMT Organization: Improving Message-Id: <308f3313.6589681 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199510251914.AA12135 power.gpu.com> In-Reply-To: <199510251914.AA12135 power.gpu.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99c/16.133 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 25 Oct 95 15:14:11 EST , you wrote: > > > -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 >Puthoff writes ... If it takes as much energy to disrupt a cluster as >it took to form the cluster no energy will be produced. >I suspect this will be the case. It will take as much energy to change >the geometry of the cluster as the cluser released during formation. >That is why I proposed a new way of thinking. That is. > 1. Gravity has negative energy. > 2. Gravity is produced by a force according to. > > Field in newtons/Kg-m = GM/cr > > In order to generate new energy..We will need a new force.. > In order to generate energy continously.. > The force will have to be switchable. > > > That's why I studied the process of evanscence. > It acts like a new force in that it tends to muff out harmonic motions > which are less than the natural frequency of vibration. > > It is not a translational force. If we move into a dense plasma we > will experience the force. This movement in and out of the force > producing region does not require energy commenserate with the force. > > It is a classical force that can effect a quantum system. > > I've been around and around on some of these ideas. It's like > banging my head on a wall. I know there is an answer and I'm > determined to find it. > > Any thoughts? > > Frank Z > Wouldn't friction qualify as a force meeting your requirements, or have I misunderstood? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 07:19:55 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04987 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 07:19:39 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA04974 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 07:19:36 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id KAA24082; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 10:18:20 -0400 Date: 26 Oct 95 10:16:59 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Energy Storage in H, C, N and O etc. Message-ID: <951026141659_102021.3045_EHT83-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The main constituent atoms of the hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere of the earth that are accessed by solar insolation are hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen and their compounds. The fact that any or all of these compounds, whether formed through photosynthesis, nitrogen fixation or other solar energy supported mechanisms are capable of showing heat effects in CF related experiments is interesting. Micheal Shaffer at General Atomic noted that "airglow" around high speed aircraft was attributed to some properties of the atmospheric nitrogen. This was in response to my comment of noticing the glow around the airfoils of aircraft in certain types of weather, where I thought it was water vapor or some sort of electrostatic corona effects. The main UV to soft x-ray energy from the sun should be up to 13.6 ev for the hydrogen activity followed by spectra up to 54 ev for the helium. How much of this is filtered by the ozone layer that starts at an altitude of about 60,000 feet and merges into the lower ionosphere is being checked out from atmospheric data from NOAA and NASA Goddard. There's a possibility that the air and the water vapor and CO2 in the air are acting as metastable to stable solar energy reservoirs and the CF experiments are tapping into this reservoir. Another consideration is the subzero temperatures and low pressures above 15,000 feet or so, that might allow UV absorption with little or no thermal agitation of the molecules that would tend to inhibit the "storage" effect in a condensed state. All guesses and no hard data. FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 07:59:00 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15962 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 07:58:58 -0700 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA15948 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 07:58:55 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25025 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 10:57:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 10:57:39 -0400 Message-ID: <951026105736_54878521 emout04.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page remarks on the approach used by myself and co-authors in deriving inertial mass from the underlying ZPE, concerning which remarks I am quite sympathetic. We do, as you point out, start by assuming a classical equation of motion which has built-in the assumption that there is an inertial mass. We do accept that. Our quest, then, was to attempt to determine whether that inertial mass, as known to exist and show up in the equations of motion, was a given property of a particle or was derivable from some underlying principle. The paper then goes on to show that that mass was in fact derivable from deeper interaction phenomena involving the zero-point-energy background. Overall I would say that the logic thread is similar to that which occurs in the analysis of the Casimir force. One begins assuming that indeed the Casimir force exists with its inverse 4th-power-law dependence on distance and then asks is this a fifth force in nature or is it derivable from deeper interactions involving one of the other four forces. As in our inertia development it turns out that it can be shown to derive from the inderlying ZPE background. Although one could say that we replaced one phenomenon (the Casimir force) with anaother (the ZPE force), I would argue that the replacement is more than cosmetic because it has more explanatory power. The proof of the pudding, of course, is that with this claimed explanatory power one can then monkey with the situation using the claimed knowledge to predict otherwise undpredicted phenomena. For example, in the case of the Casimir force place the Casimir plates in a cavity restricting ZPE modes and see if the force changes; in the case of the inertia model check to see if the ZPE is perturbed by a predicted "inertia wind." With regard to the Higgs, I see that you already caught on to an implication of our development; if the ZPE is what gives mass to particles (it's simply through E = mcc the kinetic energy of response to the fluctuating ZPE motion) then the ZPE plays the role assigned to the hypothetical Higgs, right under our noses. With regard to the short-range nuclear forces, there are additional short-range van der Waals forces associated with the ZPE perturbation, so I have played with the idea that perhaps the nuclear forces, like the Casimir force, are not fundamental but derivable from the background ZPE. No calculation yet though, and some tough issues to be handled, so at this point it is just a gleam in the eye. Meanwhile, I am completing a paper along the lines of my original hydrogen-ground-state paper (Puthoff, Phys. Rev. D, vol 35, p.3266, 1987) that argues that all quantum ground states can be defined on the basis that they are states in which there is an equilibrium give-and-take between radiation due to accelerated motion and absorption from the ZPE to compensate. Thus ground state motion is supported (pumped) by the ZPE background. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 08:16:40 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16637 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:01:02 -0700 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16600 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:00:54 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13725 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 10:59:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 10:59:37 -0400 Message-ID: <951026105936_54880170 mail02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page remarks on the approach used by myself and co-authors in deriving inertial mass from the underlying ZPE, concerning which remarks I am quite sympathetic. We do, as you point out, start by assuming a classical equation of motion which has built-in the assumption that there is an inertial mass. We do accept that. Our quest, then, was to attempt to determine whether that inertial mass, as known to exist and show up in the equations of motion, was a given property of a particle or was derivable from some underlying principle. The paper then goes on to show that that mass was in fact derivable from deeper interaction phenomena involving the zero-point-energy background. Overall I would say that the logic thread is similar to that which occurs in the analysis of the Casimir force. One begins assuming that indeed the Casimir force exists with its inverse 4th-power-law dependence on distance and then asks is this a fifth force in nature or is it derivable from deeper interactions involving one of the other four forces. As in our inertia development it turns out that it can be shown to derive from the inderlying ZPE background. Although one could say that we replaced one phenomenon (the Casimir force) with anaother (the ZPE force), I would argue that the replacement is more than cosmetic because it has more explanatory power. The proof of the pudding, of course, is that with this claimed explanatory power one can then monkey with the situation using the claimed knowledge to predict otherwise undpredicted phenomena. For example, in the case of the Casimir force place the Casimir plates in a cavity restricting ZPE modes and see if the force changes; in the case of the inertia model check to see if the ZPE is perturbed by a predicted "inertia wind." With regard to the Higgs, I see that you already caught on to an implication of our development; if the ZPE is what gives mass to particles (it's simply through E = mcc the kinetic energy of response to the fluctuating ZPE motion) then the ZPE plays the role assigned to the hypothetical Higgs, right under our noses. With regard to the short-range nuclear forces, there are additional short-range van der Waals forces associated with the ZPE perturbation, so I have played with the idea that perhaps the nuclear forces, like the Casimir force, are not fundamental but derivable from the background ZPE. No calculation yet though, and some tough issues to be handled, so at this point it is just a gleam in the eye. Meanwhile, I am completing a paper along the lines of my original hydrogen-ground-state paper (Puthoff, Phys. Rev. D, vol 35, p.3266, 1987) that argues that all quantum ground states can be defined on the basis that they are states in which there is an equilibrium give-and-take between radiation due to accelerated motion and absorption from the ZPE to compensate. Thus ground state motion is supported (pumped) by the ZPE background. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 08:08:47 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18885 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:08:46 -0700 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18863 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:08:42 -0700 From: Puthoff aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29418 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 11:07:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 11:07:07 -0400 Message-ID: <951026110659_54885998 emout04.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: With regard to Bill Page's question concerning Casimir effects in spheres, toroids, wedges, cubes, cylinders, etc. In all these cases we have an inverse 4th law dependence on the separation distance parameter; it's just that the *numerical scale factor* is different depending on the geometry. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 08:21:42 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21912 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:21:22 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA21830 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:20:51 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t8U7O-000MNxC; Thu, 26 Oct 95 17:21 EET Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 17:21:21 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: sonoluminescence Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Re: Sonoluminescence. In my opinion excess heat effects can be triggered both by catalysis and cavitation; the catalytic centres and the cavitation bubbles are the loci where some special phenomena take place due to a common quantum-size effect. For both catalysis and cavitation, these effects are supported by related effects, also bound to quantum size: For catalysis- the Reifenschweiler effect- decreased radioactivity of tritium absorbed in nanometric Ti particles; For cavitation-sonoluminescence.. I have got today interesting news re. sonoluminescence and I am using this opportunity to continue my bibliography on this subject. Some of the papers could be useful for us. 1. T. J. Matula, R. A. Roy, P. D Mourad (U. of Washington) Comparison of multibubble and single-bubble Sonoluminescence. Physical Review Letters,75:13 (SEP 28, 1995) p 2602-2605 2. M. M. Chivate, A. B. Pandit (U. of Bombay) Quantification of cavitation intensity in fluid bulk. Ultrasonics, Sonochemistry 2 : 1 (May 1995) S19-S25 3. R. A. Roy : Physical aspects of sonoluminescence from acoustic cavitation. Ultrasonics, Sonochemistry 1 :2 Sep 1994 87-90 4. H. Johari : Chemically reactive vortex rings. Physics of Fluids 7, 10, OCT 1995 2420-7 This info has arrived this morning. PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 246 October 25, 1995 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein ISOTOPE EFFECTS IN SONOLUMINESCENCE have been observed by Seth Putterman and Robert Hiller at UCLA. Sonoluminescence (SL) is a mysterious phenomenon in which acoustic energy is transduced into light energy; high frequency sound waves are absorbed by tiny bubbles in water. The bubbles, oscillating wildly, re-emit the energy in the form of tiny, focused light bursts. Many things about SL are still unknown, such as the nature of the light-emitting process or why the light pulses are so short. The UCLA work has established one new fact: substituting heavy water (D2O) for ordinary water (H2O) as the liquid medium causes the SL spectrum to dramatically shift from ultraviolet toward red wavelengths. This result seems to represent yet a new mystery. According to the researchers, "The shift is remarkably large, especially in view of the small difference in chemical and elastic properties between light and heavy water." (Robert A. Hiller and Seth Putterman, upcoming article in Physical Review Letters; journalists can obtain copies from AIP Public Information, physnews aip.org) I am studying now Hal Fox's report re. PPC at SOFE, it is the most complete document on the subject till now. Best regards, Peter Gluck From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 09:11:05 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05910 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:11:02 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05883 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:10:56 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA02097 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:04:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510261604.MAA02097 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:20:26 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Introducing myself. Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter Unwin wrote: > > This is just to indroduce myself to the group. I already know Bill, >Frederick, Jed and maybe a few others. Frederick said " take a look" and >yes... I got your last email Frederick, too early to be specific. I will >just generalise, set out my beliefs and probably (no promises) keep >quiet unless prodded. > > ... Hello Peter, Did we not exchange a series of messages on Compuserve (now going back a few years) when I was first starting my series of experiments on electrolytic cells with Aluminum cathodes? If my memory is correct, you gave me a very useful suggestion regarding the preparation and testing of the surface of the cathode based on your experience with electroplating techniques. If that was you, please accept my delayed: thank you very much. Half of the fun (and usefulness) of this discussion group is reading it - the other half is contributing to it - so I don't think anyone really wants you to "keep quiet unless prodded". Just jump in if you have something to say! Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 09:11:13 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05974 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:11:09 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05909 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:11:01 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA02100 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:04:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510261604.MAA02100 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:20:28 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: electron clusters Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> Charles Hope wrote: >> >> Perhaps you missed my earlier message describing my own personal >> "nightmare" conspiracy theory connecting P&F's initial research >> into "CF" with supposed classified results from early thermonuclear >> explosive tests. > >Do you yourself have any clue as to what they were trying to hide? Cold >Fusion? I guess there seemed to me to be gaps in the story. It was >extremely interesting and I love conspiracy tales more than the next guy, >but I wasn't clear on what exactly they were trying to hide. Well part of the "fun" of conspiracy theorizing is leaving certain things to the conclusions of the readers... but in this case I will give you my most explicit "best guess": I think it might have something to do with the behaviour of hydrided metals under extreme implosive conditions such as in a thermonuclear device. It is an interesting fact (which also has a more ordinary alternate explanation) that the first tests of thermonuclear devices using lithium deuteride exceeded the predicted yields by as much as a factor of three. There has also been some rumors (I know of nothing published yet) that the particle counts (radiation) confirmed the original estimates. If you believe this, than the alternate ordinary explanation of 7Li(n,2n)6Li cannot be right and therefore there must have been an anomalous energy release. > And I assume >that whatever it is, it is more clearly understood using Bohm's >interpretation? One of the more interesting things about Bohm's interpretion of quantum mechanics is that while the evolution of the quantum mechanical wavefunction conserves energy and momentum (i.e. the quantities and

, as is well known from the usual interpretation), the hidden dynamics of Bohm's particles is classical and conservative *except* for the inclusion of an additional potential term (called the quantum potential). This additional term has its origin in the guidance condition that links the wavefuntion and the particle motion. The inclusion of the quantum potential in the particle equation of motion makes the particle motion non-conservative. On average (for a statistical ensemble) the magnitude of this non-conservation is just that expected by the usual quantum mechanical uncertainty relations. But this is not true of the detailed motions of individual particles. To the extent that in non-equilibrium situations the actual spatial distributions of particles may not correspond to the usual Born |Psi|^2 distribution, there may (possibly) be macro-scopic non-conservation of energy. In particular I would direct your attention to the Airy wavefunction solution to the potential free Schrodinger equation. This particular rather special wavefunction results in accellerated motion of the particles in spite of the fact that there are no classical fields present. It is not clear to me why this solution is not more widely discussed in texts on quantum mechanics. [See the paper "Non-spreading wave packets" by Berry and Balazs, Am. J. Phys. 47(3), Mar. 1979; and also the discussion in Holland's book, The Quantum Theory of Motion.] > >Further, someone would have to discover "it", develop it to the point of >panic--without publishing anything? That's a short time frame, I think. Of course the classified nature of the source material is a great aid in weaving a conspiracy theory! It is interesting to note that by the time the first thermonuclear devices where tested, Robert Oppenheimer had lost his high level security clearance and David Bohm was deported from the country. Panic would set in for me if I suspected that extreme (radiation induced) compression was not necessary in order to obtain this effect. In the case of P&F's experiments, I would suspect that such an effect might show up in a highly loaded metal lattice that undergoes some sort of fast cyrstaline phase change, i.e. in which the lattice spacing changes very rapidly and in a non-linear manner. P&F have claimed that there is such a previously undiscovered phase change from the well known beta phase to a new gamma phase. They claim that the gamma phase is not stable under ordinary conditions and that in their experiments they see chaotic changes propagating within the loaded metal lattice back and forth between the beta and gamma phases. [See their ICCF4 paper titled "Alfred Coehn and After: The Alpha, Beta, Gamma of the Palladium- Hydrogen System".] So the point is that a system like P&F's might not be explosive under normal conditions and might yield excess energy due to this non- energy conserving phase change. But disclosing its actual source of energy might still contravene some existing classified research. >... > >So, I don't care that the Copenhagen Interpretation doesn't "make sense". >In fact, I think I rather like it. It's nature's way of telling me that >I'm not just peering at my navel, but dealing with something that's >really different and interesting. > >This is how I interpreted your post, and I apologize if I misunderstood. >Sometimes my eyes get tired after sitting around for hours and >hours filtering megabytes of ascii. > I think we are basically in agreement here but our approaches do differ. > ... > >Why not use our intuition? Intuition told Newton that light was >corpuscular, told Einstein that the universe was stable, and certainly >told many that the Sun tracks around the Earth! > There are senses in which all of the above are correct and to that extent intuition was very valuable. Granted if used improperly, like any tool, it can also be misleading. One problem that we may be having here is that you seem to be looking for "ultimates" while I am back at just being pragmatic that we do have *some* theories which are correct in *some limited domains* of application ... > ... > >This is the source of confusion with regards to infinite dimensional >spaces. These are abstract vector spaces where the vectors do not >represent displacements in space. > >On the other hand, I think that when you hear about 10-dimensional >theories of everything, they are referring to "real" dimensions. > >I strongly recommend anyone reading this who knows calculus and doesn't >know about abstract vector spaces to learn something about them. I found >it to be the deepest culmination of all the math I had learnt at that point. Yes, it is very beautiful. > >I can suggest books if anyone (but Bill Page) has gotten this far! I am still here, anyone else? >> >> Hmmm... This reminds me of a very interesting lecture that I attended >> this summer at a conference on computer-based mathematics (CoMaTh). >> ... > >Please please, any information or links you can get on the visualization >of higher spaces will be infinitely appreciated! Do you have the name and >institution of this gentleman referred to above? This is one of my biggest >interests! The speaker's name was Dennis Roseman from the University of Iowa. His talk was titled "Tell me what I'm seeing" - Visualization of 3 and 4 Dimensions; and included three narrated video tapes of computer simulations. Apparently he is well known on the Internet if you visit the right places, especially with respect to his interests in virtual reality. His email address is roseman dimension4.math.uiowa.edu He seems like a very busy and serious man, so please everyone, don't flood his e-mailbox with just curiosity seeking requests. It was my intention after returning home to contact him about obtaining copies of his video tapes but I haven't done this yet. When I spoke to him at the conference it was clear that he had no immediate intention of commercializing his work, so he has no means to distribute copies on a large scale. Perhaps if there is a significant interest, we might arrange to obtain a copy as a group and circulate it amoung ourselves. I'd also appreciate hearing any additional information that anyone might discover. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 08:43:40 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27323 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:43:39 -0700 Received: from vaxk.gat.com (GAK.GAT.COM [192.5.166.12]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA27315 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:43:36 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510261543.IAA27315 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 8:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:44:54 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: taxonomy Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Mike Mc. Kubre has done a great job with the classical Pd/ heavy >water system and has demonstrated that it doesn't work well in >a system which is not intrisically catalytic and that's almost >all you can achieve here. Maybe I missed something in McKubre's work. How did he prove that "it doesn't work well in a system which is not intrisically catalytic"? How did he even identify an "intrinsically catalytic" system from one not so? Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 09:41:53 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15597 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:41:46 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA15568 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:41:41 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA02244; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510261635.MAA02244 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:51:05 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: sonoluminescence Cc: jonesse plasma.byu.edu, cyganski@ee.WPI.EDU Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter, Thanks very much for your news on sonoluminescence: Peter Gluck wrote: > >PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE >The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News >Number 246 October 25, 1995 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein > >ISOTOPE EFFECTS IN SONOLUMINESCENCE have been >observed by Seth Putterman and Robert Hiller at UCLA. > ... The >UCLA work has established one new fact: substituting heavy water >(D2O) for ordinary water (H2O) as the liquid medium causes the SL >spectrum to dramatically shift from ultraviolet toward red ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >wavelengths. This news is extremely interesting to me since I have suggested in my ICCF5 paper that sonoluminescence might be related to the energy band states of mobile hydrogen ions in water. The basic idea was that shifts in the energy bands due to alternating compression and expansion of chains of water molecules might excite hydrogen ions moving along these chains into higher energy band states which then decay to lower states at another part of the cycle. The major prediction that I made was that a cut-off in the emission spectrum would be found in the far ultra-violet (near infra-red) range corresponding to the largest energy gap which occurs (due to the anharmonic nature of the potential experienced by the hydrogen ion) between the ground state and the first excited state. The nature of the transmission of light in water makes finding this cut-off rather difficult. A major isotope shift due to a change in the mass of the mobile hydrogen ions (D+ has approximately twice the mas of a proton) is to be expected if sonoluminescence is due to the effects that I posited. This shift should also make it easier to determine the cut-off frequency. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 03:36:32 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19384 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:53:57 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA19314 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:53:47 -0700 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA02292; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510261647.MAA02292 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 13:03:11 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: sonoluminescence Cc: jonesse plasma.byu.edu, cyganski@ee.WPI.EDU Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >part of the cycle. The major prediction that I made was that >a cut-off in the emission spectrum would be found in the far >ultra-violet (near infra-red) range corresponding to the largest ^^^^^^^^^ > Sorry, that should have read "near x-ray". Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 03:47:52 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17394 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:47:29 -0700 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM (GAV.GAT.COM [192.5.166.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA17375 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:47:26 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510261647.JAA17375 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 9:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:48:44 -0800 To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: Conspiracy Theories Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: If the powers that direct the design, construction and deployment of nuclear weapons knew of a CF effect that enhanced their explosive yields, then I am sure that they would have powerfully suppressed the field as soon as Jones wrote his grant application, before PF's announcement. In the USA the Atomic Energy Act requires any and all activity that might relate to nuclear weapon knowhow to be immediately classified, even if it was innocently discovered. I imagine that other nuclear weapon countries would have reacted similarly. The fact that there has been no push to classify argues against prior knowledge of any weapon-relevant CF effect. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 12:00:11 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25427 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 11:59:48 -0700 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA25389 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 11:59:41 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id OAA08720; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:58:23 -0400 Date: 26 Oct 95 14:56:26 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CO2 gas, Sonoluminescence? Message-ID: <951026185626_102021.3045_EHT144-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Several years ago I had occasion to be using a "K" size bottle of CO2 for some biomass related experiments. While doing some plumbing hookup late at night in the shop which was lighted with fluorescent light (that needed cleaning), I noticed that when the bottle valve was opened rapidly and when the gas (under about 700 psi) exited the 1/8" inch brass fitting with a very loud sound, I thought that I saw a faint glow at the "nozzle". Since I've only had a knowledge of the sonoluminescence phenomena acquired over the last two months,I don't think that there were any prejudices in that direction. I did think that this was a reflection or fluorescence from the lights. Now I'm curious about this. Anyone have access to a bottle of CO2? FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 17:32:12 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01453 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 17:31:33 -0700 Received: from head.globalcom.net (head.globalcom.net [204.111.1.35]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA01428 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 17:31:30 -0700 Received: from 204.111.1.69 (eb1ppp5.shentel.net [204.111.1.69]) by head.globalcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id UAA22272 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 20:32:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199510270032.UAA22272 head.globalcom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 20:33:58 -0500 From: VISOR globalcom.net Subject: Let there be light! To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <308b3216.2737681 mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, Thank you all for the information received on magnetic fluid. The stuff I have came to me by way of military surplus. The source was the US navy according to the advertisement. No telling what is in the stuff. The good news is that it reads only slightly higher than normal background radiation. The YUSMAR patent states that the source of the heat is the conversion of kinetic energy to heat energy when the motion of the liquid is stopped by a barrier in the YUSMAR. Has anyone completed calculations to see how much heat should be produced in this manor? It is my feeling the YUSMAR may turn out to be like finger print powder. It contains no answer, but instead gives us a way to look at the evidence and thus find an answer. So, where was I...? Oh yes, as for sono luminescence, in my experiments I have discovered the following: When passing high voltage at ultrasonic frequencies through water vapor, plasma like discharges will often develop. This glowing discharge can remain for many seconds after the power is removed. Has anyone else witnessed such an effect? As a Dick Tracy fan from way back, this YUSMAR afair brings to mind of the famous Diet Smith Quote "The county that unravels the mystery of magnetism will rule the world." Maybe he should of said "water" _____________(.)(.)________________________________________ The answer is only important if you ask the right question! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 03:49:40 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29329 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 18:58:45 -0700 Received: from head.globalcom.net (head.globalcom.net [204.111.1.35]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA29299 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 18:58:41 -0700 Received: from 204.111.1.69 (eb1ppp5.shentel.net [204.111.1.69]) by head.globalcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id VAA27092 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 21:59:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199510270159.VAA27092 head.globalcom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 22:01:20 -0500 From: VISOR globalcom.net Subject: Deep sea blast. To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <9510261148.AA01873 sun18.aic.nrl.navy.mil> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello again, I was reminded of the three proposed test that the US navy was to have conducted in the pacific at the birthing of the fusion bomb. Test one, the above ground blast went well. Test two, the shallow water blast went well. Then the navy canceled test three, the deep water blast. The scientists involved at that time felt the great pressures of the oceans depth along with concentrations of deuterium might cause an uncontrollable reaction. A reaction that could have destroyed the planet. Do any of you know if such a deep water test was ever conducted, by any nation? _____________(.)(.)________________________________________ The answer is only important if you ask the right question! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 19:38:49 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA09766 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 19:38:47 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA09724 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 19:38:40 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA11950 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Thu, 26 Oct 1995 22:38:34 -0400 Message-Id: <199510270238.AA11950 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Thu, 26 Oct 1995 22:38:34 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: crazy Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 22:37:54 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> FZNIDARSIC AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 22:10:38 -0400 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com To: p8156 memo.gpuc.com Cc: billb eskimo.com, Puthoff@aol.com Subject: crazy Talk of low energy arcs and excess energy drives me crazy. I made many arcs myself. Some of which include. 1. In a vacuum chamber at energies of 100 joules. 2. In a microwave chamber at 1 KW of energy. + 100 kilo volts 3. At voltages of up to 100,000 volts at kilojoules of energy. What a flash this one made. 4. At currents of up to 250,000 amps. Stenger and I produced this marvel. The concussion warped the lens on the cammera. You can see it flex in slow motion. Then the blast set the garage on fire. We measured the current by dQ = C dV 5. In helium. 6. In ammonia and air. Another K-boom! Don't try it! 7. In a pressure chamber at 25 kilo joules of energy K-boom again no more chamber, gone in 1/30 of a second. We watched this stuff on slow motion playback on a VCR. VCRs playback at 1/30 of a second intervals in slow motion. We never produced any plasma that lasted for more than 2 frames. True, splats of flying metal glowed for a few seconds, but so what. Stenger and I didn't find a any excess energy. We both grew tired of this stuff and gave it up. What we did find out was: 1. If you make a loud enough K-BOOM the cops will surly come. 2. Bright flashes make one see spots. 3. Ultra-sonic energy makes will make your head ring and produces all sorts of other nervous effects. 4. If you don't stop doing the stuff the wife will leave. 5. You will get accused for running up the electric bill. If anyone would like to view this foolishness, I have it all on tape, including the one where we set the garage on fire. Write to me at fznidarsic aol.com. In return I ask that you then send the tape to the next person on the list. I will wait a week for the requests to come in. Frank Znidarsic  From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Thu Oct 26 20:32:33 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27807 for vortex-l-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 20:32:16 -0700 Received: from head.globalcom.net (head.globalcom.net [204.111.1.35]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA27800 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 20:32:13 -0700 Received: from 204.111.1.67 (eb1ppp3.shentel.net [204.111.1.67]) by head.globalcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id XAA02129 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 23:33:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199510270333.XAA02129 head.globalcom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 23:34:50 -0500 From: VISOR globalcom.net Subject: Re: crazy >The Movie < To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <199510270238.AA11950 power.gpu.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: "If we weren't all crazy, we would go insane!" Jimmy Buffet Thank DOG I don't live next to you! Sounds like you had quite a bank of capacitors. Were there any positive out growths from your experiment? The interesting thing about my experiment was that I wasn't looking for excess energy. The applied power was less that 800 watts, I have no idea what the resulting energy output was. The signal applied had to be a sine wave. Pulses and continuous square waves yielded no reaction. What can I say, what happened, happened. My hypothesis at this stage (and after many years)is that the high voltage excitation acted to transducer the ultra sound in the the vapor medium, much as a piezo device in recent experiments. This coupled with other effects of the discharge enhanced the reaction. While it seems to be in vogue to use brute force in experiments of this type to obtain the desired results , I tend to use gentle, prolonged foreplay to obtain a favorable, sometimes unexpected outcome. Who knows, just an interesting side bar. _____________(.)(.)________________________________________ The answer is only important if you ask the right question! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 02:06:43 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20243 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 02:06:21 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA20217 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 02:06:17 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id FAA15542; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 05:05:00 -0400 Date: 27 Oct 95 05:03:20 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: crazy Message-ID: <951027090320_100060.173_JHB36-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, >> I will wait a week for the requests to come in. << Don't hold your breath!!! ROFL squared!!!! Norman From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 02:06:43 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20245 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 02:06:22 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA20225 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 02:06:18 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id FAA15546; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 05:05:00 -0400 Date: 27 Oct 95 05:03:24 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: Let there be light! Message-ID: <951027090323_100060.173_JHB36-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> Has anyone completed calculations to see how much heat should be produced in this manor? << If all the energy output is only related to the kinetic energy in the fluid, then all that can be available is the energy put into it by the pump, plus any gravitational conversion due to fall in altitude from the reservoir to the Yusmar. After all we have been led to understand about cavitation in the Yusmar, to now be told that the heat is generated by conversion of kinetic energy, then we have been wasting our time (and cash), and there is NO ou element in the Yusmar. You might just as well have an immersion heater and be done with it. What a con!!!! Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 05:24:17 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22741 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 05:24:13 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA22726 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 05:24:06 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA10852 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:23:55 -0400 Message-Id: <199510271223.AA10852 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:23:55 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Deep sea blast Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 08:19:24 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 22:01:20 -0500 From: VISOR globalcom.net Subject: Deep sea blast. To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <9510261148.AA01873 sun18.aic.nrl.navy.mil> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com Hello again, I was reminded of the three proposed test that the US navy was to have conducted in the pacific at the birthing of the fusion bomb. Test one, the above ground blast went well. Test two, the shallow water blast went well. Then the navy canceled test three, the deep water blast. The scientists involved at that time felt the great pressures of the oceans depth along with concentrations of deuterium might cause an uncontrollable reaction. A reaction that could have destroyed the planet. Do any of you know if such a deep water test was ever conducted, by any nation? _____________(.)(.)________________________________________ The answer is only important if you ask the right question! No I don't but in and about 1973 there was a show on television, I believe it was Jacques Cuestou..He went to investigate fire balls underwater produced by deep underwater welding. Underwater welding at depth (300 ft) uses high current 900 amp DC arcs. Deeper yet they use radio frequencies. I called Oceaneneering a deep underwater welding firm. The divers told me that these fire balls are produced by "sloppy" welding at high currents. One of them Jack Couch took a swat at one of these balls. He tells me it was a very dangerous thing to do because if he burned through his glove he could have been electicuted. He found a bit of molten slag in his glove after the swatting incident. Jack concluded that the fire balls were bits of slag trapped in an air bubble. Did anyone see the Cuestou show? The fire balls were quite dramatic. I tried to reproduce the effect in a high pressure chamber. I was not able to do it. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 05:35:10 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24881 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 05:35:06 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA24864 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 05:35:00 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA12255 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:34:53 -0400 Message-Id: <199510271234.AA12255 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:34:53 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: dialog Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 08:33:35 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: dialog Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:07:29 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199510251914.AA12135 power.gpu.com> In-Reply-To: <199510251914.AA12135 power.gpu.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99c/16.133 Sender: owner-vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com On Wed, 25 Oct 95 15:14:11 EST , you wrote: > down > > > > > > > Spaandonk writes: > > Wouldn't friction qualify as a force meeting your requirements, or have I misunderstood? No friction would not. Friction does not produce a field of negative energy. The proof of this is friction is not spontanious, it requires positive energy to drive it. Falling does not required positive energy. It just happens. The friction idea, however, does make some sense. I am sort of trying to apply a frictional force upon the zero point Fermi energy levels of a solid with an evanescent plasma. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 06:45:02 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08945 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 06:44:49 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA08906 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 06:44:33 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t8p5s-000MNpC; Fri, 27 Oct 95 15:45 EET Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:45:11 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Re: McKubre not catalytic. Mike Schaffer wrote: "Maybe I missed something in McKubre's work. How did he prove that "it doesn't work well in a system which is not intrinsically catalytic"? How did he even identify an "intrinsically catalytic' system from one not so? Right, I have to apologize for not being sufficiently specific. I am stating that his system isn't catalytic and that it doesn't work well compared to the systems which use high surface active materials as those of Arata and Patterson i.e. has lower contro- lability and lower performances. My explanation is very simple and straightforward; EXCESS HEAT IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE NUMBER OF CATALYTIC CENTERS PRESENT. Beyond any details: McKubre needs weeks to trigger the reaction and obtains max. 2 W excess for a cathode of 2.5 grams Patterson needs a few hours to start the reaction and obtains 5 W excess for 40 microgrames of metal. I am ready to discuss the subject for any CF system. Best regards, Peter Gluck From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 06:45:37 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09153 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 06:45:36 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA09118 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 06:45:30 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t8p74-000MNpC; Fri, 27 Oct 95 15:46 EET Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:46:25 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Re: Let's there be light. Robert, We had there Piantelli's patent, telling that H + D fusion is the heat source and examples showing it cannot be so. We have now Potapov's patent, telling that the source of heat is conversion of kinetic energy in heat energy. This means clearly no overunity. Is this confirmed by the examples? Thank you in advance for the answer. Peter Gluck From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 08:16:01 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03359 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:16:00 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA03336 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:15:56 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA05728; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:00:48 -0400 Date: 27 Oct 95 10:58:18 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: Message from Internet Message-ID: <951027145818_100060.173_JHB26-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter, >> systems which use high surface active materials as those of Arata and Patterson << I've forgotten, what is the size of Patterson's balls? I've just been reading about the molecule-building systems now in use which coat microscopic plastic balls with reagents which are then tagged with DNA strings to trace the reactions afterwards. If these "talcum-powder" sized particles were coated with Patterson's patent gunge the heat generation might become almost explosive. At the very least, the loading time might be reduced significantly. Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 07:24:04 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17435 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 07:24:02 -0700 Received: from head.globalcom.net (head.globalcom.net [204.111.1.35]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA17403 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 07:23:57 -0700 Received: from 204.111.1.87 (eb1ppp23.shentel.net [204.111.1.87]) by head.globalcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id KAA24961 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:25:15 -0400 Message-Id: <199510271425.KAA24961 head.globalcom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 10:26:16 -0500 From: VISOR globalcom.net Subject: Re: let there be light To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >We have now Potapov's patent, telling that the source of heat >is conversion of kinetic energy in heat energy. This means >clearly no overunity. Is this confirmed by the examples? Peter, I feel patent information is just a part of the puzzle. There are many possible reasons why even if there was OU, that it would not be mentioned in the patent. The simplest one, if there is OU....in say the YUSMAR....maybe it is not by design, but by accident. There are many effects produced within the YUSMAR. Let look what the group has thought of...pressure, vortex operation, sonic energy, heat from kinetic conversion and so on. Speculations range from cold fusion, cavitation to deuterium based warm fusion. This investigation has been good, but it is easy to see how one could be exhausted from all the fluctuations. I for one, will continue investing my money and time for moment. Still waiting for the fat lady to sing. _____________(.)(.)________________________________________ The answer is only important if you ask the right question! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 08:33:49 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07585 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:33:48 -0700 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA07552 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:33:41 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA17395; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:32:23 -0400 Date: 27 Oct 95 11:29:35 EDT From: Peter Unwin <100063.244 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Hello Peter. Message-ID: <951027152935_100063.244_EHK68-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I seem to have failed to post this as intended by replying to Bill Page, sorry Bill if this turns up twice. ************************** Thanks to all respondents. Looks to be an interesting group. I hope I can contribute something. Peter: Little problem . I'm Peter John but plain Unwin will do fine. Better than P. John Unwin which scuppered my chances of sounding grand. Perhaps Peter J. ??? Norman: No rush on that tape, I owe you a lunch anyway. I take your point about the brute force but from the report I saw, the sonoluminescence was identified as depending on the presence of the rare gasses in trace amounts. Experimentally, they seem to have specific cavitation sites tamed and controlled. This seems a big plus for conducting controlled experiments. Maybe they use a spherical container and set up standing waves convergent on the centre ? Hot fusion... OK., but suppose the heat is created, used+destroyed locally without spreading, i.e. site specific, would that be hot or cold fusion ? Robin: Interesting idea. I need to pop that in my think-tank awile and learn more about the electron cluster idea. Bill Page: Thanks. Back to the days of Emory Kimborough's rabbits, yes, I do remember. Actually, I need to sit back awhile after a few months of tooth and nailing it on CIS. Some diehards can be no better than the outside fringe they so derisively scorn. Not forgetting B. Beaty & FJS: Thanks for your advice. Peter. J. Unwin. West Yorks. England. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 07:32:34 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19017 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 07:32:33 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA18986 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 07:32:23 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA13660 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:32:15 -0400 Message-Id: <199510271432.AA13660 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:32:15 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: crazy Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 10:31:35 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 23:34:50 -0500 From: VISOR globalcom.net Subject: Re: crazy >The Movie < To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <199510270238.AA11950 power.gpu.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com "If we weren't all crazy, we would go insane!" Jimmy Buffet Thank DOG I don't live next to you! Sounds like you had quite a bank of Funny you should mention the dog! I have an humerous story. Frank Stenger who is retired from NASA would count down, in NASA fashion before each test. 10..9..8..7..6..5...4..3...2...1...K-BOOM! We would hunker down. The cammera would watch the action. I would monitor the O'scope to get a measure of dQ/dT. The dog, who hated the blasts, quickly picked up on the routine. About 1/2 year later Frank and I were doing some calibrations..on a low voltage circuit board. Frank started counting. The DOG, who had been conditioned to this, took off in a flash. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 09:25:45 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10648 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:46:51 -0700 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA10633 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:46:45 -0700 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA19874; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:45:27 -0400 Date: 27 Oct 95 11:41:59 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Sonoluminescence and Wind Tunnels Message-ID: <951027154158_102021.3045_EHT91-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Seems that in super to hypersonic wind tunnels there is intentional electrical discharges set up in the incoming gasses so that the afterglow makes the shock waves visible for observation and photography. In a cursory look at wind tunnel literature there seems to be a lot of information relevant to the SL phenomena that might be worth a look. FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 08:49:09 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11037 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:49:09 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA11019 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:49:05 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (scott.dsis.dnd.ca [131.136.15.26]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA15112 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:42:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510271542.LAA15112 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:47:51 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Conspiracy Theories Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer writes: >If the powers that direct the design, construction and deployment of >nuclear weapons knew of a CF effect that enhanced their explosive yields, >then I am sure that they would have powerfully suppressed the field as soon >as Jones wrote his grant application, before PF's announcement. In the USA >the Atomic Energy Act requires any and all activity that might relate to >nuclear weapon knowhow to be immediately classified, even if it was >innocently discovered. I imagine that other nuclear weapon countries would >have reacted similarly. The fact that there has been no push to classify >argues against prior knowledge of any weapon-relevant CF effect. > > On the other hand, it was quite unprecedented for scientists such as P&F to announce the results of their work by public press conference rather than through the usual channels. If you wanted to avoid immediate classification of your research, how better to avoid it then by making it public as soon as possible. Concerning Jones' grant application: the case may not have been so clear, especially since Steve Jones was very well known from his previous work in muon catalyzed fusion. Also we are talking about a subject that was (according to this conspiracy theory) already almost 40 years old and it may not have been very clear whether the classification of such old research could be maintained for much longer in any case. [Note: I am continuing this line of discuss because I still do find it interesting and having a remote glimmer of possibility. Constructing a conspiracy theory is remarkably easy to do and one gets the immediate gratification of making things fit a pattern where all one had before was a bunch of loose ends. But I realize that as regards to science, such theorizing is largely pathological. It is unlikely that anyone can prove the theory right or wrong. That is, of course, unless the principals (P&F) come right out and finally tell us the whole story... Hey, maybe at ICCF-6 (now only a year away), who knows? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 09:05:34 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14341 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 09:05:33 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA14303 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 09:05:24 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (scott.dsis.dnd.ca [131.136.15.26]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA15162 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:58:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510271558.LAA15162 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 12:04:11 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Conspiracy Theories Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: And here's a follow-up on this subject. Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > ... In the USA >>the Atomic Energy Act requires any and all activity that might relate to >>nuclear weapon knowhow to be immediately classified, even if it was >>innocently discovered. I imagine that other nuclear weapon countries would >>have reacted similarly. Just consider where P&F went to continue their work and who provided the funding... [Yes, paranoia is definately a useful ingredient in this conspiracy theory building business!] Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 08:08:15 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01688 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:07:18 -0700 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM (GAV.GAT.COM [192.5.166.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA01663 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:07:14 -0700 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510271507.IAA01663 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 8:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:08:32 -0800 To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: Underwater fireballs Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I offer a possible classical explanation of the fireballs resulting from underwater welding, recounted by Frank Znidarsic: The "fireballs" are probably glowing-hot liquid or solid pieces fallen out of the welding zone that stay hot for "abnormally" long times because of thermal insulation from the cold water by a thin layer of steam. This is the same phenomenon as the well-known sessile effect, wherein a drop of water on a sufficiently hot plate floats on a thin layer of steam. Steam is a much poorer conductor of heat than water. When the plate temperature increases past that needed to produce the sessile effect, the water drop lifetime gets longer. The same physics occurs in boiler tubes: if the heat transfer rate per unit area gets too high for the operating pressure, a film of steam forms between the tube surface and the water, insulating the two. The temperature then runs up very rapidly and the tube melts before any corrective action can be taken. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 09:45:01 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24778 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 09:44:59 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA24759 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 09:44:56 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id MAA02065; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 12:43:36 -0400 Date: 27 Oct 95 12:36:54 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: People who draft patents Message-ID: <951027163653_100433.1541_BHG56-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:internet:vortex-l mail.eskimo.com I would point out (from sad experience) that there are several categories into which people can be placed: Rogues Dissemblers Liars Damnable liars People who draft patent documents Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 10:41:21 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14156 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:40:59 -0700 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA14137 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:40:55 -0700 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id NAA27341; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 13:39:37 -0400 Date: 27 Oct 95 13:37:55 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Conspiracy theories are wrong Message-ID: <951027173755_72240.1256_EHB62-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: >INTERNET:VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM I am sorry to put the kibosh on the discussion, but the conspiracy theories about CF are wrong. Soon after P&F got positive results, Martin quietly contacted the Feds and told them what he had. He expressed concern that it might impact on national security. They expressed no concern and no interest. They showed no sign that they believed him. Over the years they have made no effort to suppress that information or any other information about CF. This is even true of CF technology developed by the government that has direct applicability to present-day nuclear weapons manufacturing. At Los Alamos, Claytor et al. have been producing significant levels of tritium for years, and they have improved the production efficiency of their machine a hundred fold. They have openly published this information many times. If the Feds in Washington believed one word of Claytor's reports they would jump to classify the experiment -- and scale it up -- faster than you can say knife. I have spoken with the top DoE scientists in Washington and elsewhere. They express their opinions and they describe their knowledge of CF quite openly. They say that CF is a combination of delusion, mistakes, and criminal fraud. I do not think they are good actors who cover up their true opinions. They are not secretly worried that Saddam Husein will go into the tritium manufacturing business with the technology Claytor has developed. They dismiss all CF results. They do not believe a word of it. That's what they say, and they act as if they mean it. Regarding the conspiracy theories Bill Page writes: "On the other hand, it was quite unprecedented for scientists such as P&F to announce the results of their work by public press conference rather than through the usual channels. If you wanted to avoid immediate classification of your research, how better to avoid it then by making it public as soon as possible." This is incorrect. It is not "quite unprecedented" for scientists to announce results by press conference. It is the normal & accepted custom in most areas of science and technology. Most scientific results get announced in places like press conferences, trade shows, advertisements in trade magazines, and in the technology section of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I will be attending the Power-Gen conference in December, where I expect to find 800 companies and 14,000 people busy announcing new results at as many press conferences as they can drum up. Industrial scientists and engineers to will always announce new results at a press conferences if the breakthrough is important enough. Many academic scientists also follow this custom. Academic breakthroughs in medical science, medical technology, and computer science are often announced at press conferences. Hot fusion experiments at the PPPL and top quark experiments at Fermilab are invariably announced in carefully orchestrated press conferences and in Congressional testimony, often months before a paper is published. This is done to influence Congress and the mass media. - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 11:14:07 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27660 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 09:52:42 -0700 Received: from head.globalcom.net (head.globalcom.net [204.111.1.35]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA27613 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 09:52:34 -0700 Received: from 204.111.1.67 (eb1ppp3.shentel.net [204.111.1.67]) by head.globalcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id MAA04277 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 12:53:52 -0400 Message-Id: <199510271653.MAA04277 head.globalcom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 12:54:58 -0500 From: VISOR globalcom.net Subject: Re: People who draft patents To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <951027163653_100433.1541_BHG56-1 CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >I would point out (from sad experience) that there are several categories >into which people can be placed: > >Rogues >Dissemblers >Liars >Damnable liars >People who draft patent documents Can we add fools to the list. I get upset when I'm left out! _____(.)(.)________________________________________ The answer is only important if you ask the right question! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 11:32:49 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01430 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:32:48 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA01398 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:32:43 -0700 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (scott.dsis.dnd.ca [131.136.15.26]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA17220 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199510271826.OAA17220 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:31:31 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Conspiracy theories are wrong Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed writes: > >I am sorry to put the kibosh on the discussion, but the conspiracy theories >about CF are wrong. As I said earlier, you will be hard pressed to prove it wrong. I expect that instead of kibosh you are just adding fuel to the fire. > Soon after P&F got positive results, Martin quietly >contacted the Feds and told them what he had. He expressed concern that it >might impact on national security. They expressed no concern and no interest. >They showed no sign that they believed him. I have never heard this reported before. I do not recall any public statements by P&F about contacting anyone concerning national security issues. If they did, I wonder why they would have, unless of course they really did think that it might have such implications. It is true that their original patent application also claimed that their device might be useful as a neutron source - something which apparently did not pan-out. I don't recall any discussion of tritium in the early days. Also, suppose someone did contact someone who might have known something about the supposed conspiracy. How would you expect them to react? Dismissing it and playing it down would be a far better tactic than showing interest by taking some drastic action. Now I never said that this was necessarily a conspiracy orchestrated by the "Feds" (a particularly interesting way American's have of referring to their government). It has always seemed very unlikely to me that any (more or less) democratic government could carry-out such a thing. It seems more likely to me that it was started and continued by the scientists who understood the implications of these early tests. But of course to continue it for such a long period must have required both great subtly and some luck. As the years past, of course, it probably got easier. > Over the years they have made no >effort to suppress that information or any other information about CF. On the contrary, you yourself have often lamented the diffculties that researchers face in trying to publize their research. In today's free communication environment if would, of course be very difficult for any agency to actually suppress information without making it look therefore that much more valuable. > This is >even true of CF technology developed by the government that has direct >applicability to present-day nuclear weapons manufacturing. At Los Alamos, >Claytor et al. have been producing significant levels of tritium for years, >and they have improved the production efficiency of their machine a hundred >fold. They have openly published this information many times. If the Feds in >Washington believed one word of Claytor's reports they would jump to classify >the experiment -- and scale it up -- faster than you can say knife. I don't think this is true. Tritium is of much less significance to weapons systems than it used to be. It is viewed for the most part as just another toxic byproduct of the nuclear industry. Tritium is produced in large quantities in the Canadian (CANDU) heavy water nuclear reactors and is available in relatively abundant supply - probably too abundant. The significance of Claytor's experiments is not the level of tritium produced but rather that any tritium is produced at all in such a system. It is a counter example that shows that conventional nuclear theories are seriously flawed in some way. > I have >spoken with the top DoE scientists in Washington and elsewhere. They express >their opinions and they describe their knowledge of CF quite openly. They say >that CF is a combination of delusion, mistakes, and criminal fraud. I do not >think they are good actors who cover up their true opinions. They are not >secretly worried that Saddam Husein will go into the tritium manufacturing >business with the technology Claytor has developed. They dismiss all CF >results. They do not believe a word of it. That's what they say, and they act >as if they mean it. See above for why. > >Regarding the conspiracy theories Bill Page writes: > > "On the other hand, it was quite unprecedented for scientists such as > P&F to announce the results of their work by public press conference > rather than through the usual channels. If you wanted to avoid immediate > classification of your research, how better to avoid it then by making > it public as soon as possible." > >This is incorrect. It is not "quite unprecedented" for scientists to announce >results by press conference. It is the normal & accepted custom in most areas >of science and technology. Can you give us a few examples of such press conferences that occurred some time before P&F's 1989 press conference. I am especially interested in examples of new results in nuclear physics or other advanced research. Examples from technologies that have an immediately obvious market and otherwise a need for publicity are not so relevant. > Most scientific results get announced in places >like press conferences, trade shows, advertisements in trade magazines, and in >the technology section of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I >will be attending the Power-Gen conference in December, where I expect to find >800 companies and 14,000 people busy announcing new results at as many press >conferences as they can drum up. Technology is not science. I think it is a fairly new development that purely scientific results have begun to be to be advertised in the popular press. I have always had the opinion that "real" scientists felt that such publicity was in very bad taste, even "un-professional" conduct. My impression of Martin Fleischmann is that he is very much such a scientist of this "old school" and that all the publicity that resulted from their announcement was an embarrassment to him. Why would he have been willing to subject himself to that? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 12:58:58 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24442 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 12:58:35 -0700 Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.7.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA24382 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 12:58:28 -0700 Received: by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id PAA05729; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:57:12 -0400 Date: 27 Oct 95 15:52:54 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: "Cold Fusion" & Aurora ? Message-ID: <951027195253_102021.3045_EHT111-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: When looks at the possibility of a shock wave to "dump" the metastable energy states in air and water vapor, it looks like a Ramjet would do this nicely. What would the Specific Fuel Consumption be at say Mach 8 to Mach 12 ? FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 16:57:09 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23721 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:30:31 -0700 Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.7.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA23679 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:30:23 -0700 Received: by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA24729; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:29:07 -0400 Date: 27 Oct 95 17:26:43 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: More on Conspiracies Message-ID: <951027212643_72240.1256_EHB98-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I would like to satisfy Bill Page's curiosity, but this discussion group is not supposed to be about politics or even General CF topics outside of the sonofusion gadgets. I feel bad about posting a long off topic message. But since I wrote it, here it. Bill asks: "I have never heard this reported before. I do not recall any public statements by P&F about contacting anyone concerning national security issues. There never were any public statements about this, and there never will be. End of Story. :-} "Also, suppose someone did contact someone who might have known something about the supposed conspiracy. How would you expect them to react? Dismissing it and playing it down would be a far better tactic than showing interest by taking some drastic action." Ummmm. . . Let me just say that I know people in the government, and people who were formerly in Government, and people who were involved in espionage during the Second World War, who are now mostly dead of old age. In my opinion, the government does not have the smarts to carry out a complicated plan or a concerted conspiracy. The CIA Ames case demonstrates the typical level of sophistication and competency in gov't agencies. "It seems more likely to me that it [the conspiracy] was started and continued by the scientists who understood the implications of these early tests. But of course to continue it for such a long period must have required both great subtly and some luck. As the years past, of course, it probably got easier." I think I have talked to most of the scientists in this world who understood the implications of the early tests: Pons and Fleischmann, Bockris, McKubre, Mallove, Oriani . . . I don't know of any other group of scientists in the government or the universities who are even conversant with the experiments. There are not many influential scientists and policy makers, after all. We know who has made decisions vis-a-vis funding and publishing CF work, and we know why they made these decisions. We do not need to invoke a conspiracy to explain a course of events which is well documented, or actions which were taken boldly and publicly, by people who will speak out today and proudly justify their actions. We know the members of ERAB panel, and what they think today. I just got video of an ERAB panel member explaining his position about CF at the SOFE conference. I am sure he means what he says. Jed: "Over the years they have made no effort to suppress that information or any other information about CF. Bill: "On the contrary, you yourself have often lamented the difficulties that researchers face in trying to publize their research . . . Oh, I did not mean that. I mean there has been no organized effort to suppress the information because of national security or for some other reason. All of the difficulties are caused by overt, unorganized, publicly expressed opposition. The people at the APS and the Scientific American get a kick out of lampooning CF, and the hot fusion people denounce it because they are afraid their budget will be cut. People make fun of CF for the same reason I occasionally poke fun at the creationists or fortune tellers. They think it is unscientific bunk. They are angry and they suppress it for the same reason I would be upset if some guy tried to bring creationist textbooks into my daughter's public school biology class. "Technology is not science. So I've heard. Nobody has ever demonstrated to me where one ends and the other begins. It is kind of like saying that investment is not gambling, or love is not sex. As far as I can tell, it is a distinction without a difference. "I think it is a fairly new development that purely scientific results have begun to be to be advertised in the popular press." I think you should go back and read popular journals and magazines from 1903 to 1945. "I have always had the opinion that "real" scientists felt that such publicity was in very bad taste, even "un-professional" conduct. My impression of Martin Fleischmann is that he is very much such a scientist of this "old school" and that all the publicity that resulted from their announcement was an embarrassment to him. Why would he have been willing to subject himself to that? Martin did not *willingly* subject himself to the Brouhaha of 1989! Good God No. It was a nightmare for him. He opposed it from the start, and he correctly predicted that it would be a fiasco. I sometime think that if it had been left up to Stan and Martin, they would still be puttering around getting ready to announce CF today. For that reason, I am glad that events got out of control and the University spilled the beans. I do not think that the nature of the introduction seriously hurt the prospects for CF. Yes, I know that many professors profess shock & horror at the idea of pandering and prostituting science in the pursuit of filthy lucre and mere publicity for the university. I watch the cable TV coverage of Congress. Every week some guy says that during funding hearings before the SS&T committee, as he maneuvers and horse-trades to nail down another $20 million. I have heard the lamentations and declarations that If Only cold fusion had been introduced according to the proper forms & traditions & rituals of science and published beforehand, it would have been fairly & impartially judged by its merits and quiet replication would have followed and bla, bla, bla. Sorry, I don't buy that. CF could have been introduced on a silver platter surrounded by a chorus of golden angels singing in five part harmony. It would have made no difference. A fiasco would have developed no matter how it was introduced, Pons and Fleischmann would have driven out of the country no matter what. There are dozens of recent similar examples from other areas of science. I have a growing collection in my filecabinet. Any scientist who discovers something that will cost other people lots of money has two choices: he can shut up, or he can watch his reputation get trashed and career go down the tubes. A week after the introduction of CF or any other controversial idea, the opposition will begin trashing it and publishing fake data to prove it is wrong. That's what people do. That's human nature. People's jobs are at stake. Billions of dollars millions in government funding are at stake. We are talking money, status, political power . . . People will not give those things up without a fight. The brouhaha surrounding CF is not about science or theory. It's about money. Do not imagine that we live in a degenerate age in which academic freedom has been suppressed. It has always been this way. When it's Money versus Truth, truth usually loses. Perhaps we are at low ebb at the moment; perhaps our standards are particularly rotten, but I doubt it. You can find examples of the suppression of new ideas in every era, in every society. It is like any other social evil: crime, prostitution, sweat shop exploitation, antitrust violations, Wall Street corruption . . . These things are endemic. We can reduce the levels of social pathologies, but we can never eliminate them. The most dangerous attitude to take is to pretend that they do not exist. People who claim that science works only according to the just, objective, long established traditions of peer review and so on are dangerously deluded. That is *exactly* like thinking that Wall Street works according to the pure, unsullied laws of objective free market capitalism. It does to some extent, but it also has large doses of corruption, kickbacks, stock price manipulation, terror, and violent crime. That is true of science too, of course. It has to be. Science is done by people. Science rakes in a lot of money. There are evil people in every walk of life. - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 16:49:43 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24198 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 16:07:19 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA24150 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 16:07:13 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id TAA02696; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 19:05:56 -0400 Date: 27 Oct 95 19:04:35 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: Sonoluminescence and Wind Tunnels Message-ID: <951027230435_100060.173_JHB26-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick, >> Seems that in super to hypersonic wind tunnels there is intentional electrical discharges set up in the incoming gasses so that the afterglow makes the shock waves visible for observation and photography. << I'm surprised that anyone would go to the trouble of introducing electrical discharges to see shock waves when the simple Schlieren[sp?] set up does the same thing and is well established. Unless of course there is something preferable in the discharge method which I wot not of. Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 17:35:33 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15710 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:35:01 -0700 Received: from karloff.lanl.gov (karloff.lanl.gov [128.165.16.190]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA15682 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:34:56 -0700 Message-Id: <199510280034.RAA15682 mail.eskimo.com> Received: by karloff.lanl.gov (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA120610501; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 18:35:01 -0600 From: Ron McFee Subject: Conspiracies, Tritium, Patents To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 18:35:00 MDT Cc: mcfee lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill, your write: >I don't think this is true. Tritium is of much less significance to weapons >systems than it used to be. It is viewed for the most part as just another >toxic byproduct of the nuclear industry. Tritium is produced in large >quantities in the Canadian (CANDU) heavy water nuclear reactors and is >available in relatively abundant supply - probably too abundant. You are wrong here. Tritium is a very valuable material which is necessary for US nuclear weapons. If your government would sell the US a few hundred grams of tritium per year, I imagine that you could get between 50,000 to 100,000 Loonies per gram. (A Loony is an attractive gold colored coin worth one Canadian dollar, $0.73 US.) This should be appealing to a country which has such a high per capita national debt as Canada. Besides Canada has been a good friend and ally to the the US. Currently the US is not producing tritium for military purposes. However by 2010 it will be necessary to begin doing so if some other source is not found. Several millions of US dollars are being and will be spent for this purpose. Canada might as well get most of this. You should get your local Federal MP or whatever he is to look into this. The tritium production done by Claytor and Tuggle is a very trace amount. They are producing only nano curies which is far from the hundreds of grams per year which are required for US nuclear weapons. The main interest of a future CF energy industry will probably be to avoid producing any tritium, even trace amounts due to is toxicity. The tritium production is also accompanied by a smaller quantity of neutrons which one would also like to advoid. For this reason research on tritium production from CF experiments should continue if for no other reason than to understand how to suppress it. As far as your conspiracy theory, I am forced to agree with Jed Rothwell and Michael Schaffer. For six years, since 1989, there have been literally thousands of CF experiments. In no case were there any unequivocally nuclear explosions. Many of these experiment were done by careless and crazy people who probably make Frank look like "Mr. Safety." There were indeed many explosions, however none of them could not be proven to be anything other than chemical or pressure relief boiler type explosions. As far as keeping secrets. As I mentioned earlier this business has been a matter of public record for almost seventy years. Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters published their results on helium production in 1926, and John Tandberg filed a patent application in February 1927. Despite objections from Dieter Britz and other people, I think that it is still an open question whether they actually saw helium and energy production. At some point particularly if there are patent questions we are going to have to try and repeat these early experiment to check their validity. As Michael stated, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and other laws give the US government a monoply on nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon research. However if you can figure out a way to make a nice mini-nuke out of this; let me know privately, and I will try and make it worth your while. The wording on patent applications concerning the underlying effect or effects is done of course to gain the approval of the patent examiner and should be understood on this basis. The Patterson patent does not mention excess energy. Potapov claims that only kinetic energy is dissipated as heat. These are probably both understatements since these would be of little value if that is all there is. If they had claimed anomalous energy production, they would have been directed to the dead file reserved for perpetual motion machines and other crank inventions. However the claim of Piantelli that they have p D fusion makes sense in that for the last several years "Italian Fusion" has been the darling of Italian politics ever since Franco Scaramazzi announced his neutron results from gas loaded titanium. And therefore it is probable that the Italian patent people were thrilled to accept the claim. Too bad our own people don't have the same mind set. Peter John, is West Yorks, West Yorkshire? Regards, Ron From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 17:57:25 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA21601 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:57:24 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA21592 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:57:20 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id UAA16224; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 20:56:04 -0400 Date: 27 Oct 95 20:53:05 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Sonoluminescence and Wind Tunnels Message-ID: <951028005305_102021.3045_EHT43-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Norman< The Schilieren, Shadowgraph and Interferometry methods are the most widely used methods of shock wave display. However for low density shock wave phenomena the absorption of UV or soft x-rays are used. "In air, the oxygen absorption continuum between 175 and 130 nanometer is used." For air and a 10 cm absorbing path a shock wave strength of strength 6:1 can be recognized by a 10% change in absorption if the density of the air ahead of the shock wave is 10^-7 g/cm^3 with 147 nanometer UV. The glow methods are used for gas densities of 2.5 x 10^-4 g/cm^3 to 2.5 x 10^-7 g/cm^3. The nitrogen afterglow is very pronounced and gives good visual presentation of the shock phenomena with this technique. The reference goes on to say that at flow conditions of high stagnation temperatures the gas molecules become electrically excited and luminosity will be observed behind the shock front. My interest in this area was to see if the connection with Sonoluminescence was that obvious, since I know next to nothing about either. Would there be a possibility of overunity dumping of metastable states in the gases, since all of the CF related phenomena seem to involve cavitation (including the bubbles in the Ceti cell cathode solid-gas-liquid interface)? FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 19:35:16 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13762 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 19:34:53 -0700 Received: from head.globalcom.net (head.globalcom.net [204.111.1.35]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA13751 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 19:34:48 -0700 Received: from 204.111.1.85 (eb1ppp21.shentel.net [204.111.1.85]) by head.globalcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id WAA08096 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 22:36:06 -0400 Message-Id: <199510280236.WAA08096 head.globalcom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 22:36:23 -0500 From: VISOR globalcom.net Subject: Re: Conspiracies, Tritium, Patents To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <199510280034.RAA15682 mail.eskimo.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >You are wrong here. Tritium is a very valuable material which is necessary >for US nuclear weapons. If your government would sell the US a few hundred >grams of tritium per year, I imagine that you could get between 50,000 to >100,000 Loonies per gram. (A Loony is an attractive gold colored coin worth >one Canadian dollar, $0.73 US.) Interesting! reminds me of a short story. While attending the Ron R - M Gorby summit in Washington, DC years ago I happened to have a meeting with Volodya. This gentalman was at that time chief scientific advisor to Gorby and a spokesperson for the Kremlin. We were talking about business opportunities if the cold-war were to take a short break. He suggested that I try to sell soviet tritium to the US government for war-head replenishment. My obvious question was " why would you want to replenish the warheads that are pointed at you?" He said "As long as your military is going to destroy us, we may as well make a profit first". That was when I knew capitalism had reached to Soviet Union. Even now, Russia is more than happy to sell the US all the tritium it needs, (needs?..) but the powerful Senator from SC will make sure that Aiken and Savannah River will keep pumping it out while the area glows in the dark many half lives after he is gone. I know Canada and China were both buying Russian tritium. I understand they used it to produce radio-luminescent panels. The Chinese, I was told use large panels of this type to light the deep mines filled with explosive gases. _____________(.)(.)________________________________________ The answer is only important if you ask the right question! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Fri Oct 27 21:02:34 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06284 for vortex-l-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 21:02:15 -0700 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA06271 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 21:02:11 -0700 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA09083 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Sat, 28 Oct 1995 00:02:05 -0400 Message-Id: <199510280402.AA09083 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Sat, 28 Oct 1995 00:02:05 -0400 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Genesis Date: Sat, 28 Oct 95 00:01:23 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 23:53:26 -0400 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com To: p8156 memo.gpuc.com Cc: david vesicle.ibg.uu.se, Puthoff@aol.com Subject: Genesis Hello again, for the newcomers to the group, I am Frank Znidarsic..the guy who wants to make something out of nothing. My ideas are somewhat like those of Hal Puthoff yet different. In review, for those new to the group, I have shown that the positive energy of matter is balanced by a negative amount of energy contained in the gravitational field of that matter. The net energy of the universe is zero. See my Genesis paper on BillB's Weird Science and on Elektromagnum at: http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum It is commonly believed that something cannot be created out of nothing because the genesis process does not conserve energy. Once it is realized that the positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy in the gravitational field of that matter, it becomes clear that the process of creating substance from nothingness conserves energy. Everything that is not specifically forbidden by a conservation law should happen. Why then is not substance emerging from empty space everywhere? Perhaps we can't see this substance. The mass equivalent energy of such a sea of substance M = E/cc would affect Hubble's constant. The measurement of Hubble's constant implies that the universe has an average mass density of about 10 protons per cubic meter. A sea of hidden energy is not there. Something else must be conserved or the Genesis process would have quickly reduced Hubble's constant to zero. A hint of what is conserved can be can be gleaned from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. /\energy * /\time = h/6.28 This principle implies that energy can spring from nothing but the lifetime of this energy is limited to a value of angular momentum (ie Planck's constant) Digging a bit deeper we find that a photon has a spin of one, and a gravitation has a spin of two. The Genesis process CONSERVES energy but it does NOT conserve ANGULAR MOMENTUM. I leap in our understanding, I hope. In order to make something out of nothing we must supply angular momentum...I need help on this one Hal... Can an evanescent plasma supply the needed angular momentum. Any thoughts anyone? Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 28 04:19:03 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19343 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 04:18:44 -0700 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA19313 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 04:18:30 -0700 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t99IX-000MNmC; Sat, 28 Oct 95 13:19 EET Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 13:19:36 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: excess heat Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, Just a short followup to the comparison of the performances of McKubre (a 0.3 cm diameter x 3 cm length cathode) and Patterson (1200 microspheres of 0.1 cm diameter). Specific excess heat ratio: 1 : 1550 Geometrical surface ratio: 1 : 13 Real surface ratio = ? depends on the surface ruggedness and porosity of the microspheres; has somebody any info? Maximum excess heat (% of total input) 24- for McKubre 7000- for Patterson. Hal Fox's paper in Fusion Facts Oct. seems to show that for a given cell (number of microballs) it exists a maximum quantity of heat you can get, increasing current density is not efficient beyond a limit in perfect accordance with the dependence of excess heat on the number of catalytic centers from the given system. Better results can be obtained by increasing temperature (new active centers and increase of production per center). I think CETI is preparing PTFE or polysulphone based microspheres. A lot of ways to better performances have to be explored. As suggested by Norman, nanometric materials will work well I just found many papers on this subject in Advanced Materials. PS. Due to some problems with electric current have lost 4 messages today, thanks to Peter J, Robert, Norman for their messages, congratulations to Chris for understanding that patents give you the "mythology and not the history of a process". Wish you all a very pleasant weekend! All the best wishes from Peter G.! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 28 07:18:15 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07344 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 06:49:49 -0700 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA07331 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 06:49:46 -0700 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id JAA11687; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 09:48:29 -0400 Date: 28 Oct 95 09:44:41 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Metastable Dumping by Polarization? Message-ID: <951028134440_102021.3045_EHT52-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The phenomena associated with corona and brush discharges on the surface of high voltage wires, may be exploited for dumping the proposed metastable states in atmospheric gases and the like. A coaxial arrangement with a center conductor supported by "spiders" in a tube with an electrical potential high enough to start a corona or brush discharge in the tube, with the whole setup immersed in water or oil so that calorimetry can be carried out might determine whether or not metastable dumping is taking place. A current limiting resistor should suffice to prevent an arc or spark discharge. Suitable "plumbing" should allow pressure and flow rate variation. The approximate 3 million volt/meter field should cause induced polarization of the gaseous molecules and set up the chain of events leading to the dumping of the metastable states. Any Takers? F.J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 28 13:21:01 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA21375 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 13:00:19 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA21300 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 13:00:05 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id PAA18230; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 15:58:48 -0400 Date: 28 Oct 95 15:57:18 EDT From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Lawnmower Man Message-ID: <951028195718_76570.2270_HHB31-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Someone sent me a hard copy of this and I transcribed it. May make for some fun experiments connected with cavitation, steam, and O-U. Gene Mallove ********************************* From: Pat_Pelletier mindlink.bc.ca (Pat Pelletier) Newsgroups: sci.engr Subject: PUBLIC DISCLOSURE - NEW INVENTION Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 10:54:05 - 0700 Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada I am posting the following for a friend who does NOT have access to Internet. Comments welcomed. NOTICE The prupose of this notice is to place into public domain something which I invented so that it may be patented and in order to prevent it's use from being restricted in any way. The device is an engine in which small quantitites of water are turned into steam by the use of a magnetron (as found in microwave ovens). Interested parties may wish to try this test: Place a few drops of water into a clear plastic 35mm film roll holder and put the cap on the film roll holder. Place in a microwave oven and turn the oven on. The 'pop' is the result of the water turning suddenly into steam. The engine I have invented is far more efficient than any other steam engine because the efficiency of the magnetron in turning water into steam. In fact, the water droplet 'explodes' very much like air/gasoline explodes in a conventional internal combustion engine. This engine was first tested in 1992. I am however unable to invest the required capital to produce a more sophisticated model and therefore unable to patent it. Even though I may not be able to profit from this technology, it is too good to be kept to myself and I would like to spread it around so that others may be able to use it. The following is an outline of how to construct the device and a few cautions: PARTS NEEDED: 1. Magnetron from medium power microwave oven. 2. Small 4-stroke single cylinder lawn mover engine or similar engine with 'old style' points and ignition system. 3. Automotive alternator with built-in rectifier and regulator, also a 12 volt auto battery. 4. "Trigger" mechanism from an aircraft "strobe" landing light. INSTRUCTIONS: 1. The magnetron fits into the spark plug hole. 2. The distributor points are modified so that the contact is closed when the piston is at the top dead center and this contact is used to activate the aircraft strobe mechanism. 3. The high voltage from the strobe is connected to directly fire the magnetron which in turn produces steam which moves the piston. 4. The engine turns the alternator which keeps the battery charged, which supplies the electrical power for the magnetron. CAUTION AND TIPS: WARNING!!! DANGER!!!! 1. Be careful around the magnetron. KEEP IT SHIELDED WITH METAL. IT CAN CAUSE SEVERE BURNS THAT MAY NOT BE READILY VISIBLE WHEN THEY FIRST OCCUR. 2. The 'strobe' trigger delivers a very high voltage which can jump to ground. WEAR RUBBER SOLED SHOES AND INSULATE WELL. 3. Be sure to modify the distributor points so they close at the top dead center. Timing advance depends on the power of the magnetron used and the amount of water. Try different carb jet sizes -- drill out if needed. 4. Due to variables, don't expect high engine speeds without a little experimentation due to variables. 5. Start with a fully charged battery or your alternator won't work. 6. The energy produced is in excess of the power required to run the alternator but until you get the RPM up, and the parts wrking in harmony, it may be best to use a battery charger instead of an alternator. 7. An easy way to measure net power output after you have the alternator on line is to run a few 12 volt lights from the battery. You will see that the battery stays charged even with the lights on and the motor keeps on going. 8. Although I have not tried it, the idea of vaporizing water with microwaves should also work well in a converted turbine. SPREAD THIS TECHNOLOGY - IT IS FREE!! PRINT THIS BEFORE IT IS DELETED FROM THE NET! MY CODE FOR FUTURE IDENTIFICATION IS PANGURBAN From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 28 19:05:10 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA13435 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 18:58:41 -0700 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA13421 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 18:58:37 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id SAA25366; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 18:58:35 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 18:58:34 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com cc: Vortex Subject: Re: Lawnmower Man In-Reply-To: <951028195718_76570.2270_HHB31-2 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 28 Oct 1995, Eugene Mallove wrote: > Someone sent me a hard copy of this and I transcribed it. May make for some > fun experiments connected with cavitation, steam, and O-U. > > Gene Mallove > ********************************* > > > From: Pat_Pelletier mindlink.bc.ca (Pat Pelletier) > Newsgroups: sci.engr > Subject: PUBLIC DISCLOSURE - NEW INVENTION > Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 10:54:05 - 0700 > Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada Hi Gene! Great article, I put it on the Weird Science webpage. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 28 20:49:07 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07240 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 20:48:37 -0700 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA07219 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 20:48:32 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id XAA08157; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 23:47:16 -0400 Date: 28 Oct 95 23:45:33 EDT From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Baby out with the bathwater? Message-ID: <951029034532_102021.3045_EHT30-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In the mid '70s I got the bright idea that an arc between an electrode and water laced with LiOH might yield the proton-7lithium to helium plus 23 mev reaction. The "pool" was about 1.5 inches deep in the bottom of an expensive stainless steel pressure cooker about a foot in diameter. An electrode was inserted through the middle of the lid and 15,000 volts rms 60 hertz at .060 amperes from a standard transformer used by neon light sign company (900 watts at full load) was applied between the electrode and the pool. Since the transformer was center- tapped to ground it was necessary to float the cooker on a piece of 2 inch Styrofoam and not touch it when the voltage was applied lest one get a 7,500 volt shock! When with one hand in the pocket for safety, the power was applied and the sound created by the discharge only lasted for an instant and the pressure increased very rapidly with enough pressure to shut off the discharge and make the cooker "heave" like it was going to be over pressurized. In a couple of minutes or so the pressure dropped enough for the arc to re strike and the same thing happened. Fusion in a pressure cooker? With 900 joules per second going into the calculated volume of air this was written off as joule heating of the air above the water. The water never even got over a few degrees above room temp. A "control" test was run with plain tap water and salt water with about the same results. Thought about checking for helium sometime, and doing some calorimetry, never got around to either. Put my efforts into thermochemical bio mass conversion as a practical way to capture the energy from that thermonuclear reactor in the sky. It's still the number one life support system for the planet earth. Now with all of this over unity phenomena would it have been prudent to do the calorimetry on the "pressure cooker reactor"? And is the sun providing the energy coming out of the O-U phenomena? Questions.....? F.J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sat Oct 28 23:17:07 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08197 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 23:16:44 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA08192; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 23:16:42 -0700 Received: from net-1-165.austin.eden.com (net-1-165.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.165]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id BAA28983; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:16:40 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:16:40 -0500 Message-Id: <199510290616.BAA28983 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Vortex From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: Metastable Dumping by Polarization? X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:44 AM 10/28/95 EDT, Fred wrote: >The phenomena associated with corona and brush discharges on the surface of high >voltage wires, may be exploited for dumping the proposed metastable states in >atmospheric gases and the like. >Any Takers? Fred, we've performed a number of calorimetric measurements on corona discharges in air. We tried a wire brush, multiple pin points, single pin points, etc. Typical power consumption of the corona was 50-100mw. Our measurement precision was about 1 mw. We never saw any signs of over-unity behavior. - Scott Little "Ex vacuo omne" EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 00:05:49 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16200 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 00:05:48 -0700 Received: from skypoint.com (mirage.skypoint.com [199.86.32.7]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA16192 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 00:05:45 -0700 Received: by skypoint.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0t9RnB-00058zC; Sun, 29 Oct 95 01:04 CST Message-Id: Subject: Re: Metastable Dumping by Polarization? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:04:29 -0600 (CST) From: "John Logajan" In-Reply-To: <199510290616.BAA28983 matrix.eden.com> from "Scott Little" at Oct 29, 95 01:16:40 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2633 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A > >The phenomena associated with corona and brush discharges on the surface of > >high voltage wires > > Fred, we've performed a number of calorimetric measurements on corona > discharges in air. We tried a wire brush, multiple pin points, single pin > points, etc. Typical power consumption of the corona was 50-100mw. Our > measurement precision was about 1 mw. I bet a single pin point was about as effective a charge dumper as a brush or multiple pin points. You would think that multiple points would dump in parallel and thus linearlly increase the current at a given voltage -- but in reality the nearby pin-points all act to reduce the voltage gradient! There are three geometries: point, wire, plate (i.e. dimensions, 0, 1, and 2.) Consider that in an isolated point, the gradient will be proportional to the inverse square of the distance. But in the case of a wire, as you move away broadside, your distance to the point on the wire nearest increases relatively quickly, but your distance to all other points along the wire increase relatively more slowly. The farther off to the side the point on the wire, the less any orthogonal movement acts to increase the relative distance. Summing all these charge influences finds that the gradient will be proportional to the inverse of the distance. And finally a plate is the same as a wire except in two dimensions so that as you move away from the plate there will be no gradient! (Both wire and plate examples assume that distance moved away is small in comparison to the dimensions of the plate or wire. When the dimensions of the plate or wire become small compared to the distance moved away from them, then they eventually resume the inverse square relationship.) So you won't get any gas breakdown at the center of a plate (but the plate edges will have gradients!) Similarly wires of given diameter can withstand higher voltages without atmospheric breakdown than points or spheres. I believe a sphere of two feet in diameter is required to hold a million volts without breakdown, yet a high tension wire of only two inches in diameter can carry a million volt current without breakdown. So multiple points start to take on the characterisitics of the wire or plate geometries and actually reduce the gradient that gives rise to the breakdown phenomena in the first place (as long as the points are relatively close in comparison to the system dimensions.) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 02:30:44 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05604 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 02:30:29 -0800 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA05591 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 02:30:19 -0800 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t9V1c-000MNpC; Sun, 29 Oct 95 12:31 EET Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 12:31:36 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: catalysis, Boudart etc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, After browsing the journal "Advanced Materials" , I have concluded that ceramic based microspheres could lead to a breakthrough in the Patterson Power Cell technology. It is a difficult choice-materials, technology, and the predictable problems (adherence, dilatation, optimal porosity, structure of the surface) are terrible, however after 36.5 years experience I have learned (just as Edison after 33 years in the inventor business) that each problem has a solution. Potapov Puzzle included! Working at high temperature the turnover of the catalytic centers can be much increased. I have thought many times about the strangeness of the role of one of the world's great _catalysis specialist_, Prof. Michel Boudart who was a member of the ERAB panel and signed a document which will be judged negatively by the history of science. Is it possible that Prof. Boudart is only a _catalysts specialist_? By the way, I know that an other member of ERAB, Prof. Birnbaum had to defend the anti-CF attitude at SOFE. Can somebody tell how has he accomplished this job? Best regards, Peter Gluck From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 05:29:45 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22029 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 05:29:14 -0800 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.7.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA22020 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 05:29:12 -0800 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id IAA11490; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 08:27:57 -0500 Date: 29 Oct 95 08:26:37 EST From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Metastable Dumping by Polarization Message-ID: <951029132636_102021.3045_EHT63-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 10/29/95 "John Logajon" writes: > I believe a sphere of two feet in diameter is required to hold a million >volts without breakdown, >yet a high tension wire of only two inches diameter can carry >a million volt current without breakdown. The maximum voltage that can be achieved in air without onset of corona is; V = rE which for air at STP is 30,000 volts/cm. E is in volts/meter or I think newtons per coulomb. r is the conductor radius. The corona loss for a 200 kv three phase power line is up to 200 kilowatts per mile in rainy or snowy weather. This is reduced somewhat by having each "conductor" made up of three conductors about two inches in diameter arranged in a triangle sixteen inches apart, and these as much as thirty feet apart and over thirty feet from the ground. There is a difference between the onset of corona and sparkover voltage. On 10/28/95 Scott Little wrote: > Fred, We've performed a number of calorimetric measurements on corona discharges in air. >We never saw any signs of over-unity behavior. Was this using A.C. or D.C ? And if D.C. what was the polarity of the charged wire? It does make a difference. What was the water vapor concentration. I got involved in this during the acid rain flap in the early eighties, since the corona can generate tons of NOx per mile-day which can react with water to form nitric acid. Never gave O-U any thought at the time. But, it does seem that the N2, O2, and H2O mix is where the action is in over-unity in the various devices. viz a vie the "lawnmower man". F.J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 07:41:28 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11321 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 07:41:05 -0800 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA11304 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 07:41:01 -0800 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id HAA19014; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 07:41:01 -0800 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 07:41:00 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: Metastable Dumping by Polarization? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, John Logajan wrote: > > Fred, we've performed a number of calorimetric measurements on corona > > discharges in air. We tried a wire brush, multiple pin points, single pin > > points, etc. Typical power consumption of the corona was 50-100mw. Our > > measurement precision was about 1 mw. > > I bet a single pin point was about as effective a charge dumper as a brush > or multiple pin points. > > You would think that multiple points would dump in parallel and thus > linearlly increase the current at a given voltage -- but in reality > the nearby pin-points all act to reduce the voltage gradient! Would it have helped to increase the wattage, or would your measurement precision have stayed the same? The corona current can be increased by increasing the drive volts, but you could also have increased the gradient itself by changing the geometry: run your pin grids (or whatever) in close proximity to a grounded plate. Ionization air cleaners typically function via a grid of extremely fine wires positioned in parallel very close to the face of an oppositely charged plate. The smaller the wire diameter (or the sharper the needle) the closer it can approach the plate without actual sparks breaking out. The closer the spacing, the higher the gradient at the same voltage. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 09:36:27 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03687 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 09:36:15 -0800 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03676 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 09:36:12 -0800 Received: from net-1-172.austin.eden.com (net-1-172.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.172]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id LAA10146 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:36:08 -0600 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:36:08 -0600 Message-Id: <199510291736.LAA10146 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Corona X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:26 AM 10/29/95 EST, Fred wrote: >On 10/29/95 "John Logajon" writes: >Was this using A.C. or D.C ? DC, point negative so electrons (and hopefully some charge clusters) would be emitted. I think we typically used around 5kV and had currents of 10-20 microamps. Although corona in air is fundamentally pusatile in nature (due in some complex way to the oxygen in air...corona in pure nitrogen is radically different - no pulses at all), at that current level, the current is essentially smooth DC (i.e. zillions of pulses per second). >What was the water vapor concentration. Typical indoor RH in a air-conditioned space in a relatively humid locale (i.e. Austin TX). Would that be 50% RH or so? Corona occurred in a relatively small closed space, say 150 cm^3 or so. Maybe I need to circulate fresh air to it...that would probably complicate the calorimetry but not insurmountably. John L speculated that the corona from a single point was as intense as form multiple points and this is indeed my recollection. I have pages of notebook filled with details of these experiments if anyone wants more specifics. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 09:44:38 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05451 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 09:44:37 -0800 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05432 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 09:44:32 -0800 Received: from net-1-172.austin.eden.com (net-1-172.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.172]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id LAA10877 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:44:30 -0600 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:44:30 -0600 Message-Id: <199510291744.LAA10877 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Corona - BillB's questions X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:41 AM 10/29/95, BillB wrote: >Would it have helped to increase the wattage, or would your measurement >precision have stayed the same? No, Yes, respectively. 1 mw out of 100 mw is 1% relative, about the best I've ever gotten out of this calorimeter. >you could also have increased the gradient >itself by changing the geometry: run your pin grids (or whatever) in close >proximity to a grounded plate. Yeah, we did use that to adjust the effective "resistance" of the discharge. Occasionally it would arc over to the plate which invariably startled me and pegged the current sensing ADC (fortunately, without damage). From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 10:33:00 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16236 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 10:32:58 -0800 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA16221 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 10:32:54 -0800 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id NAA13101; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 13:31:38 -0500 Date: 29 Oct 95 13:31:02 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: vortex Subject: Lawns, u/sound, deuterium, Yusmar Message-ID: <951029183102_100433.1541_BHG36-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:vortex Greetings, I have to agree with Bill. The lawnmower story has all the ingredients for the perfect Weird Science story. The busted and undelfish inventor, the lawnmower itself, resonance with all those tales about anomalous heating with microwaves, the almost-practical "rig one up with a week's work in the shed" nature of it - a real beauty, I'm almost tempted. Not quite, though. Next, while I'm not on Bill's free energy list (a further word of praise for Bill here, that he combines his practical experimentation with maintaining these list systems for us), I did hear that there was something there of interest to this list, and would ask someone to cross-post it. A year or so since I heard of some story (from the UK, for once) of experimentation with u/sound and heavy water, leading to a claim of anomalous behaviour. On the Yusmar, I have had a further message from Dr Onoochin, in which he says: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Chris, I have some news for you. Yusmar is installed and first test has been carried out. However, Dr. Sudakov isn't satisfied of the results of that test. To achieve zero balance, it is necessary to avoid yet undetermined heat losses. So this Tuesday improving of installation (but not of the device itself) will be continued. Also they are looking for wattmeter of higher accuracy than your one and that they have this time. It seems that I decide the problems with e-mail now. Please, connect with me to address [onoochin%a33.spb.su rcom.spb.su] and send the copy to this one too. I hope since this Wednesday my new address will be [onoochin a33.spb.su]. According to information received, there has been tested another modification of Yusmar in Bobruisk, Belarus, as in Star City near Moscow too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I should point out that I think there may be some confusion here. The power meter I left at St Pete is one of supposedly exquisite accuracy, only one stage removed from a national standard, and with its tiny deviation from perfection listed on the test report which came with it. Therefore, I believe that the question is more one of fitting a *logging* meter to be calibrated against my (instantaneous reading) one. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 11:23:28 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28382 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:23:08 -0800 Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.7.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA28370 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:23:05 -0800 Received: by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id OAA07398; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 14:21:49 -0500 Date: 29 Oct 95 14:20:17 EST From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Corona, Scott's Experiments Message-ID: <951029192016_102021.3045_EHT96-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The 50% R.H. in dry Austin Tex. Lets see how much water that would be in a 150 cm^3 space. At 50% R.H. 70 F dry bulb 60 grains H2O/lb of dry air. At 60% R.H. 70 F dry bulb 67 grains H2O/lb of dry air. 1 grain = .0648 grams. 150 cm^3 air = 2.69 x 10^19 x 150 x 1.66E-24 x 29 = .194 grams of air. Thus 60 x .0648/454 = 8.56E-3 grams H2O/ gram of air = 1.66E-3 grams of H2O in the 150 cm^3 test volume. Then at 60% R.H. about 7% more H2O/ test volume. I think a small volume of water in the test volume might be more interesting or using the coaxial arrangement where the airflow and water vapor input can be varied and a soft vacuum could be pulled on the setup. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 11:26:54 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29148 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:26:51 -0800 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA29115 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:26:46 -0800 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id OAA29328; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 14:25:29 -0500 Date: 29 Oct 95 14:23:29 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: vortex Subject: Admission of ignorance Message-ID: <951029192329_100433.1541_BHG27-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:vortex I wonder if some expert here could enlighten me? I'm wondering about Peter Gluck's comments on catalysis. Being about 35 years out of date on the subject, I looked it up a bit. I may be getting confused here, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of rigour in the descriptions I've seen. In fact, I got the (probably wrong) impression that what I was seeing was that odd phenomenon I've so ofen seen in textbooks. The writer starts the description with some confidence, then gradually the section gets more and more into arm-waving. Some examples seemed well-enough studied, but is it true that catalysis (as against biochemical enzyme activity) is still not fully understood? If (and it is only an 'if') that's true, could it be that there is some substantial link between "CF" and catalysis? "Complex electron environments"? Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 13:48:37 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03392 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 13:48:23 -0800 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA03380 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 13:48:20 -0800 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id QAA16662; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 16:47:05 -0500 Date: 29 Oct 95 16:45:55 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: Sonoluminescence and Wind Tunnels Message-ID: <951029214555_100060.173_JHB29-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick, >> The reference goes on to say that at flow conditions of high stagnation temperatures the gas molecules become electrically excited and luminosity will be observed behind the shock front. << Thanks for your enlightening explanation of the shock wave illumination technique. I was playing with ramjet combustion way back in the '40s and all we had was Schilieren in a wind tunnel or very hot gas exhaust, which was self illuminating, giving a string of diamonds way out into the atmosphere. Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 18:15:22 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05573 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 18:15:11 -0800 Received: from ddi.digital.net (ddi.digital.net [198.69.104.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA05546 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 18:15:06 -0800 Received: from [198.69.104.54] (pm8_18.digital.net [198.69.104.54]) by ddi.digital.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA05355 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 21:13:39 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 21:12:53 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tilleyrw digital.net (Robert Tilley) Subject: Re: Conspiracy Theories Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Just consider where P&F went to continue their work and who provided the >funding... > >Cheers, >Bill Page. My knowledge is that they are now in Nice, France with the TechNova subsidiary of Toyota providing the funding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | "Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, | | and why. Then do it." -- Lazarus Long | |--------------------------------------------------------------------| | Robert Tilley || tilleyrw digital.net || "Once upon a time..." | |--------------------------------------------------------------------| | http://www.digital.net/~tilleyrw | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 21:59:52 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00736 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 21:59:35 -0800 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA00724 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 21:59:31 -0800 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id AAA03556; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:58:15 -0500 Date: 30 Oct 95 00:56:46 EST From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: O-U Depleted Power Plant Water? Message-ID: <951030055645_102021.3045_EHT89-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A fossil fuel power plant running at about 1800 psig pressure and around 1050 deg F and reusing it's water probably depleted any O-U effect within it's first few hours of operation. Any O-U phenomena would have easily been missed at startup even at 12,000 btu/lb of metastable dumping. 200,000 kilowatt capability at 6.5 lbs per kw-hr is moving a lot of water. Any bets that none of the O-U devices will show any anomalous heat on "old" power plant water? FJS From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Sun Oct 29 22:21:34 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05579 for vortex-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 22:21:34 -0800 Received: from escape.com (escape.com [198.6.71.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA05569 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 22:21:31 -0800 Received: (from chope localhost) by escape.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id BAA14905; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 01:21:58 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 01:21:57 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Hope To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Metastable Dumping by Polarization? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, John Logajan wrote: > Similarly wires of given diameter can withstand higher voltages without > atmospheric breakdown than points or spheres. I believe a sphere of > two feet in diameter is required to hold a million volts without > breakdown, yet a high tension wire of only two inches in diameter can > carry a million volt current without breakdown. Aren't you comparing an insulated cable to a metallic sphere? > > -- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - > - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - > - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - > Charles From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 02:20:04 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10228 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 02:19:50 -0800 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA10190 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 02:19:29 -0800 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t9rKt-000MNpC; Mon, 30 Oct 95 12:20 EET Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:20:58 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Subject: galvanotechnics, etc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, Chris: Thank you for taking in consideration my messages re. catalysis. Other people have to convince you that the actual mechanism of heterogeneous catalysis is not known. I have written a lot about this subject e.g. in Fusion Facts beginning 1992. All the predictions of this concept have been confirmed in practice. More will come. I want to ask for your help: As I have told, it could be fine to try ceramic based micro- spheres in a Patterson Cell and this is an interesting job. I know a specialist in galvanotechnics in England who could help us, Dr. Anselm T. Kuhn, Metal Finishing Information Services Ltd. P. O. Box 70 Stevenage Herts. SG1 4DF Tel 0438 745115; Fax 0438 364536. He is publishing currently in the journal Galvanotechnik which I'm reading each month. Dr. Kuhn is perfectly informed about what happens in this field of technology and could help us. By the way he is CF skeptic and will be very surprised to hear that his very specialty- metal finishing- has contributed to the first really very convincing CF demo. Could you please get in touch with him and send him some basic info on the Patterson Cell? I am sure that if such metal coated ceramic microspheres are manufactured somewhere Dr. Kuhn knows the main facts. Chris-again: I am sorry for the nice little Yusmar in St. Pete being in prison in a tent and having no recirculation line. It is very worrying to hear about more precise wattmeters for a device which has to give spectacular excess heat beyond the normal precision of the instruments. And if no other info will come today, zero balance will be a fine raw material for my nightmares. For the future's sake, let the Yusmar heat! As much as it can! It's time to measure after this requirement was attained. Robert: please have the kindness to tell me the publication numbers of the Potapov patents. I hope the Belarussian one is on way to me but couldn't get the others. Thank you! Best regards, Peter Gluck  From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 05:40:04 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05271 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 05:40:02 -0800 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA05232 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 05:39:42 -0800 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t9uSS-000MNuC; Mon, 30 Oct 95 15:41 EET Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:40:59 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Re: catalysis, small addenda. Chris: Just a relevant quotation re. catalysis from one of the brightest papers I have read in 1995. It is "Core of Chemical Reaction Engineering : One Industrial View" by A. V. Sapre and J. A. Katzer, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1995, 34, 2202- 2225. The situation of catalysis is summarized as follows: "Although significant scientific progress has been made in the field of catalysis and surface chemistry, industrial catalyst development to date largely remains a trial and error exercise. In this area the challenges at the frontier are to organize, quantify, and advance the more fundamental catalytic knowledge into predictive tools and capabilities that can guide and drive development of new and improved catalysts." Prof. Gabor A. Somorjai (U. of Berkeley), the American guru of catalysis has evaluted a 40 years lag between technology and science in this field. I read an other very fine paper this weekend : "How genius gets nipped in the bud" by Chris Reynolds, New Scientist , 68-69 (14 July, 1988) A quote: "The current scientific system is based on the assumption that there is no such thing as a radically new idea" We are trying to contradict this and the cost is high. By the way, New Scientist seemed to be a bit more open-minded than Science and Nature. Wouldn't they publish something about the Patterson Cell. What's your opinion? All the best from Peter Gluck! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 05:42:00 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05570 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 05:41:59 -0800 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA05556 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 05:41:55 -0800 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA21768 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 08:35:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199510301335.IAA21768 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:51:33 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Lawns, u/sound, deuterium, Yusmar Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > ... > >On the Yusmar, I have had a further message from Dr Onoochin, in which he says: > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Dear Chris, > >I have some news for you. Yusmar is installed and first test has been >carried out. However, Dr. Sudakov isn't satisfied of the results of that >test. To achieve zero balance, it is necessary to avoid yet undetermined >heat losses. The above is a peculiar statement. As we have discussed many times here, controlled heat losses are *necessary* in order to carry the null balance measurement. Or does the above statement imply that so far the measurements show a *negative* balance, i.e. that the Yushmar is consuming energy? > So this Tuesday improving of installation (but not of the >device itself) will be continued. Also they are looking for wattmeter of >higher accuracy than your one and that they have this time. > >... > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I should point out that I think there may be some confusion here. The power >meter I left at St Pete is one of supposedly exquisite accuracy, only one stage >removed from a national standard, and with its tiny deviation from perfection >listed on the test report which came with it. Therefore, I believe that the >question is more one of fitting a *logging* meter to be calibrated against my >(instantaneous reading) one. > If the Yushmar performs anywhere close to the claims that have been made, almost any available integrating watt meter (watt-hour meter) would show it. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 05:51:37 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07503 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 05:51:36 -0800 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA07469 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 05:51:29 -0800 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA21811 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 08:45:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199510301345.IAA21811 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:01:07 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: Conspiracy Theories Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert Tilley wrote: > Bill Page wrote: > >>Just consider where P&F went to continue their work and who provided the >>funding... >> >>Cheers, >>Bill Page. > > My knowledge is that they are now in Nice, France with the TechNova >subsidiary of Toyota providing the funding. > Yes, that is essentially correct. I did not intend the above statement as a question. It was a reply to the comment that other countries have similiar policies as the US with regard to immediate classification of research related to nuclear weapons. I was pointing out that P&F moved to a country with nuclear research capability which has not yet signed all of the international agreements on the nuclear testing and therefore that their research (if it had such implications) would not be subject to the same laws. Also, private, Japanese funding implies quite different constraints on their research than if their funding came from American government sources. [I am sorry that my orginal statement may not have been so clear. I was just trying to play the conspiracy game properly with some details to be filed in by the readers.] Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 06:03:00 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09526 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 06:02:59 -0800 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA09506 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 06:02:56 -0800 Received: from wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca (wspage.nccts.drenet.dnd.ca [131.136.255.106]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA21850 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 08:56:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199510301356.IAA21850 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:12:34 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: galvanotechnics, etc. Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter Gluck wrote: > ... > >Chris-again: I am sorry for the nice little Yusmar in St. Pete >being in prison in a tent and having no recirculation line. >It is very worrying to hear about more precise wattmeters for >a device which has to give spectacular excess heat beyond the >normal precision of the instruments. And if no other info will >come today, zero balance will be a fine raw material for my >nightmares. For the future's sake, let the Yusmar heat! >As much as it can! It's time to measure after this requirement >was attained. > Peter, I have read several recent comments by you concerning the null-balance power measurement which suggest that this technique may have some limitations with respect to measuring the performance of the Yushmar device. But you have not suggested any other measurement approach. What do you think is required? In my opinion, the null-balance approach that we worked out in great detail here in this discussion group prior to Chris's trip to St. Petersburg has the great advantage of not requiring any changes to a Yushmar device which is claimed to produce excess heat when not in the controlled environment of the calorimeter. You seem to be implying that the Yushmar's claimed over-unity performance would somehow be inhibited in the controlled environment. Could you please explain this idea more fully? I am worried that your statment might be interpreted as saying that the Yushmar is over-unity only if we do not measure it - which surely is not a proper analytical attitude. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 06:55:14 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21544 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 06:55:04 -0800 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA21515; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 06:55:00 -0800 Received: from net-1-208.austin.eden.com (net-1-208.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.208]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id IAA01534; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 08:54:43 -0600 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 08:54:43 -0600 Message-Id: <199510301454.IAA01534 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Vortex From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: O-U Depleted Power Plant Water? X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:56 AM 10/30/95 EST, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: >Any bets that none of the O-U devices will show any anomalous heat on "old" >power plant water? I'll take that bet, Fred, and.... From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 08:51:09 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24243 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 08:51:08 -0800 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24217 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 08:51:04 -0800 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA03170; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:49:48 -0500 Date: 30 Oct 95 11:47:55 EST From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: O-U Depleted Power Plant Water? Message-ID: <951030164754_102021.3045_EHT106-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FJS >Any bets that none of the O-U devices will show any anomalous heat on "old" >power plant water? Scott Little >I'll take that bet, Fred, and...... Scott, that's one bet I'd sure like to lose. I'll spring for the best enchilada dinner that Pete's in Belen can come up with. I'll even throw in a bushel of sopapillas and a half gallon of honey. Regards, Frederick BTW. Seems that there were a couple of Gents at an occasion that had to use the toilet to urinate. Since they couldn't get into the toilet inside they opted for the back alley. It was very cold and one of them said "pretty chilly". The other replied, Well Thank You! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 09:16:14 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08044 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 08:01:32 -0800 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA07955 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 08:01:15 -0800 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0t9wfo-000MNpC; Mon, 30 Oct 95 18:02 EET Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 18:02:55 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Bill Page, I have told to the group that my e-mail was out when the null-balance approach was worked out and I have communicated my opinion immediately when I was able to do it. 1- The Yusmar is a heat source which has to work in tandem with a heat consumer; no more heat will be produced than it is consumed. 2-Inside the "tent" you have a high temperature e.g. 40 deg.; if the max. temperature of the radiator is 50 deg you will consume and produce a quantity proportional to 50-40 =10 while in a room with 20 deg. you will consume/produce a quantity proportional to 50-20 =30 deg. that's three times more. The tent is suffocating the Yusmar. Two basic engineering requirements have to be respected: a) the device should work in conditions very similar to the natural ones; b) first you have to attain the optimum conditions-maximum heat produced and only after that you have to measure with maximum precision (but if the Yusmar is working as claimed this wouldn't be necessary). >I have read several recent comments by you concerning the null-balance power measurement which suggest that this technique may have some limitations with respect to measuring the performance of the Yushmar device. But you have not suggested any other measurement approach. What do you think is required? Limitations is an euphemism, my opinion is that it doesn't work at all. Sorry for that and if you have a different opinion we have to discuss it friendly. A straightforward measurement: water flow times temperature difference inlet to the radiators- outlet from them. Integrated for working and idle periods. See the Belarus report, please. >In my opinion, the null-balance approach that we worked out in great detail here in this discussion group prior to Chris's trip to St. Petersburg has the great advantage of not requiring any changes to a Yushmar device which is claimed to produce excess heat when not in the controlled environment of the calorimeter. Sorry for my problems with e-mail. But my approach is quite different, accept or not, the system has to be tuned before you can measure the heat consumed/produced with the desired precision. >You seem to be implying that the Yushmar's claimed over-unity performance would somehow be inhibited in the controlled environment. Could you please explain this idea more fully? As told ,the controlled environment is impeding the Yusmar to give the maximum it can. Sorry. >I am worried that your statment might be interpreted as saying that the Yushmar is over-unity only if we do not measure it - which surely is not a proper analytical attitude. I like it but I don't deserve it, this would be a kind of unfair paradox. I have authored a few ones but they are nor stupid neither dishonest as this one would be. Please don't answer immediately and think over my arguments. All my best wishes, Peter Gluck From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 09:27:24 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04584 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:27:21 -0800 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA04547 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:27:16 -0800 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id MAA18470; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:25:59 -0500 Date: 30 Oct 95 12:19:30 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: vortex Subject: Catalysis, calorimetry Message-ID: <951030171929_100433.1541_BHG84-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex Thanks, Peter, for that comment on catalysis. I'm always glad when a real scientist says he hasn't a clue about something, it makes a nice change from all those textbooks which half-pretend that something is understood and then follow it with a load of bullshit. I thought my BS-detector had registered! So ... catalysis isn't well understood, eh? Leaning as I do toward the 'odd electron environments' (which are supposed to be common to 'CF' and catalysis) being at the root of the energy phenomenon - perhaps pointing us to the ZPF - I find that both good and bad. Good because it maybe gives us a pointer, maybe bad because nobody seems to be getting very far with either of them! You know .... ah, well, I'll say it, though if this will be pushing even this posse of heretics a bit far .... there's all that Kervran stuff. Everybody laughs about it, but one of the more dramatic of his experiments was just a replication of earlier work and was itself replicated. Nobody ever showed where he went wrong, even though the replicated results were laughed off. What you do is feed chickens on a calcium- and potassium-free diet. After maybe 5 days, the chickens start to lay soft-shelled eggs. Hardly surprising, considering the amount of Ca in an eggshell! Now supply them with K, but no Na. Bingo, hard-shelled eggs again. You can keep such chickens indefinitely on a Ca-free diet, they say. I also know of a person who was registering very low K levels. The person had to be given 1.5kg (sic) of KCl over 36 hours with no detectable elimination of K. That, said the doctors at the time was medically impossible (because the body contains only a fraction of that amount). I pointed out that it was impossible in physics as well, and they agreed. The problem with the chickens, of course, is that a suggested reaction: 39K + p -> 40Ca gives about 8MV - but I did the arithmetic, which makes that value suspect. So, if that were happening in the chicken (wheeee!) we would have the 'incandescent chicken' problem to add to the 'dead graduate student' problem. So it's easier just to say that these things don't happen and ignore the results. Oh, I dunno, I really don't. As for New Scientist - Peter, I suggest you read the issue for 1 May 1993, and compare it with the paper (F&P, Phys Letts A, 4 May) which it reports on. This must be (even the most fervent CF-Skeptic would agree, I'm sure) be one of the worst travesties of science journalism in history. NS always respond to letters, but my perfectly polite letter of protest was ignored. I sent it again, I faxed it - nothing. I phoned them, they hung up on me. I certainly would never waste my time with them over CF again. Bill comments on this matter of Yusmar testing and meter accuracy. Obviously, he is right. I'm assuming that something has been lost in the passing of the message on, I hope to have clearer news soon. As to the testing of the device in a tent, Peter is worried that too small a tent will stifle the thing, and not allow sufficient heat to be taken from it per unit time. While I feel that tent/room calorimetry is the correct way to test a supposedly o-u room heater (!), I think that Peter is worrying too much. It's true that if the machine were 'stifled' it would give a lower o-u perfeormance, but (until I hear more objections) I'm sticking with the idea that null-balance tent calorimetry with a biggish tent is a good test method. Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 10:29:20 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26074 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:28:52 -0800 Received: from escape.com (escape.com [198.6.71.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA26057; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:28:49 -0800 Received: (from chope localhost) by escape.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id NAA27174; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:30:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:30:19 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Hope To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: Free Energy Discussion List Subject: Re: Introducing myself. In-Reply-To: <951025213458_100063.244_EHK61-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 25 Oct 1995, Peter Unwin wrote: > > I accept that CF or rather "various anomalous reactions" are possible > because I am far from happy that either Einstein's relativity, QM and even > standard electrical theory are complete. I therefore reject all statements > that CF is impossible made on the basis of what I regard as incomplete > theories. I subscribe to Apeiron, to the essense of Petr. Beckmanns ideas > on relativity and am particularly interested in electro-magnetic models of > particles. Speaking of Petr Beckmann, in his book _Einstein Plus Two_, he started by attacking Einstein's General Relativity because he claimed it asserted that inertia was due to the gravity of distant stars. However, in the _ZPF-Induced Inertia and Gravitation Q&A_ paper so kindly sent me by Bernhard Haisch's office, on page 1 it states "Einstein attempted to incorporate the Machian view so that the gravitational influence of the whole universe would give rise to the inertia of a particle of matter at any given point. As Einstein himself admitted, GR failed to do this...." Assuming I did not misread Beckmann will anyone jump to his defense or have I caught him in error? > Regards: Peter J. Unwin > > (I am cross-posting this to both vortex-l and free-nrg-l because the original message was posted on vortex-l, but I feel this digression may be more appropriate for free-nrg-l.) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 11:22:03 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15417 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:22:02 -0800 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM (GAV.GAT.COM [192.5.166.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA15377 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:21:57 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:21:57 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: <199510301921.LAA15377 mail.eskimo.com> Received: from [198.133.146.230] by 198.133.146.230 with SMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:21:41 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: Null-Balance & Yusmar Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter G. in his recent posting assumes that the air temperature will continue to rise in the null-balance tent calorimeter we "designed". In "our" calorimeter, if the Yusmar tube generates excess heat, it will raise water temperature in the small loop and then in the large loop and then in the radiator(s) and then the air in the tent; but the tent air temperature will only increase a small amount, because the feedback system will reduce the comple mentary tent heater power as necessary to hold the air temperature constant very near the set point. What Peter's message really implies that the Yusmar will stop functioning suddenly at some temperature not so far above 50 C. Is there any information pointing to Yusmar not functioning at higher temperature? If so, then: (a) The tent temperature should be set suitably low; this might mean removing some of the thermal insulation. (b) If necessary, more radiating surface should be added to the large loop, to reduce the temperature difference between the water and the air. I have run null-balance calorimetry myself. It can be a good technique, though like all others, some care must be used. One of my never ending mottos as an experimental physicist is, "Know thy equipment!" no matter how simple or complicated it might seem to be. Michael J. Schaffer schaffer gav.gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4146 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 11:36:45 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18168 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:31:05 -0800 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18026 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:30:34 -0800 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA09082 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Mon, 30 Oct 1995 14:30:02 -0500 Message-Id: <199510301930.AA09082 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Mon, 30 Oct 1995 14:30:02 -0500 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: PUTHOFF aol.com To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: Spin/genesis Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 14:29:24 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> PUTHOFF AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> FRANK ZNIDARSIC In my last posting I stated that, "Angular Momentum must be supplied for Genesis to occur." In review. This conclusion was based on the following assumptions. 1. The total energy of matter is zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by a negative amount of energy in its gravitational field. 2. The spin of a graviton and the spin of a photon are not equal. The total amount of angular momentum in the universe is conserved. I believe the universe contains a net amount of angular momentum = h. That does not mean the the universe does not have angular momentum, it means that the sum of the momentum's of all spinning particles equals h. I'm crunching out some numbers on this idea now. I'm looking for a relationship to the first genesis, the big bang. The genesis process requires "extra" angular momentum. A process that emitts two photons at once (Bi-photonic emission) could supply the needed momentum. Bi-photonic emission is a very rare high energy process Is such a process practical? I don't think so. Zero point energy levels are characterized by their angular momentum. The angular momentum of all zero point energy states = h. Macroscopic zero point systems such as super-fluids and superconductors exhibit macro-rotational states. For example super-fluid helium will only spin in a cup at discrete angular velocities. See my paper "ZPE" on Weird Science and Elektromagnum. http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum The coherence of the angular momentum of many particles into a single wave function (eigen-function) is the defining property of a condensed zero point system. (electron condensation) Vibrations (phonons) synchronize the rotational states of the individual particles into one large eigen-function. These vibrations convey angular momentum. Phonons convey the "extra angular momenutum" required by the genesis proc. That, in a nutshell, is the connection between zero point energy, gravity, and the genesis process. External mechanical stimulation (the addition of ultra-sound) may enhance the effect...This may the reason the Griggs machine is producing "extra energy". I am quite alone in my thinking about the process of genesis. Any comment, even a good slam, would be most helpful. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 19:18:04 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA20818 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 17:09:04 -0800 Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.7.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA20747 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 17:08:54 -0800 Received: by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id TAA11350; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 19:32:08 -0500 Date: 30 Oct 95 19:27:56 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: Null-Balance & Yusmar Message-ID: <951031002756_100060.173_JHB56-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> Is there any information pointing to Yusmar not functioning at higher temperature? << If the Yusmar stalls at temps somewhere above 50 C this implies that it cannot produce steam. How do we accept this when a supposedly similar process, i.e. the Griggs rotary cavitator is noted for just that? Or is there a significant difference between the two systems? I can only think of the Griggs being a forced vortex with the mechanical input within the vortex, while the Yusmar is a free vortex with the mechanical input supplying the initial tangential vector. On the face of it, assuming that we have ou to any extent in both systems, the Griggs will always have the edge on the Yusmar in terms of its potential o/all efficiency. Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 20:53:35 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13547 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:54:36 -0800 Received: from escape.com (escape.com [198.6.71.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA13500 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:54:26 -0800 Received: (from chope localhost) by escape.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id MAA22086; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:55:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:55:50 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Hope To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Catalysis, calorimetry In-Reply-To: <951030171929_100433.1541_BHG84-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A On 30 Oct 1995, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > What you do is feed chickens on a calcium- and potassium-free diet. After > maybe 5 days, the chickens start to lay soft-shelled eggs. Hardly surprising, > considering the amount of Ca in an eggshell! Now supply them with K, but no > Na. Bingo, hard-shelled eggs again. You can keep such chickens indefinitely > on a Ca-free diet, they say. > > The problem with the chickens, of course, is that a suggested reaction: > > 39K + p -> 40Ca > > gives about 8MV - but I did the arithmetic, which makes that value suspect. > So, if that were happening in the chicken (wheeee!) we would have the > 'incandescent chicken' problem to add to the 'dead graduate student' problem. A chicken is rather a complex system in which to be observing basic nuclear physics. It introduces literally hundreds of factors--maybe chickens store extra Ca in their eyeballs for just such an emergency. In contrast, the dead grad student can usually be approximated as a point particle. > > Chris > > ____________________________________________ "Bob" is my surfboard, and you are my waves. Charles From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 21:02:27 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26824 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:04:46 -0800 Received: from power.gpu.com (power.gpu.com [148.108.1.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA26582 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:03:50 -0800 Received: by power.gpu.com id AA07477 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM); Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:01:42 -0500 Message-Id: <199510302001.AA07477 power.gpu.com> Received: by power.gpu.com (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:01:42 -0500 From: FRANK ZNIDARSIC guser To: PUTHOFF aol.com To: VORTEX-L eskimo.com Subject: falling/spin Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 15:00:48 EST Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -> PUTHOFF AOL.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 -> VORTEX-L ESKIMO.COM MAIL TO EXTERNAL MAIL SYSTEM IO50C3 In my last postings I concluded: 1. Falling objects produce "extra energy" through a process of genesis. 2. The process does not conserve angular momentum. The central question is then, how does falling mass acquire extra angular momentum? General relativity states that time slows in a gravitational field. Astronomers see a gravitational red shift in the spectral lines of of massive stars. Mosbauher (I think that how his name is spelled) captured a Nobel prize for measuring the gravitational red shift produced by the earth's gravitational field. I see things from a slightly different view point. I see gravity borrowing some angular momentum from fallen matter (slowing time in the process). This borrowed momentum is then used provide the spin for new energy. This is the process of genesis. Zero point systems may be able to accomplish the same feat continuously. See my second posting. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 21:08:57 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20744 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:14:03 -0800 Received: from faxe (ns.tip.net [192.36.73.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA20695 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:13:56 -0800 Received: from bahnhof.se (root sunny.bahnhof.se [193.44.91.1]) by faxe (8.7.Beta.2/8.7.Beta.2) with SMTP id TAA23063 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 19:10:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from pppnode6.bahnhof.se by bahnhof.se (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07299; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 19:12:02 GMT Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 19:12:01 GMT Message-Id: <9510301912.AA07299 bahnhof.se> X-Sender: grappo sunny.bahnhof.se (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_815105462==_" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: grappo bahnhof.se (gudmund rapp) Subject: water vortex generators X-Attachments: C:\BAHNHOF\EUDORA\ATTACH\W-VORTEX.WPS; Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --=====================_815105462==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Greetings, I have had the pleasure of listening to your inspiring conversation on this e-mail list for some time and I hesitate to make a noise as I am an amateur in physics. Anyway, I had the pleasure to listen to Al Puthoff et al at a conference in Stockholm about a year ago. I have experimented with model pyramides, orgone accumulators and of late water vortex generators in order to subjectively get a first hand experience of what, I think, is VFE (ZPE) unfolding in passive energy converters like the human body and man-made contraptions. In the conversations of late, on this mailing list, as I understand it, a few has repeatedly made the remark that ZPE replenishes energy that is sucked out of a system provided that an accelerated motion is at hand. Making experiments with water vortex generators, I have found two different motions: in the horisontal plane an accelerating rotational movement that increases nonlinearly towards the centre of the vortex; in the vertical plane an accelerating movement in the centre of the vortex that increases downwards (or upwards) depending on the rate of flow of water through the generator. For those who are interested to make experiments with water vortices, I enclose an article with a description of a simple centripete. Question: This energy that is found by subjective methods in water treated by a vortex generator, could that energy be an unfolding of VFE (ZPE)? Thank you for your attention Gudmund Rapp --=====================_815105462==_ Content-Type: application/mac-binhex40; name="W-VORTEX.WPS" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="W-VORTEX.WPS" (This file must be converted with BinHex 4.0) :$&FY9Np59%9B,PG38`"#58j"E 4[F`!!!!!BPJ!!!!"`d3(q!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!a!)!!!!!rrrrrrrrrrm!!3!!E4F!!*BB!!#!'!!!#J#+'!!!#J#8'!! !!!#8'!!!!J!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-,EJ4Z"-K "Jbi"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!J`#&!4`!SV $"*m!%!#'Y3!!!!!!!-mH"!!'!!% !!3!!!'S!JJ"q!!-!AJ`!!!8!p,4ZY+%!AB$U!1S!!!!!AA3"!!#F#`!!!!#-!rm Fp,4fYIm#"B"$1PaA6e*,8ea(98G(3P*&9Pa%48a'59a849K8A%*"3dY98&aA,9C 28P4ABA4PFL"fEh*dCAJJCf9ZCA*KG'pbF`d+9'KP)(C[FR4PH#"YEhCPE 9ZG#" YBANJBQ8JEf*cCA*fC 3JCACPFRPhD'9bC5"TEL"MEh0YEh-l)'PZ)(0`DA*KE#" RB aKH'PPFb"KEQ3JD@iJG'KP)'e[GQ9YC@jd)'pQ)(4SC5"PE'9MG(*[ER-JBA* [G jN)(4SC5"ZG@0XCA9c)'pQ)'&Z)'&dEfdZ)%pZ)'%JE@pbC5"PGQ9bH@4KH5" cBf&XC5"hC5"YBANJEQpdD 0P)(C[FR4TBf9c)'PZ)'jKG(9bC6SJD@iJG'KP)'* eD aN)(9`)'pQ)(0SC@aXFb"KEQ3JD'pbER-X)'PZ)(4[FQjKC'pc)'&ZC#"`CA* SBA"c)'&LEhCP)'&XE#"TEL"dD'8JE pfC@ePER4c)'pQ)'CbC@8JFR9ZEQPZCb" hBA4PFLiJ5 iJE@pNCA*Z)(4TE@9c,#"@D@YdEh)J8f0SBA9LCA*RCA)JEfBJ3A9 cG(*TB5"hBA-JEfjP)'pQ)(4SC5"QDA*cG#"dEb"NDA0MEhCPFL`JBRNJB 0eG'8 JEf*cCA*fBA4TEfiJEfBJEQ&dGA*KE#"`D'9ZEfePEQ%X)(4SBA3JG'KP)'jKG(9 bB `JBhPME'pTC'&X)(C[FR4PH#`JB5"cF'PbB@`JE@pdD@pZ)(GTG'KTEL"K)(0 `DA*KE#"[CL"XEfjRCA)JGf&fC5"XC jRG'JX)(GKFb"ZBA4eFQ8RFb"LBA0TBb" YEhCPE 9ZG#"QEh)JG'KP)(9ZCQpXC'PZCb"[CL"dD'8JBfpcE@PM)'9ZCA*RH5" XC &ND@jR)(4[)(9`,@*eD@aND@jR)'&ZC#"bC@TeGQ9ZBA4TEQFX)(4SBA3JDA- X)(4SC5"cB aeG'&bH5"PCQCPBh4c)'pbD@GTEQ&dC@3JD@iJG'KP)#"MC@jdFQP `CA4KE#"KBh4TEfiJEfBJG'KP)(C[FR4PH#`JGfKTBfJJFQ9cG adCA-JD@iJB5" NC 0bC@&cC5"TEL"`FQ9cFh9bC5"KEQ3JG'9YF'9bBA4eFQ8Z)!d++%KP)'j[G'9 N)(GTG'JJCh*PBA3JFfpbFQph)(4SBA3JEh9b)'e[C'9bEL"dC 0SEQPaG@9c)(9 cC 3JG'KP)'0PER4bD@CeCf&X)("KFR3JGfKTBfJJE'9KC(-JG'mJB@iJD@jMFQ9 KFf8JD iJF(*PFh0eFQ8JB@jN)(4PEA"PFQ&dGA*P)'&ZC#"dD(9c)'KPBACj)'a [Fh0PFb"TEL"PCQCTBfPPEQ0j+5iJ$3T*)'KKGQ8JFh"PER3JG'KP)'aKFh3JH 9 KFR-JCAK`CA*TE 9ZG'PZCb"hDA4S)(GKG'9b)(C[FR4TBf9c)'PZ)'ej)'YTG'0 SC iJGA0TEQFJGQ&bD@peFb"NCACTBf9c)'PZ)'pbC'9b)(4[)'0[F(NJB5"ZBA4 eFQ&X)'0jBfa[D 4KE#"hBA4PFL"fEh*dCAJZ)&4SC5"KBh4TGQPdH5"SBA-JBQ9 PEL"fCA*j)(*PGf&bC'PZCbiJ3 CdCA)JE@&ZH5"dFQPKE(-JGfPdD#"ND@CQCA* PER3JCQpbEA-JEfBJGQpbG'9i)'GPEQ9bBA4[FR-J55"QEh9ZC#"dD'&d)'%JFfP YF'aP)'0jE'PZC(*TBf&X)(4eBQ8JGf&c)(4SC5"YEh0d)'9QCQPMD 9ZG#"cEfa eG'P[ELiJ55"MB aX)'Pd)'%JBf9ZG(*TF'9dC5"LC@0KGA0P)(4SC5"TER4PFQ9 cG#"TFb"QEf0eFh0PC#"[EL"dD'8JBf9ZG(*TF'9dB `JB@0dD@pZ,L"*)'KKGQ8 JGA0PC#"TG#"QEh)JG(G[)("eFR"[Ff9c1L"dD'8JFf9`BA*KG'P[EL!JEfBJF'& bG'PME'9c)'j[G#"NDA0cEfafC 3JD@iJGf&dCA)JB@jN)'C[FL"dD'8JC@jPFQG THQPZCb"[CL"dBA!JGf&dCA)Z)&4SC5"PEQ9bChNJG jQEfaND@jR)'PZ)(4SC5" hBA4PFL"YBANJBQ8JE 9KFh9bC@3JBRNJC'phFfPZCb"dC@0SEQPaG@9c,L"0H5" hD CP)(GSEb"NFQPZDh-JB5"cG@*cG'&ZG'PKE#"aG@&ZG'PdH5"[CL"hBA4PFL" PGQ9bH5"NBANJDf9PF(-JB CdCA)JE@8JG'mJBA0MCA*dB@PZ)(4SBA3JG'KPFQ8 JDA-JC j[G@GS)'pQ)(GSDA*XC@3JGf&dCA)JBACKD@aKBQaP)'PZ)(4SC5"QFQP NCf8Z$3S0#NeKDfPZCb"K)'0PER4bDA"PG'80#P4SC5"NCA0TCfiJEf*UC 0dDAC P)(GKFb"dEb"YB YP)'%JGQ9cFf9X)'PZ)(GSD@0S)'%JEQ&dGA*KE#"hBA4PFL" fEh*dCAJJBfpeE'3JBQ8JCf9ZCA*KG'9N,L"")'jKG(9bB `JGQpbG'9i)'a[EfY c)'aTDf8JB5"dEh*ZB 4[,#"dD'8JFh"PC@3JEfBJFQpdBA4TEfiJEfBJG'KP)'C XG PN)'PZBh*PBA0PFb"NFQ&cG'PMB@aXH5"dEhGKFQ4c)(4SC5"MC@jdCA)X)'& ZC#"dD'8JF(*PFh0eFQ8JD iJG'KP)'0PER4PFL"TFb"YG@0S)'a[Gf9b)(4SB@i JBA3JG'KP)("PFQPQCA*j,L"*G#"cC 9YFb"KFb"TCL"dD'8JFh"PC@3JEfBJFQp dBA4TEfiJGQ&bD 9c)(GTG'JJG'KP)(*KC'PeFb"[CL"K)(GKG'9bF'&bG'PME'8 JFQpeCfKXH5"KFb"KEL"SHA"PFQ*[E'PM)'CeEQ0dD pZ,L""G#"XBA*RC5"bB@4 TD5"dD'8JFh"PC 3JEfBJFQpdBA4TEfiJDA-JE'ph)'&ZC#"KG#"cE@&XE#"[EQ9 c)(CPFRNJD'PRD#iJ4R9bG'KPFL`JG'KP)(GTC(4S)'pQ)(4SC5"fEh*dCAJJDA- JGfPNC5"[EL"dEh!JB jN)(4KF'9bFb"NEhGZ)(4[)'*PD@jR)(CPFRNJEQ&bFQp h)'&d)(4SC5"LEh4dEfdX)(4SC5"MC jdCA)JE@9KEQ4PFQPZCb"NEhGZ)'aTDf8 JB5"cEQ&VC5!SC'9`C jND@jR)'pQ)(4SC5"bBA4P)'pQ)'CXEhFT,Jd+6ANJCR* TC jNFb"KEQ3J55"QDA*cG#"dD'peCfKd)(4SBA3JDA3JGf&c)'jPBf9cFf&bH5" dEb"SBACP)'%JGQ9cFf9X)'a[EfYTEQFJE'PVC5"K)(4bG e`CA3JGfPdD#"dD'8 JBR*[B 3JFfPNC5"NEhGZ,#"dD'&d)'Pc,#"KBQpeG#"dD'8JFf&YC5"MEfjQD@G eFQ&dD pZ)'&c)(4SC5"fEh*dCAJJBR9d)(9`,A0TC'8YC'phELiJ6ANJCQPbFh3 JF(*[G'pdHA"P)(GKFb"YB 4P)(4SBA3JGf&j,L"")'CTEQ8JGQpbG'9i)'4PGQ9 XE'p`C 3JB@abD@GSG#"KCR4PFL"cEfeP)(4bD@eYD@jR)'*eG#"dD'8JBfpZG(* KF(4TEfiJD'&N)(4hEb"cEQ&RFcXJDA3JGf&c)'4TCQCTBh9XG#"dEb"YB PZG'& TEL"K)(0dB *XC5"fEh*dCAJJGfPdD'peG#"MBA*PCR9X)'CXEhFJBfpZG(*[E#" KEQ3JG'KP)(CPFh0PE#"hBA-JCAK`C jcDACP)(4[)("bEf4eBf8X)'&d)'aPBA0 d)'PZ)(0YB aX)(&eB@jdDA4TCA-Z$3T0H5"ZCAKd)(0dCA!JGf&c)(4[)'9iF'9 bD ePER3JGfPdD#"K)'eeBfJJFfPYF'aPFL"NCACTBf8JBQ&cC@3JEfiJB5"cG(* KD GSG#!JBhPXD@jNCA)Z)%Pd)'GTGQ9c)'%JGQ9bH5"QD@jP)(C[FR4PH#"hDA4 SEh9d)'&ZH5"MEfjdFQpX)("bEf*XC ec)'&ZC#"TG#"TFb"YG@0S)'0SC@&`CA) JG'mJE &VC5iJ55"hD@aX)(4bH5"dEb"NCA0MFQPLC5"TG#"TEL"hEh*NFcS0#P4 SC5"YBA4PFQPKE#"TFb"`E'9iD GXBA0c)'*PBf&eFf8JDA3JDA-JG(*KER0`BA* PER3JB jN)(P[G5"MB@iJFf9P)(GSBA3JD'&`F'9ZFb"KEQ3JGQ9bH5"PBA0j)(4 [)(G[FQXJGfPdD#`JH pe)'eKH5"eFf8JG'KP)(0KE@8JG'p[E(-JBA-JGfKPEL" hEh*VD jR)(GTG'JJGfp[C#i0#P4SC5"YB@PZ)(0dFR9MG(9bC5"[ER0TFh4c)'p Q)'%JF'aPH'PRE'&c)'0jE'PZC'9b)$%`-'eY)'PZ)'4TB ePG'9b)'&ZC#!d-$! J)'eY)'PZ)'KPD GSG#iJ3A3JG'KP)'*[G(4[E5"[CL"dD'8JBhPXD@jNCA)JB5" SEh*TFfpZG'&X)'4TFf-JDA-JCfaeC 3JG'mJDA3Z)&4SC5"NDA0M)'KKFb"K)'K [E'8JD iJG'KP)'0PER4PFL"KEQ3JB5"cD'pbG#!JF'P`C5"TFb"RE(9PC#"TER4 [)(4SBA3JD'pXC5iJ35!a-'eY)'4TB ePG'9b)'K[E'8JGfPXE#"NEb"KEQ3JB5" `DA"P)'pQ)("XCAKTCfaKFh-JEh)JBR*KFh-JGfPXE#"NEb"QD jP,L"8Eb"dD'P c)("TF'8JB5"`E'&cG'PM)(4eBQ8JFfK[G aN)'*P)'CTG(4PC#"KEQ3JCAKdC@j N)'4[GfjhBA*NFb"KG#"XC &cG#!b-$"YE5i0#Nj[Gb"dEb"dD'8JD@jXCA4c,L" *)'KKGQ8JE &NC5"dD(*PC5!a-'eY)'K[E'9c)'&LEh9d)$8`E@dJBQ9XEhFJG'K P)(4[F#"[CL"dD'8JBhPXD jNCA)Z)&4SC5"SEfaPFb"KFQ8JF'aKBf9N)(0jE@e PG(*TBf&XE(NJFQpeEQ3JG'KP)'0TFQ0eE CPFQ9ZBf8JEfBJG'KP)'0jE'PZC'9 b)'&ZC#"KFQ8JEQpd)'*[FQ9N)("PFR"PEQ4TBh9XBA)JG'mJG'KP)(0eFQCKBf8 JBR9d)'pQCR0PG#"cEfeP)$-`C'9R,L"dEb"dD'8JFQPRD(3JD iJEh*NCA)JG'm JCfPfC5"dD'8JGf&dCA)JB iJB@jdD5eME'pMDhGTFf8JFQpdBA4TEfjKE#"TEA" eE(0P,L"*)(9cC 3JBR*KFh-JF'P`CA-JGfKTBfJJ55"RE(9PC#"TER4[)(4SC5" SEfaPFbiJ3 GKD@iJF'aKFh4TBb"dG@*PFb"hCA*P)'CTG(4PC#"KEQ3JF(9d)(4 [Cf9dD'9b)'PZG'mJB5"cD jRE'8JG(9LC5"MEfjZC@0dC@3JG'mJG'KP)(GKG'9 b)(0eF("XH5iJ+%j[Gb`JB5"`D 9MC5"[CL"REfpN)'jPGh-l)%NJD'&fC5"QEh9 ZC#"dD'&d)(P[G5"MB iJC'mJGfPdD#"[EQ8JD@jXCA3JEfBJG'KP)(0KE@8JFfP kC5NZ$3T'Eh)JBfpZGQ9ZD 9ZBf8X)%NJB@acEb"YB@4P)'&Z)'9iG(*K)'K[E'8 JGfPdD#"`DA"P)'&ZC#"dG *P)'&LEh9d)$)`)'eY)'*PE'ph)(4SC5"LFQPY)'p Q)(4SC5"YB PZ)'0jE'PZC'9b)(4[)'&XE'ph)'C[FL"cF'PXE#e[GQ9b,L"0B@Y P)'%JBh*KC'aP)(4[)'K[E'3JDA3JGA"bD GSG#iJ8hGTG'0S)'pZ)(4SC5"hBA4 PFL"KEQ3JEf*cCA*fC5"TG#"ME'PYBL"eF#"dD'8JBhPXD jNCA)JG'mJFQ9KBfJ JG'KP)(0`D aX,@pfCA)JEh9dE'9d,L"8D'8JBf&[G'PM)(GKG'9b)'e[GQ9YC@j d)'&LFR9`G'aj)'0[ERCPFR4c)'PZG'mJB5"hEfjNCA*QG `JGQpbG'9i,L"#CA0 TC'9c)'a[EfYTEQFJBA3JEfjP)'pQ)'jKG(9bC5Gc)'e[Fh3JCR9ZC'&YC jdB@` JB jN)'*PBA9dD@CeE#"`D'9ZEfePEQ%JH@pe)'eKH5"dBA0dC5"dD'8JGf&dCA) JB jN)'0[EA"KFQ8JDA3JGfPdD#"dD'8JG@jdFQ9KG'9N)(GKG'9b,L"#C5"MBA* PCR9X)(4[)'0[EA"KFQ8JGfPdD#"hBA4PFL"[CL"dD'8JFf&YC5"dC e`CA*KG(9 bC5iJ5 BJH@pe)'&bC5"QB@eTE'PKFL"hDA4S)'4[Gh0TEQFJG'9MD'jTFA9PFb" [FL"VEQph)(0[E 9[EQ8JGfK[)'Pc,#"jEh8JBf&Z)'&bFQ&ZCf8JB5"XEh3JEfB JD jdCA*PFh4TEQFJBQaTEQ3JG'9cG(-JG'mJCQPZC#"[GA3JGfKPG'KPFL"dD'8 JGf&dCA)JD'&c)'*PC iJBfKKFQGPC#"hDA4S)'9ZCA*RH5"[FL"ZEh3Z)&0dBA* d)(GTG'JJC'phFfPZCb"[EL"dD'8JBf9ZG(*TF'9dC5"hD'9Z)'Pd)'Pc)'PZ)'p `CA*KG'P[EL"KEQ3JE'&dCA)JEfiJEfiJBfpZG'&TEQ9bFb"hDA4S)(4bC &dC@3 JB jN)(9ZG(*PBA4PC#"hBA4PFL"[CL"dD'8JFf&YC5"dC@e`CA*KG(9bC5i0#P4 SC5"MC jdFQP`CA4P)'eKH5"KE(0[)'*P)(9cC@3JCQpb)(0PF'&bBA4TEfiJEfB JF'&bG'PME'9c)'PZ)(4SC5"hBA4PFLiJ5 iJG'KKG#"MBA0P)'%JFf9MEfjN)'p eG'aPG#"SBA-JG'mJ)'*P)'eKC'8JBA3JG'KP)'*[G(4[E5"[CL"dD'8JBhPXD j NCA)Z)&P[G5"LEh*P)'&Z)'9iG(*K)'K[E'8JD iJG'KP)'0jE'PZC'9b)'&LEh9 d)$%`E dJB@*[GQ8JG'KP)'*[G(4[E5"NDA0M)'&ZC#"jEh8JBQpbC5"TG#"[CQB YFf9d)'&LEh9d)$-`C'9R,L"dEb"dD'8JE'9QG#iJ9A0P)(4SC5"cB eP)("TF'P ZCb"KEQ3JG(9LCA-Z)&P[G5"YBANJEQph)'eTH#"`BA*dD 0XCA-JD@iJG'KP)(G KG'9b)'&ZC#"[BR0PFRCP)'K[Gb"dD'9j)#"cCA"KFQ&dC5iJ55"SBACP)'eKC'8 JEhCPFL!a-$!JBfpZG(*[E'aPC#"PH("PFQPYC jdFb"hDA4S)'0[BA*cC5"RFQ& TEL"MEfCQC5"KEQ3JCQpeEQ3JG'KKG#`JBA-JB iJBACPFQ&RC5`J16FP)'pQ)(4 SC5"TER"eG#"MEfCQC5"cCA"KFQ&dCA-JEh9d)'PZ)(4SC5"YB PZ)'0PER4bB@` JEh9dE'9d,Jd+$3T(6dp%)%a93dXK$3S0#NPQ)(P[G5"cG'&bG#"PH("PFQPYC j dD jR)'&ZC#"SBACP)(0[E@8JFA9PFh4TEfjc)'pb)'PQ)(P[G5"MB@iJBfpZG(* TBR9dC5"TEL"KERNJGf&j)(4[)(4SDA-JDfPZC#"[CL"bCA0PBA*MD#"`E'9KFf8 JBfpZG'&MG$S0#QGbBA"`Ed"LB KZD'pQ,R0P$3S0#J!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!3!!E4F!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3!"!!!C!3!!*33!!08 %!!$$"`!!a3F!!0S(!!"B#J!!*3`!!2`-!!#K$3!!+Jm!!&-4!!#X&!!!aaB!!-N !!$9&J!!eaB!!&JA!!"V&`!!E4F!!(CfGRCfGRCfGRCfGRCfGRCfGRB!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!)!!!!"3!5!!!8!!%!!'dA!!![!!!"!!"Y&`!!-!!QFjYR!!!!: --=====================_815105462==_-- From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Mon Oct 30 23:56:54 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05654 for vortex-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 23:56:34 -0800 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05643 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 23:56:31 -0800 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA31974; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:56:54 +0100 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:56:54 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex Subject: Re: Catalysis, calorimetry In-Reply-To: <951030171929_100433.1541_BHG84-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 30 Oct 1995, Chris Tinsley wrote: > To:Vortex > > Thanks, Peter, for that comment on catalysis. I'm always glad when a real > scientist says he hasn't a clue about something, it makes a nice change from > all those textbooks which half-pretend that something is understood and then > follow it with a load of bullshit. I thought my BS-detector had registered! > > So ... catalysis isn't well understood, eh? Leaning as I do toward the 'odd As a chemist, I must protest a bit here. Peter is a catalysis specialist, I believe, and when a specialist says we don't really understand something (in that specialty) he/she means we don't understand it as fully as we'd like to. In fact, we do know a lot about catalysis. There are lots of types of catalysis, some quite well understood, some less so. Look up, e.g., Atkins "Phys. Chem.". generally I'd say that homogeneous catalysis (taking place in solution) is well understood, as seen from Atkins' examples, such as the bromine catalysed decomposition of peroxide (I hope that White bloke isn't reading this or we'll have a new thread, the peroxide theory of uo devices). Catalysis at surfaces is an old field. E.g. it enables us to make ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen; here, adsorption to certain sites on the catalyst surface plays a crucial role. In all catalysis, you somehow reduce the energy hump a reaction has to go over to go from A to B, making it easier and therefore faster. The process is about as well understood as, say, why chemical reactions proceed in general. I know what Peter means, though: in surface catalysis, we don't know - as well as we'd like to - why the active sites are better than the others. We do of course have some ideas, but not the whole picture. Let's keep this in perspective. An area where nothing is known is characterised by our total inability to make predictions; this is not the case even with surface catalysis, we do know a few things. If catalysis were the cause of ou performance, then it would seem to be the surface kind (heterogeneous, to use the technical term) and adsorption would play a part. This can be tested, e.g. by using a poison to kill that adsorption and turn off ou performance. So if anyone finally gets one of these machines to actually deliver demonstrable excess power, this might be one way to throw light on the phenomenon. We haven't got that far, though, so far we only have assurances and confusion. -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 31 00:05:06 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07026 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 00:05:05 -0800 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA07019 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 00:05:02 -0800 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA28625; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 09:05:25 +0100 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 09:05:25 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex vortex Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM) wrote: [...] > 1- The Yusmar is a heat source which has to work in > tandem with a heat consumer; no more heat will be produced > than it is consumed. > > 2-Inside the "tent" you have a high temperature e.g. 40 deg.; > if the max. temperature of the radiator is 50 deg you will > consume and produce a quantity proportional to 50-40 =10 > while in a room with 20 deg. you will consume/produce > a quantity proportional to 50-20 =30 deg. that's three times > more. The tent is suffocating the Yusmar. At the risk of being boring, I want to reiterate my suggestion of how the gadget should be tested; my design can be used also to test the above claim. The design is: use a well insulated enclosure, and provide a controlled heat exchanger to the outside. This could, e.g., be a cooling coil. We have seen that in "conventional" CNF calorimetry, the best devices have used cooling coils. Here, the advantage would be that you could control the rate of heat transfer (or in Peter's parlance, the consumption) by controlling the flow rate of the cooling medium. So you could have any temperature defect you like. The cooling medium need not be a liquid, a gas might do the job. All this must be trivial for you engineering types out there. -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 31 06:16:32 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24628 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 06:16:26 -0800 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA24617 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 06:16:24 -0800 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id GAA24166; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 06:16:23 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 06:16:22 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: Catalysis, calorimetry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Charles Hope wrote: > A chicken is rather a complex system in which to be observing basic > nuclear physics. It introduces literally hundreds of factors--maybe > chickens store extra Ca in their eyeballs for just such an emergency. > > In contrast, the dead grad student can usually be approximated as a point > particle. Obviously there can be no nuclear reactions in biological systems! Where are the neutrons?! If such a thing were possible, evolution would have already used it and chickens would eat tritium, not grain! (And now we must also say:) Where is the heat?! It's obviously impossible! The sanity of anyone who performs the experiment is suspect! ( couldn't resist! ) - Bill "I wish I had a CHICKEN" Beaty .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 31 07:34:57 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14089 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 07:34:48 -0800 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA14075 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 07:34:45 -0800 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA02402; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 16:35:08 +0100 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 16:35:08 +0100 From: Dieter Britz Message-Id: <9510311535.AA02402 kemi.aau.dk> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Hello vortexers, sorry about the double messages, I thought I was the only one getting doubles. I don't understand it, it seems to happen when I use Reply within pine, and choose the "Reply-to-" option. Anyone know what is happening? I am sending this one by "normal" mailx; maybe that's how I should send everything. But then I have to hand-add the citation marks. I hope you get only one copy. As for arm waving, Chris; all I know about the Patterson and the CETI cells, I have from enthusiasts posting to these lists. Maybe they work reproducibly, I wouldn't know. I do know to take with a grain of salt what an enthusiast tells me. As a boring, plodding, careful scientist, I wait for a proper publication full of details that will allow me to form an impression of the claim's worth. I haven't seen that yet in this case. But I don't do much arm waving. Peter: I don't think you read what I wrote about my design of the Yusmar test: The cooling flow would keep the environment around the machine as cool as you like to make it, by controlling the flow. So you could imitate what happens in your preferred enclosure, a large room. I don't want to strangle the gadget, either, no worries. Thanks for the catalysis reference, I'll read that. -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 31 08:43:34 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04750 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:43:32 -0800 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04718 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:43:21 -0800 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (scott.dsis.dnd.ca [131.136.15.26]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA08216 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:36:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199510311636.LAA08216 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:41:50 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: calorimetry Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dieter Britz wrote: >I am sending this one by "normal" mailx; maybe that's how I should send >everything. But then I have to hand-add the citation marks. I hope you >get only one copy. Yes, only one copy arrived. > >Peter: I don't think you read what I wrote about my design of the Yusmar >test: The cooling flow would keep the environment around the machine as cool >as you like to make it, by controlling the flow. So you could imitate what >happens in your preferred enclosure, a large room. I don't want to strangle >the gadget, either, no worries. Thanks for the catalysis reference, I'll >read that. > Deiter, were you here for the discussion of calorimetry prior to Chris's trip to St. Petersburg? If not, I am wondering whether it might be worthwhile to send both you and Peter a copy of some our messages from that time. Or you might want to check the message archive (if its still being updated). Anyway, I think all of these issues concerning calorimetry were ironed out in much detail at that time. Peter, Deiter: would it help if I sent you the appropriate messages that I have saved during that time period? Basically, the measurement scheme that you suggest above was considered but rejected because of the complications of setting up and calibrating such a system on short notice. Originally it was imagined that Chris would be able to assist with setting up and observing a test while he was there in St. Pete for his one week trip. Unrealistic goal I suppose. Anyway, the null balance measurement scheme does not have the draw backs that Peter seems to think it has and it is considerably simplier to setup and calibrate. I have repeated several times, but I guess it needs to be said again: The purpose of the tent is *not* to provide thermal insulation of the device under test. Its purpose is just to ensure a constant heat flow from the inside of the tent to the outside. This constant heat flow occurs because a constant difference in temperature is maintained between the inside and the outside of the tent. Peter worries that the tent temperature might rise in an uncontrolled manner. This is not the case. The thermostat that controls the reference heaters that are inside the tent with the test device ensures that the tent temperature is constant. The meaning of "null balance" is just that the temperature inside the tent remains *constant* under all conditions. The temperature of the room in which the tent is located must also be maintained at a constant temperature that is *lower* than the constant temperature inside the tent. The difference in temperatures must be such that the tent can dissipate all of the heat generated by the reference heater *plus* the device under test. The thermal output of the device under test is then just the difference between the power consumed by the reference heater when the device under test is *not* running, minus the the power consumed by the reference heater when it *is running*. No flow measurements nor even any temperature measurements are required. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 31 10:24:28 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10536 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:24:27 -0800 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10516 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:24:23 -0800 Received: from net-1-142.austin.eden.com (net-1-142.austin.eden.com [199.171.21.142]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id MAA08500 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:24:18 -0600 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:24:18 -0600 Message-Id: <199510311824.MAA08500 matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: little eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: tent calorimetry X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I think most of Peter's concerns about the tent calorimetry stem from the expected size of the tent...i.e. the heat load that will be placed on the Yusmar system. With ordinary on-off thermostatic control, what should result from a small tent is simply a low duty cycle...not an overly hot Yusmar, etc. If the Yusmar is going to do its thing, it should do so perfectly well in a small tent...unless there is some subtle problem with having a low duty cycle. For example, suppose the Yusmar effect does not "come on" instantly but only after the vortex has been established for some minutes. I am reminded inexorably of the Experimentalist's Lament: all it takes is one rigorous positive result to prove that an effect exists but it takes an infinite number of negative results to prove that the effect does not exist. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 31 11:12:36 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27301 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:12:34 -0800 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (0 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA27250 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:12:29 -0800 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (scott.dsis.dnd.ca [131.136.15.26]) by dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA10107 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:06:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199510311906.OAA10107 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> X-Sender: wspage dgs.drenet.dnd.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:11:15 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: wspage ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: tent calorimetry Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > >If the Yusmar is going to do its thing, it should do so perfectly well in a >small tent...unless there is some subtle problem with having a low duty >cycle. For example, suppose the Yusmar effect does not "come on" instantly >but only after the vortex has been established for some minutes. ... > This would not cause any problem for the null-balance tent calorimetry. In the case you mention, the reference heater duty cycle would simply remain high until the putative effect did kick in. The only slight subtly has to do with how quickly equilibrium temperature is achieved if the effect occurs very suddenly. With the standard on/off type of thermostatic controller this should not be a problem. But if the effect lasts for only a very short time, you might not be able to reliably measure the change in power consumption. I do not see this as a problem given the reports we have of how the Yushmar device is supposed to operate. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 31 11:24:36 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01363 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:24:20 -0800 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA01334 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:24:15 -0800 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id OAA17687; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:22:56 -0500 Date: 31 Oct 95 14:22:29 EST From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Cold Beer Fusion, CBF? Message-ID: <951031192229_102021.3045_EHT58-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: If one takes a "cool one" dries off the can, and puts it in a vacuum chamber pulled down to about 10^-6 Torr and bombards it with electrons of 1 to 20 kev, one might see dumping of metastable states in this setup. The electrons can depending on the alloy should excite some x-rays, say for aluminum 13.6 Z^2 = 2,298 ev photons or thereabouts and on down. The penetration depth for aluminum for 12 kev x-rays is about 0.007 inches for reduction to 1/2 the flux. One should be careful to de-focus the electron beams lest the vacuum system gets a little sudsy. F.J.Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 31 12:29:55 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23466 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:29:38 -0800 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA23432 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:29:32 -0800 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id PAA03179; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 15:28:16 -0500 Date: 31 Oct 95 15:24:54 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Assurances and confusion Message-ID: <951031202453_72240.1256_EHB136-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dieter Britz writes: "As for arm waving, Chris; all I know about the Patterson and the CETI cells, I have from enthusiasts posting to these lists. Maybe they work reproducibly, I wouldn't know. I do know to take with a grain of salt what an enthusiast tells me. As a boring, plodding, careful scientist, I wait for a proper publication full of details that will allow me to form an impression of the claim's worth. I haven't seen that yet in this case. But I don't do much arm waving." Dieter: This mailing list is ostensibly devoted to the ultrasound vortex o-u gadgets. There are no "proper publications" about these machines anywhere, unless you count patents. If you wish to confine yourself to peer-reviewed, published information, you will not accept any of the information that appears in this forum. In s.p.f. and elsewhere you have often said that you choose to look only at papers that make it through the peer-review process, and you even discounted those that appeared in the December 1994 Transaction of Fusion Technology as being not quite peer-reviewed enough. By your strict standards, there is no legitimate information anywhere on earth about the Vortex-L subject matter. So why do you bother reading it? More to the point, why do you post messages here discounting what "enthusiasts" like George Miley, Dennis Cravens, Bruce Klein, Gene Mallove and I report? You have not read any of our reports, you cannot discount them. It is your policy not to read them because they are not peer reviewed. That is fine with us. I am sure I speak for all of us in saying that we don't mind if you choose to ignore us. But since you have not read our reports I ask that you not to comment or pass judgement on them. You are free to do that on s.p.f., but not here, please. In an earlier comment about electrochemical CF you wrote: "This can be tested, e.g. by using a poison to kill that adsorption and turn off ou performance." This has been done by Kunimatsu and others. Adding thiourea to the electrolyte enhances loading, but it poisons the reaction. Scott Chubb told me that he thinks this is because the thiourea prevents the formation of D2 at the surface of the cathode. Scott thinks the CF reaction is a surface or near surface phenomenon dependent upon (or triggered by) the normal chemical reactions at the surface. When you disrupt these reactions, you prevent the CF effect. I do not understand the details, so for more information I suggest you contact Kunimatsu or Chubb. "So if anyone finally gets one of these machines to actually deliver demonstrable excess power, this might be one way to throw light on the phenomenon. We haven't got that far, though, so far we only have assurances and confusion." I think this kind of comment is out of line. There are hundreds of well documented examples of machines that actually deliver demonstrable excess power. I have a $200 book here published by EPRI, written by SRI and Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc. It is titled "Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear Processes in Deuterated Metals." This book tells you all about the CF machines in more detail than you can imagine, and it includes the patent filings in microfiche, with even more detail. This work has been replicated closely by Kunimatsu, and I think Cravens and Storms also did a pretty good job both replicating and describing this pure Pd-approach in great detail. Unfortunately, this book and the papers written by Cravens and Storms are not in the peer reviewed literature, so they out of bounds and you, Dieter, will never read them, or even acknowledge they exist. Again, that's fine. If you don't want to read papers from SRI, Cravens or Storms, that is okay. But please don't come here and make stupid remarks pretending that these papers do not exist, or that the experiments did not deliver demonstrable power, and don't go telling us that this EPRI publication is nothing but "assurances and confusion." You have not seen it, you refuse to look at it, so you don't know. Do not judge things you refuse to look at. That's not good form. That is what this fellow Birnbaum did at SOFE & I tell you, it's not a pretty sight. Watching a guy on video deny that an experiment is occurring in the next room is a creepy experience. I am not playing policeman. This list belongs to Bill Beaty, not me. But I feel I should respond because I am one of the authors being disparaged as "an enthusiast." Some of the detailed reports that Dieter refuses to read were written by me, in Infinite Energy. I drew a nice picture of the gas splitter there which got shrunk down to nothing, alas. - Jed From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 31 15:22:25 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA20072 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 15:22:03 -0800 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA20037 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 15:21:59 -0800 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id SAA25879; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 18:20:42 -0500 Date: 31 Oct 95 18:19:19 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l group Subject: Message from Internet Message-ID: <951031231919_100060.173_JHB37-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter, >> Yusmar 1 2 3 4 Rated temperature of the 40-60 45-65 45-65 50-70 system of heating Maximal temperature of the liquid in the small loop 98 100 140 150 << Thanks for the info above. I find it difficult to see how cavitation can be sustained if the interface between the central jet and the core of the vortex is in steam. I can visualise the Griggs continuing to generate cavitation as the rotor is fed with fresh water from the centre and the cavitation occurs at the periphery of the rotor. The sooner we get some real results from St Pete the better. I'm getting slightly fed up with all this conjecture. They've had plenty of time to run the thing and boil a cup of tea with it. The beautiful calorimetry can follow later. Norman. From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 31 23:35:14 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03323 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:38:59 -0800 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA03265 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:38:51 -0800 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA25110; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:37:28 -0500 Date: 31 Oct 95 11:34:12 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: vortex Subject: Kentucky Fried Chicken, funny motors. Message-ID: <951031163412_100433.1541_BHG32-2 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex (Actually, the Trades Description Act means that it can't be called that in the UK anymore. Something about there being too little chicken in it.) That comment about a chicken being too complex a system for study is just not true. Getting an animal licence for doing bio-alchemy would be tricky, though. Why not complex? Because you can reduce a chicken to ash quite easily - I almost did that the other week, with nothing more complex than a domestic oven. Admittedly, there is the problem that you can't ash it and then get eggs (golden ones even) from it afterwards. But you could ash a group of chickens of the same weight as your test subjects, and find out the most Ca a chicken can have in it. Then you can put the subjects on a Ca- and K- free diet, and bump a few of them off while they are laying soft-shelled eggs. Then put the rest on a Ca-free K-rich diet and collect the eggs and the - er - droppings, keep on doing Ca assays, then finally ash some of the remaining birds. Dead easy. Except that if the results keep coming the same as they've done in the past, nobody would pay the slightest attention to them. So I reckon it's pretty pointless, and even if you got the same results, how would you start looking for the mechanism? More to the point is a piece of total battiness I seem to have got involved in. This would be better in the 'free energy' list, but I find that this one is enough to download. A man called Takahashi is coming to London next week. He's bringing a 'free energy machine' which he claims to have spent several $m on developing. It's an electric motor/generator. He seems to have got some pretty serious interest in his gadget, which he claims will drive a modified electric scooter at 70mph on four small NiCd batteries. At a guess, that would need maybe 10hp, 7.5kW, which at 48V is maybe 150A. Hmm. Now, he also is bringing a smaller device, which he says needs batteries to start it, but will then drive two car headlamps indefinitely thereafter, *with the batteries detached*. Full disclosure is promised, with a public announcement in Switzerland on about 12 Nov, and a UK one on 20 or 21 Nov. They say I can go look-see on Tuesday next, and that I'll be allowed to poke all around it and see whatever I want. The scooter may or may not be available on that date, but I'll take my crash-hat anyway, I think. My own feeling, after talking to T's London representative, is that the man I spoke to was defensive but confident. He said that T claims that the device loses the permanancy of its magnets at about 3% per year, and that this is the source of its energy. I laughed (politely) and the man agreed it was rather silly - I suppose it's the guy's let-out for energy conservation. I do feel that this could hardly be a mistake, so I'd be looking for reality or the obvious alternative. What interests me here is that the various patents I've looked at seem to show the same (nonsensical) method for getting this performance. In each case, they do something like this example: A rotor is made with permanent magnets all facing outward, but on a 'snail cam' profile. So the gap to the stator increases as the rotor spins, and then as the 'jump' on the rotor passes a coil, the coil 'pushes the rotor over the hump', then the rotor is pushed around by the widening gap. Well, that's the general idea. There was a recent paper (I don't have the reference, but I could find it) where there was shown evidence that a resonant circuit with an SCR in circuit could drive a motor. That paper didn't actually say that it was a free energy machine, but in fact that was the essence of what it said. So, if I actually do go, and if it actually is there, and I can't find the catch, I'll be looking for how it works. There are so many claims for motors of this kind, and so many recently granted US patents for them - even those with direct unequivocal o-u claims in - but so far none have been available for study (haha). Comments, suggestions (except ones that I get my head felt while I'm in London - I know how batty this is) welcome. I intend taking a couple of digital voltmeters with me. Fancy a trip to Lunnon, Scott....? Chris From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Tue Oct 31 23:42:46 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05456 for vortex-l-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 23:42:45 -0800 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05429 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 23:42:40 -0800 Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA10942; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 08:43:04 +0100 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 08:43:04 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: calorimetry In-Reply-To: <199510311636.LAA08216 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beatty has enlightened me as to why my postings double up, and I hope to have "got the shovel under" this problem now, still using pine. (Nice Danish phrase ^^^^^^^^^, I reckon). On Tue, 31 Oct 1995, Bill Page wrote: > Dieter Britz wrote: [...] > Deiter, were you here for the discussion of calorimetry prior to Chris's > trip to St. Petersburg? If not, I am wondering whether it might be > worthwhile to send both you and Peter a copy of some our messages from > that time. Or you might want to check the message archive (if its still > being updated). Anyway, I think all of these issues concerning > calorimetry were ironed out in much detail at that time. Yes, I was, but remember I'm an old man with a failing memory. I do remember making the suggestion of an insulating enclosure with a controllable heat conduction interface to the outside, and this being well received. A flow setup would be just that. > > Peter, Deiter: would it help if I sent you the appropriate messages > that I have saved during that time period? Thanks, not needed, especially as your brief summary says it all (I won't repeat it all, I guess everyone has read it). I think that this design answeres Peter's worries. The temperature that is maintained inside the tent can be much lower than that of the gadget itself, so there will still be no strangulation. And a constant temp. makes the mechanism of heat transfer irrelevant - i.e., whether it be by conduction, convection or radiation, it's all the same, the same temperature will always mean the same rate of heat transfer. Maybe Peter thought that "null balance" meant that the tent's and the gadget's temperatures are the same? -- Dieter Britz alias britz kemi.aau.dk From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Nov 1 00:13:39 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10436 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 00:13:38 -0800 Received: from hercule.utcluj.ro (root [141.85.128.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA10413 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 00:13:27 -0800 Received: by hercule.utcluj.ro (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0tAYKR-000MNdC; Wed, 1 Nov 95 10:15 EET Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 10:15:22 +0200 (EET) From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex vortex Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Re: calorimetry and CF publications. Bill Page: my basic and unique principle in the CF affair is to contribute to the advancement of the field. If necessary -against my own interest and prestige. In this case I could continue by asking you to show the engineering calculation : expected heat if the Yusmar is u/u and if it is o/u, the quantity of air in the tent respectively in the room, balance of heat, problems with control and uniformity of temperature in tent and in a room etc. However I wouldn't do this because I have told everything I wanted and it is futile to continue, let's the facts speak (in Russian this time). Norman: Thank you for the slogan: "The beautiful calorimetry can follow later". Anyway the greater Yusmar tubes are under pressure and they don't have steam inside. It is amazing what a tremendous quantity of complexity dwells in such a simple cavitation tube. Jed: I agree with your message and it is regrettable that Dieter insists asking peer reviewed papers when this is a very difficult job for CF and relatives. But even for a conformist field there are necessary 10-14 months to publish a paper. The peer review process is very much criticized in the last years and surely will be changed see e.g. the new research journal "Innovations in Materials Research editor Prof. Rustum Roy. If somebody is interested in the problems of peer review I can send relevant literature on this subject. I know about one, potentially very interesting peer reviewed paper in our field and I have written about it at this forum: R. E. A. Arndt : "Vortex Cavitation" in Fluid Vortices (Series: Fluid Mechanics and its Applications 30 (1995), pp 731-782 My friend Dave Moon from Minnesota has discussed with Roger Arndt gave him the relevant publications (re. the Griggs, Potapov, Huffman devices plus Gene's address) and Bill Beaty was so kind and invited Dr. Arndt to join this group. No answer yet. Unfortunately I was unable to get this paper just as the Potapov patents. All the best wishes from Peter Gluck! From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Nov 1 04:13:15 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09548 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 04:12:43 -0800 Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.7.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA09539 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 04:12:41 -0800 Received: by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA09358; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 07:11:25 -0500 Date: 01 Nov 95 07:09:32 EST From: Frederick J Sparber <102021.3045 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CO2 Enhanced Cavitation? Message-ID: <951101120932_102021.3045_EHT34-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yesterday, I thought maybe electron bombardment of a can of beer which is fairly saturated with CO2 might prove to be of interest. On further thought it seems somewhat rational that the CO2 in the water that is going through the pressure changes associated with cavitation could act as a nucleation site for creating the bubbles as does the hydrogen gas in the electrolysis devices. Any Thoughts? F.J. Sparber From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Nov 1 06:47:00 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05097 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 06:45:53 -0800 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05079 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 06:45:49 -0800 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id JAA29898; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 09:44:33 -0500 Date: 01 Nov 95 09:41:20 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: vortex Subject: Does this make sense? Message-ID: <951101144119_100433.1541_BHG61-1 CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:vortex Or, is it relevant anyway? This was picked up off the 'net, but I don't know from where. If it's sane or relevant, I could trace it. I'm only passing it on because it sort of feels like it might connect somewhere. Chris ---------------------------------------------------------- The Mechanism of MagnetoGravitics It has been known for a long period of time that rotating masses create magnetic fields (See the Blackett Effect). This effect is observed even in materials that are normally not magnetic (such as ceramics [as is evidenced by the spin induced magnetism seen in high rev, high temperature turbines]). Indeed, in Maxwell's definition of magnetism, this property is defined as a resultant effect of spin moment J. The question therefore is, how does a magnetic field evolve from just rotating a mass? Consider this analogy, we will envision a sphere rigidly mounted on a vertical shaft such that the shaft "spears" the central axis of the sphere up to its center. The material of the sphere consists of a rigid loosely spun fiber, such that a fluid may pass (under pressure) through the sphere. The central shaft is hollow, and is connected to a vacuum pump. When turned on, the vacuum pump draws air from the outside of the sphere into the central region by evacuating this region and exhausting this air elsewhere. When the pump is turned on, a pressure gradient will be generated symmetrically around the sphere. In all basic respects, this pressure gradient will mimic the properties of a gravitational field (thus we will call this, flow induced pseudo-gravity [FIPG]). We note that the pressure gradient is directed radially (inward towards the center) at this point. So what will happen to this inward flow if we spin our sphere? We find that by rotating the sphere, we have introduced rotational drag component in the inward flow of air (in General Relativity this drag effect is present in all rotational systems and is called reference frame dragging, or the Thirring/Lense Effect). Whereas for the case of the non-rotating FIPG the iso-pressure lines are radially symmetrical, for the rotational case these lines it takes on the classic shape of the mapped magnetic lines of force. We also note that the curl (pattern of rotation) is opposite at each pole, again consistent with magnetism. For the above discussion, the magnitude of each component (radial inward flow, verses, rotational flow) is strictly based on the induced pressure gradient, and the rate of rotation. We can clearly see that if we spin up (or down) our sphere at a very high rate, the inward flow will be temporarily diverted (swept up) into the rotationally induced motion due to viscous sweep on the boundary layers of the sphere. During this period, the interior region of the sphere will see a reduced inward flow in air and as a result the FIPG is reduced during this period. This is phenomena of magneto-gravitics. So does this discussion match any experimental evidence, consider the recent experiments carried out by E. Podkletnov, R. Nieminen,, and A.D. Levit (1992 to 1995). In these, the weight of several sample specimens was observed to demonstrate a reduction of 0.05 percent in the presence of a super-conducting disk (r = 72.5 mm, t = 6 mm) of high-Te material refrigerated by liquid helium and was levitating over a solenoid due to the Meissner effect. This reduction was increased to 0.3 percent by rotating the disk by use of lateral alternating magnetic fields. In another experiment, the configuration consisted of a super-conducting disk ring encased in a stainless steel cryostat filled with liquid helium, and sample specimens of different compositions placed at distance of 25 to 1000 mm from the cryostat. With the ring rotating at 5000 rpm, the measured weight loss was 0.3 to 0.5 percent. This effect was "increased" to 1.9 to 2.1 percent during the reduction of speed of the disk, induced by changing the current in the solenoid. It was noted by G. Modanese (MPI- PhT/95-44) that the effect appeared linked to induced gradients: "Moreover, the experimental results show, as mentioned, that there is no shielding when the disk is not levitating, but is placed over a fixed support, and that the effect IS STRONGER in the presence of rotation and when the rotation speed is decreased. We take these as indications that the shielding depends on THE GRADIENTS of the condensate, rather than on its absolute strength." A friend and colleague mentioned to me that this effect was also noted during the "pulsed" discharge of the capacitors into the magnetic coils of the Theta-Pinch Fusion reactor experiments conducted a Los Alamos in the 1970's. He stated that it was noted that the entire assembly would appear to "jump" in response to the pulsed high intensity magnetic fields induced in the toriodal assembly. He further stated that this was associated with an anomalous reduction in weight of the toroidal assembly during firings. If you find these posting of interest please let me know. Paul Stowe From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Nov 1 09:26:08 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17109 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 07:35:59 -0800 Received: from skypoint.com (mirage.skypoint.com [199.86.32.7]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA17054 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 07:35:52 -0800 Received: by skypoint.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0tAfBy-0005J0C; Wed, 1 Nov 95 09:35 CST Message-Id: Subject: Re: CO2 Enhanced Cavitation? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 09:35:06 -0600 (CST) From: "John Logajan" In-Reply-To: <951101120932_102021.3045_EHT34-1 CompuServe.COM> from "Frederick J Sparber" at Nov 1, 95 07:09:32 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 922 Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: F.J. Sparber writes: > Yesterday, I thought maybe electron bombardment of a can of beer which is > fairly saturated with CO2 might prove to be of interest. Art anticipates life. The 1988 Warner's release of the Australian made movie, "Young Einstein" directed by and staring Yahoo Serious as the title character, has him as an Australian discovering the method of "splitting the beer atom." He travels from his native Tasmania to the Australian mainland where he meets Marie Curie (her maiden name in the movie!) who assists him in overcoming the evil forces of the rich beer interests who've misapplied the power of the beer atom thereby risking catastrophe. In the end, though, the only two casualties are history and science. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Nov 1 10:16:12 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10506 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 10:16:10 -0800 Received: from relay2.UU.NET (relay2.UU.NET [192.48.96.7]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10479 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 10:16:04 -0800 Received: from prod1.epri.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP id QQznzs07826; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 13:14:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from epri.epri.com by prod1.epri.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA31038; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 10:14:40 -0800 Received: from EPRI.EPRI.COM by SSW.EPRI.COM (Soft*Switch Central V4L400GA) id 062413100095305FEPRI; 01 Nov 1995 10:13:10 PST Message-Id: Date: 01 Nov 1995 10:13:10 PST From: "MHUGO EPRI" Subject: Re: CO2 Enhanced Cavitation? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 11/01/95 10:13:22 SMTP Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 11/01/95 09:40 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: CO2 Enhanced Cavitation? I'm getting a flash of inspiration here....Radon! Xenon, Krypton???!!! Does anyone know why I am saying this? ARGON----Whoops, almost tripped into Tom Droege territory there.... I suspect most people are aware of the nul result of Scott Little and Gene Mallove's test of the Patopov device. I'm wondering, however, if anyone is aware of the connection between dissolved gasses and the initiation of cavitation. I'm wondering who knows what about using the "heavier" gasses (Argon/Krypton) dissolved in Henry's law quantities to assist in obtaining cavitation. I understand that when it comes to the most ULTRA (sounding) way of generating cavitation, (appolo- gies rendered to our friends from CA) that injection of argon might be needed to get things to work....(It is well known that this is used as a "cover" gas, for certain experiments.) So here's the query---some well waters may have high concentrations of Radon gas. Could Patopov have a water source that is "accidentally" giving him an optimal cavitation source? - Or, do we conclude that Patopov is just deluded? - By the way, you mission---should you decide to accept, Mr. Griggs, is to go down and purchase a tank of welding Argon ($50 local welding supply store) and put it in line with your device. BEWARE! You might start getting more than 50% excess out. Also beware: DON'T check the off gasses for He4 if using welding argon. It has about 300 to 500 PPM of He4 in it to start. (That's why it's important that Equest used ANALYTIC grade Argon in their work.) - MDH From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Nov 1 11:10:01 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA26552 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:09:55 -0800 Received: from eskimo.com (billb eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA26544 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:09:53 -0800 Received: by eskimo.com (8.6.12) id LAA02419; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:09:52 -0800 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:09:51 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-L mail.eskimo.com Subject: Patterson beads Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:07:37 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: "MHUGO EPRI" Subject: Re: join On 1 Nov 1995, MHUGO EPRI wrote: ... > It would be nice to find a competant, capable type who likes small batch > chemistry work and would be interested in trying to plate some beads for > me. I just need the sensitization with the polysulfonic acid and the > deposition of the first Ni layer. Then I can get the Pd and last Ni > layer done by a local plating outfit. This is exactly what internet is good for: I bet there are numerous others in a similar postion who have either already solved the problem or are willing to assist. Ask on vortex-L, and you might find either a supplier of pre-made beads, or a number of others who want to go in on a bulk order and know how to do so. I bet there's even a small business op here. Anyone who gets beads made and gets them working could sell small CF kits mailorder (with permission from the inventor, of course!) .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Nov 1 11:15:36 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28315 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:15:35 -0800 Received: from escape.com (escape.com [198.6.71.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA28287 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:15:29 -0800 Received: (from chope localhost) by escape.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id OAA14206; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 14:16:53 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 14:16:53 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Hope To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron clusters In-Reply-To: <199510261604.MAA02100 dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Bill Page wrote: > >> > >> Perhaps you missed my earlier message describing my own personal > >> "nightmare" conspiracy theory connecting P&F's initial research > >> into "CF" with supposed classified results from early thermonuclear > >> explosive tests. > Of course the classified nature of the source material is a great aid > in weaving a conspiracy theory! It is interesting to note that by > the time the first thermonuclear devices where tested, Robert Oppenheimer > had lost his high level security clearance and David Bohm was deported > from the country. > > It is an interesting fact (which also has a more ordinary alternate > explanation) that the first tests of thermonuclear devices using lithium > deuteride exceeded the predicted yields by as much as a factor of > three. There has also been some rumors (I know of nothing published > yet) that the particle counts (radiation) confirmed the original > estimates. If you believe this, than the alternate ordinary explanation > of 7Li(n,2n)6Li cannot be right and therefore there must have been > an anomalous energy release. Weren't the foundations of QM built around the teens and twenties, and wasn't thermonuclear research started in the 1950s? What do you say about this time discrepancy? > present. It is not clear to me why this solution is not more > widely discussed in texts on quantum mechanics. [See the paper > "Non-spreading wave packets" by Berry and Balazs, Am. J. Phys. > 47(3), Mar. 1979; and also the discussion in Holland's book, > The Quantum Theory of Motion.] A pilgrimage to a library is soon due, and this will be on my list of targets. Thank you! > > ... > > > >Why not use our intuition? Intuition told Newton that light was > >corpuscular, told Einstein that the universe was stable, and certainly > >told many that the Sun tracks around the Earth! > > > > There are senses in which all of the above are correct and to that > extent intuition was very valuable. Granted if used improperly, > like any tool, it can also be misleading. One problem that we may > be having here is that you seem to be looking for "ultimates" while > I am back at just being pragmatic that we do have *some* theories > which are correct in *some limited domains* of application ... My point was that, whether for ultimates or for particulars--and what is the difference, really?--intuition can be a very useful tool, but it can also fail. Mathematics, on the other hand, never fails. Our interpretation of it is what fails: interpretation that's guided by intuition. I'm sure we agree here too. > > > ... > > > >This is the source of confusion with regards to infinite dimensional > >spaces. These are abstract vector spaces where the vectors do not > >represent displacements in space. > > > >On the other hand, I think that when you hear about 10-dimensional > >theories of everything, they are referring to "real" dimensions. > > > >I strongly recommend anyone reading this who knows calculus and doesn't > >know about abstract vector spaces to learn something about them. I found > >it to be the deepest culmination of all the math I had learnt at that point. > > Yes, it is very beautiful. > > > > >I can suggest books if anyone (but Bill Page) has gotten this far! > > I am still here, anyone else? > I think you're the only one that slogged through this far. There is a book by Chester, called _Principles of Quantum Mechanics_ that is very very lucid. Everyone should read this because it is so different from other QM books. I don't want to do the injustice of trying to convey its flavor, but it is heavy on concept and weak on problems, and doesn't require that much pre-knowledge of math or physics because it uses the Dirac notation exclusively. I have many epiphanies concerning the unity of matrices, vectors, and even functions at the hands of O'Neil's _Advanced Engineering Mechanics_ the second edition. I cannot speak for the later editions having never seen them. Charles From vortex-l-owner eskimo.com Wed Nov 1 11:42:21 1995 Received: (from majordom localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05346 for vortex-l-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:42:14 -0800 Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05326 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:42:10 -0800 Received: from prod1.epri.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP id QQznzy25113; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 14:41:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from epri.epri.com by prod1.epri.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA23300; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:36:40 -0800 Received: from EPRI.EPRI.COM by SSW.EPRI.COM (Soft*Switch Central V4L400GA) id 360136110095305FEPRI; 01 Nov 1995 11:36:11 PST Message-Id: Date: 01 Nov 1995 11:36:11 PST From: "MHUGO EPRI" Subject: Does this make sense? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 11/01/95 11:35:59 SMTP Sender: owner-vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 11/01/95 07:02 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Does this make sense? Hi Gang! This probably won't make sense, because I am just getting introduced. But I've talked to BillB and wrote him this request----he suggested I post it on the Vortex L, and I figured out I can do it this way...In point of fact, I'm going to do it with a proper title via my SMTP... hang on...