From britz@kemi.aau.dk Mon Apr 1 00:08:40 1996 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11232 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 00:08:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA16339; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:08:42 +0200 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:08:42 +0200 (MET DST) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Perturbed experiments In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, John Logajan wrote: > Horace Heffner wrote: > > About the various recent posts regarding current through the electolyte > > being carried by ions, including my Ion Brake Hypothesis drivel, I am > > beginning to think this is all nonsense. Ions do not carry the bulk of the > > current, this is just not possible. Ions are big and sluggish and wrapped > > with H2O dipoles in layers like an onion. They just can not go very fast. I > > think electrons and electron holes, carry the bulk of the current, just as > > in most other conductors. > > Ions are big and slow, but there are a lot of them. Roughly about 1000 > coulomb's worth per mole. One ampere per second transports one coulomb. You're right, John, but there is one case where Horace might be right. The conductivity of "hydrogen ions" is abnormally high, and is thought to be due to a different way of conducting, than the usual erratic movement of whole (hydrated) ions, in this case H3O+. It is thought to be a passing of H+ from H3O+ to a nearby H2O, a faster process. This works only for this one particular ion, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From billb@mail.eskimo.com Mon Apr 1 04:45:50 1996 Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA16169 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:45:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id EAA05094; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:45:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:45:41 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: delayed mail Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: I'm told that the last of the eskimo.com email clog is just about gone. There were *only* 2000 queued messages left on friday, and on sunday it was down to 400, so the last of the days-old messages are done. Remember that email was not intended to be an instantaneous medium, and many hours delay is typical (however, delays more than a day indicate a problem.) ....................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 RMCarrell@aol.com Mon Apr 1 04:55:26 1996 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA17582 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:55:25 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15164 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 07:54:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 07:54:09 -0500 Message-ID: <960401075409_502751027@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Someone other than CETI Status: RO X-Status: This is a useful discussion, about which reasonable people can disagree. I don't know about the whole experience of Russ and Jed and John, but I spent 38 years in various parts of RCA, from development groups to research labs to corporate staff and large scale manufacturing plants. Relatively few inventors have the other skills necessary to industrialize their discovery. Land, Edison, Hewlett/Packard, Eastman are a few that come to mind and even they hired specalists to help them. Andrew Carnegie once said that his one skill was to surround himself with people smarter than he was. None of the above built on a truly unknown technology. Lacking patent protection places both the inventor and entrepreneur in a very uncomfortable position. The inventor may have a happy accident which he doesn't really understand (like DeForest and his Audion) which is easily copied with no compensation. The entrepreneur has to make a viable product based on principles no one, including the inventor, really understands. How do you scale it up? How do you optimize it? What are the failure modes? How do you service it? Is it good for power plants? automobiles? flashlights? home heaters? Note the Newman is now claiming that Patterson "plundered" his ideas. Perhaps a worst case, but how could a manager of a company risk the turbulance that an overly secretive inventor could cause -- particularly if the secretiveness conceals a lack of substance? A big company can be scared silly of the lone inventor with a device he doesn't quite understand. Suppose inventor Z whispers the idea at a cocktail party to engineer X while engineer Y is working on the same thread, independantly, six months ahead. Company comes out with product, inventor Z cries foul and sues, wins big with jury sympathetic to poor lone inventor. (I know of a professional inventor who has become wealthy by intimidating large corporations with paper patents mined by an agressive law firm). Big companies have enough trouble trying to make a zillion semiconductors, picture tubes, engines, where the technology is well (?) understood, without dealing with a secretive inventor who can't explain how his effect is produced, how it can be scaled up, modified, productized, or what to do when the devices fail. Jed has suggested that CETI could do nicely selling Patterson cells to one and all. I could support a reasonable doubt; as Jed has stated, it may well take as much effort to get this technology right as it did with semiconductors. Patterson cells aren't batteries -- yet -- and probably only Patterson knows how wide is the gap. Until you know enough to support product development, there isn't going to be a significant market. You could sell a few at $x,xxx each and more at $xxx, but that's not a business. The Japanese may be very well aware of this, which why there has been a lot of money flowing without any product showing up -- yet. With all due and great respect to Patterson, I can see a huge gap between the present status of the cell and a mass marketed product. Jed is right that no person or company has the resources to fully exploit this. I made the point earlier that Sarnoff knew the same with television, and after WW2 RCA licensed everyone to build TV receivers and helped others to get going in their own plants. This forum won't settle the issue, but it needs to be discussed in a civil way. And perhaps those listening can find a productive path forward. Mike Carrell It is in the cracks between assumptions that new ideas grow. From billb@mail.eskimo.com Mon Apr 1 05:44:23 1996 Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA24278 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 05:44:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id FAA09445; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 05:44:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 05:44:20 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Vortex-L is on listproc now Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Sorry about the short notice, but the wave of changeover at eskimo.com has suddenly reached vortex-L. This list is no longer on Majordomo software, an the whole subscriber group has been transferred to listproc. What are the effects? Well, it should forever end the days-long mail delay phenomena. Also, there are some new features (including "digest" mode) Unfortunately we lose the "vtx:" in the subject line. Listproc allows this feature to be turned on for *all* lists at eskimo.com, but not for individual lists, and right now we listowners are fighting between yes/no list title in the subject line. There are enough "yes" people that something will probably be done, but not as yet. Please keep the "welcome" message you should have received, since it contains instructions for operating the new features on Vortex-L. ....................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 wspage@ncs.dnd.ca Mon Apr 1 07:55:48 1996 Received: from dgs.drenet.dnd.ca (dgs.drenet.dnd.ca [192.12.98.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA16746 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 07:55:46 -0800 (PST) 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 KAA13234 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:54:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199604011554.KAA13234@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: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 11:01:34 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Subject: Re: vtx: conduction/polarization phenomena Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > ... > In the case of copper wire, >that there is a mechanism of charge exchange that does not involve atomic >nucleus motion, it is not so clear that such a mechanism exists in >electrolytes, ... This has been studied in great depth in electrochemistry and the answer (as others have already said) is that there does exist such a mechanism. You can find in discussed in all modern texts on electrochemistry. I have been very interested in this subject because the theoretical treatment of proton motion in aqueous solution was done some time ago - pre-dating most of the work on condensed matter (solid state) physics on electrons in metals and semi-conductors. Even the most current theoretical treatment is a curious mixture of quantum mechanics and classical kinetics. It was the contention of my paper for ICCF5 last year, that it is possible to treat proton motion in aqueous solutions in an anologous way to electrons in a semi-conductor. Proton motion and issues of ionic conductivity can than be handled as proton band state problems. But there are some unique wrinkles (pun intended) in these band states due to the nature of the proton-H2O bond. There was some early work (1930's) by a researcher named Eigen, who showed that it is possible to construct a "proton diode" using the semiconductor properties of electrolytes in a manner that is completely analogous to the modern semiconductor diode - one of the fundamental devices on modern electronics. But I have not been able to find any recent references to this sort of development. As I discuss in my paper, there is a direct analog of the MOS field effect transistor that can be constructed using aqueous electrolytes. Because of the ability of this device to control the density of the conduction protons confined to a two-dimensional plane, there may be applications to "cold fusion" and other excess energy phenomena. I'd love to see some well equipt lab take up this sort of research. Aqueous solutions are so special precisely because water is the archtypeal proton-bonded substance - although extraordinarily common on Earth, water is a very remarkable and nearly unique substance. >... The H+ ions were not travelling through >the solution from the anode toward the cathode, were they? Basically, yes, although not directly from anode to cathode, rather via a series of small (quantum mechanical) steps - H+ from H2O to H2O along a chain of water molecules. Electrochemists (eg. Conway) have even been able to verify that protons move significantly faster in ice than in liguid water. But ice is (almost) an insulator because there are so few charge carriers available. In fact, as far as I am concerned, water (and ice) are clearly proton semi-conductors. Thermally induces charge carriers arise by spontaneous proton/proton-hole (defect) formation. We can add charge carriers (both proton holes and protons) just as in electronic semiconductors, by "doping" with the appropriate impurity. E.g. Adding HCl produces proton-holes, adding NH3 produces excess protons. > Although, maybe >the charge is carried downstream by the SO4- ions, and upstream by the H+ >ions? Such a carge carrying mechanism could carry a pulse (current rise) >at the speed of sound in water. > No. Relatively speaking SO4- ions are almost immobile compared to the H+. >The one thing I feel reasonably certain about is that all the proposed >mechanisms involve nucleus motion, thus must be limited in propagation >speed by a value near the speed of sound in water, about 1500 m/s. No, sorry, this is not true. The worst that is involved is the *rotation* of the water molecule that is apparently needed in order to explain the rate of H+ tunnelling from one H2O to the next H2O in the chain. It is this aspect that is treated by non-quantum mechanical kinetics in the current theory, the rest of the proton motion is described by quantum mechanical tunnelling - aka. proton band states. [Keep asking these sort of questions, Horace, and you will soon be able to add "amature electrochemist" to your list of "CF" researcher qualifications! Seriously, I think these are *exactly* the right sort of questions to be asking.] Cheers, Bill Page. From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Mon Apr 1 11:22:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA26293; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:14:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:14:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604011804.AA09702@gateway1.srs.gov> Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Kirk L. Shanahan" To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Rothwell Hypotheses X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell responded to my post to Chris on why I believe the PowerGen demo to have been flawed by the pump used. I would like to respond to some aspects of what he wrote. Jed calculates a flow of .21 ml is what was needed to produce the apparent heating effect from the electrolysis input. That is presumably correct, I don't know enough of the details to be sure that is the absolute requirement. However, Jed then goes on to explain how that was 'impossible', and I find several flaws in his logic from there on. Starting with reason #1: The analogy to a static calorimeter is reasonable, but several processes that occur in that situation are not addressed. Jed concludes that the cell would equalize the inlet and outlet temps, but I do not make that conclusion. Specifically, there is electrolysis ongoing, with the bubbles rising up the column and stirring the mixture above the bead bed. There is little of that below the bed I believe. Secondly, a hotter fluid is less dense that cold, and will rise as well. Thus, cold fluid should sink and lead to a lower temperature at the inlet. The reference to the IV pump and work of several years ago does not seem germane to this limited discussion (which is essentially how the impeller pump responds to flow restrictions). The bead bed itself represents a major flow restriction that would inhibit temperature equalization to a certain extent. The beads themselves may slow down equilibration, I don't know. It depends on how predominant the coating is in their thermal conductivity behavior. Reason #2: This is interesting. This is the first time I have really heard someone say the cell 'leaks heat like a sieve'. If that is true, the back-of-the-envelope analysis I am doing *is* totally irrelevant, because now I have to consider all the leaks. However, note that any real insulation will conduct heat, it is just a question of how fast. The ability to feel that the cell/insulation exterior is hot is not necessarily indicative of anything except how long a heat source has been present in the cell. So, Jed's subsequent comments diverge from my reasoning here. He assumes massive heat losses that I do not. Reason #3: Again, Jed assumes rapid cooling that I do not, and uses that assumption in making his point. I don't understand how Jed decided a 10-20 minute time period and /or a 10 cm distance would be all that was required to reduce the fluid to room temperature. Wouldn't it depend on the insulating quality of the tubing? Reason #4 and #5: I lump these together here because they are related. Starts with the room temp assumption... Jed then correctly says that that would require an even lower flow rate to produce the observed temp. He then proceeds to say that his measurement of the temp in the beaker proves this cannot be. I agree, the use of a 'room temperature fluid' is inappropriate here. Of great interest to me is the comment about the flow sample volume and tubing volume. This is the first time that I can clearly separate the temperature at the cell from that in the beaker. This establishes that the observed temperature in the beaker *can* be irrelevant to the cell temp under appropriate assumptions. Thus a temp check at the cell, followed by a sample collection/ temp check is certainly inadequate experimental procedure. The detailed response of the temperatures in the cell is of import. Again Jed uses the idea that the incoming fluid is at room temperature to try to prove the impossibility of my scenario. Unfortunately, he forgets that he measured the reservoir temp and the inlet temp and both were much higher, so the use of the 'R.T. fluid' is again inapproriate. By the way, it is unclear to me if the reservoir is being heated by the pump, which has continued to try to pump at full speed against almost a complete flow blockage. Mitchell Jones posted some results a while back on spf where he took a Magnum 350 and just looped flow from the outlet back to the inlet and observed a 10 degree C rise in fluid temperature in a little over 3 hrs. I believe that perhaps that could occur here as well. Was there an electrolyte pre-heated at PowerGen? I don't recall anymore. At this point, Mr. Rothwell specifically writes: > Let me note that Logajan, I and many others pointed out the effect in step > 5. > We explained to Shanahan many times that sudden temperature drop would > occur > even if the flow rate was changed by, say, 50% or 30%. This is one of the > many > objections I have raised to his hypothesis which he has not addressed. Whoa!! Hold the phone!! I do believe you have that backwards Mr. Rothwell. When I first proposed this scenario, John did respond that there were thermal implications of my proposal. I agreed, and explained them. You have co-opted my explanation and extrapolated it to the "R.T. fluid" case. I recall only John's discussions with me, you preferred to opt out and have me stop sending messages to you, which I did. And, I did not get any reponses from anyone else that I can recall. Please enlighten me, and I will check my archives. My explanation presumed the 5C deltaT across the cell, with the inlet *and* outlet temp ending up at the reservoir temp rather quickly after the flow measurement began. Recall that the whole measurement took about 15 seconds. I contended that the temperature drop you postulate would occur also, but to a much lesser extent because of the higher inlet temp in my case *and* becasue of the inherent response lag of the thermocouple/ well setup. *Further* I cautioned against using the deltaT measurement in this case becasue of the extreme linearity of the K-type thermocouple response in this temperature regime. Those two things together would mean that the change from near-zero flow to 1 L/min would produce a nearly concurrent drop in both inlet and outlet temps, producing the *same* deltaT as before the flow measurement! Any change would need to be observed either directly in the temp itself, or in the full dynamic response over a time frame equivalent to several time constants of the system. I then asked for clarification of the observation in light of this, and never received an answer. Reason #6: Unfortunately, the gas and liquid flow rates in a two-phase system are completely separate. The observation of moving gas bubbles simply means that electrolysis was continuing, which I don't argue with. I do contend that Mr. Rothwell has neither a calibrated ear or eye with respect to quantitative flow measurements, and I have always considered his 'audio' signal of flowing water to be valid, which is why I always conceeded some flow was occuring. (The zero-flow case is a useful endpoint for consideration however, when then modified by a low flow.) Mr. Rothwell then reminds us about 45 watts and 90% flow rate reductions etc. He seems to imply that I am claiming a 99.977% flow reduction, and I guess that I am. The problem is that that is *NOT* from the starting point of 0. It is from the starting point of 90%, as measured and repeatedly attested to (and *accepted* by me) by Mr. Rothwell. Thus, I am simply stating that I feel there are enough flow resistances in the excluded part of the flow circuit to move from that 90% restricted point to whatever it takes to explain the data. To reiterate, I am pointing out that the PowerGen demo system was highly stressed, and that minimal additional stress could alter the flows dramatically, thus invalidating the use of Mr. Rothwell's flow numbers in the Power Out calculation. Reason #7: Again, please restrict this discussion to the PowerGen case, as it is the pump used there that I believe is at fault. I have noted in the patents and your messages that positive displacement pumps and flowmeters were used elsewhere. What I have not noted concurrently are measures of pump energy consumption. Your assumption regarding any implied criticism of other work is incorrect. Next, Mr. Rothwell has a lot of words that indicate he didn't understand my flow/pressure analysis. Please reread my prior message under the assumption that I am calculating pressure drops for specific features of the excluded part of the circuit. I believe you have seen my response to Scott saying that the 10e-3C temp rise I calculated from the Ergun equation for the un-occluded bed was .6psi or about 16" of water (which *is* a correct application of the equation). That is a trifle short of the 50" implied by your measurements. Obviously, the remainder of the 90% drop is due principally to the valve. I assure you I am specifically trying to identify flow restrictions and consider their effect on overall flow. The remainder of the post was non-technical in nature. Suffice it to say that I disagree with most of what Mr. Rothwell says and/or implies. If anyone is interested in specifics I can certainly respond, but I didn't think it appropriate for Vortex. I will simply note that I do have lots of data, observations, and tests, mainly supplied by Mr. Rothwell himself! Thank you! From aki@ix.netcom.com Mon Apr 1 11:36:04 1996 Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com ([206.214.98.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00458 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:36:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from (aki@lbx-ca7-19.ix.netcom.com [204.31.251.51]) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00795 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:29:29 -0800 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:29:29 -0800 Message-Id: <199604011929.LAA00795@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Morrison's post on spf (Re: vtx: Italian justice.) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="lvdslgbsrnfmowxkfljwsuqnwbelcn" Status: RO X-Status: This is multipart MIME message. --lvdslgbsrnfmowxkfljwsuqnwbelcn Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="NCZ074D.TMP" To vortexers, On March 31, 1996 Duglas Morrison posted on the SPF his report on the Italian court decision mentioned by Chris Tinsley. I attach the spf post here for reference. I hope this works. The plaintiffs were Pons, Fleischmann, Preparata, Bressani, and Giudice. -AK- --lvdslgbsrnfmowxkfljwsuqnwbelcn Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="00000001.msg" 220 27739 <960330204243.23616353@vxcern.cern.ch> article Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Path: ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!zorch!fusion From: DROM@vxcern.cern.ch Subject: Court Decision in Cold Fusion - scientific fraud, lawsuit. Reply-To: DROM@vxcern.cern.ch Sender: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Message-ID: <960330204243.23616353@vxcern.cern.ch> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 05:00:23 GMT Lines: 77 26 March 1996. DM-96-1 COURT JUDGEMENT ON QUESTION OF COLD FUSION BEING "SCIENTIFIC FRAUD" Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Tullio Bressani, Guiliano Preparata, and Emilio Del Giudice Versus Editoriale La Republicca s.p.a., Eugenio Scalfari and Giovanni Maria Pace. In October 1991, the La Republicca published an article by their science editor, Giovanni Maria Pace, which reviewed the book "False Prophets" and essentially suggested that cold fusion was "scientific fraud" and the names of Fleischmann and Pons were mentioned. Letters from Bressani(Turin), Preparata(Milan) and Del Guidice(Milan) were written to the newspaper and published. The five then sued the newspaper, its editor and the journalist for 8 billion lire (about $5 million at that time). The court appointed Prof. Giovanni Licheri of Cagliari to assess the 105 pieces of scientific evidence presented. The five plaintiffs asked Prof. Daniele Gozzi (Rome) to be their adviser. La Republicca asked Douglas Morrison of CERN, Geneva, to be their scientific adviser. See Nature 363(1993)107. Both sides submitted further written evidence. This may be the first time, or one of the first times that a law court has been asked to decide on a scientific issue. DECISION The decision of the court has just been received. It rejected the plaint of Fleischmann, Pons, Bressani, Preparata, and Del Guidice. It condemned the five to pay the legal expenses of 28 million lire (less than $20 000) of the defendants. MOTIVATION Firstly the court considered whether the manner in which Fleischmann and Pons presented their results was correct. They concluded that it was correct because on the 13th March 1989 they submitted their paper for publication, and it was accepted on the 22nd March before their press conference of the 23rd March. However there were some negative aspects; 1. They failed to mention the work of Prof. Stephen Jones which began in 1986. Fleischmann and Pons had agreed with Jones to submit their papers for publication together on the 24th March 2. When it was pointed out to Fleischmann and Pons that their gamma ray peak was at an impossible energy, they changed the scale 3. They claimed to have observed and measured fusion for a long time but were not subject to gamma radiation - therefore it was not fusion 4. In April 1989, the US government set up a committee of 22 scientists to check the results. Despite complicated work, the results were negative. This is described in the book by John Huizenga, the Co-Chairman, entitled "Cold Fusion - the Scientific Fiasco of the Century". 5. On the 8th July 1989, in the Deseret News (daily newspaper published in Utah) appeared an article (with photograph) where Pons declared that he had made an apparatus of the size of a thermos which would satisfy the needs of a normal family and could make tea. Pons also said that the boiler was giving off 10 to 15 times the energy put in. The court noted that little progress had been made since 1991, There was no good theory to explain the claims of cold fusion and there was a failure to observe the products of fusion as would be expected (tritons, neutrons, protons, 3He, 4He and gamma rays) The court noted the comportment of Fleischmann and Pons who provided different and inconsistent data at different times, noted that they omitted to cite the work of Prof. Jones, noted the manner in which they dealt with the press, and noted how they considered future developments and concluded that they were separated from reality. The court noted that most scientists had now abandoned cold fusion. Thus the court judged that Giovanni Maria Pace was justified in making his comments in the exercise of his profession, since there had been great discussion and contestation. The above is a brief summary of the 14 page judgement. Since this was translated from Italian, it is possible that there are some small errors in translation (please inform me so I may corerect them) but the sense of the judgement is clear. Douglas R. O. Morrison Address; drom@vxcern.cern.ch --lvdslgbsrnfmowxkfljwsuqnwbelcn-- From 72240.1256@compuserve.com Mon Apr 1 13:13:50 1996 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA18307 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:13:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id QAA29725; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:11:07 -0500 Date: 01 Apr 96 16:08:28 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Early, impractical technology Message-ID: <960401210828_72240.1256_EHB123-2@CompuServe.COM> Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mike Carrell writes: "Jed has suggested that CETI could do nicely selling Patterson cells to one and all. I could support a reasonable doubt; as Jed has stated, it may well take as much effort to get this technology right as it did with semiconductors. Patterson cells aren't batteries -- yet -- and probably only Patterson knows how wide is the gap." I hope made it clear that I do not mean CETI should be trying to sell beads for commercial applications at this stage. Patterson cells aren't batteries and they are not a bit practical. I mean that if I were in CETI's place, I would sell them as demonstration kits to scientists, engineers and curious people everywhere. They would make a fair amount of money doing this -- millions, I think. But the real purpose would be to establish CETI as the market leader and to end the controversy about cold fusion overnight. When a thousand scientists have seen the performance of the latest CETI beads and told their friends and colleagues, every scientist on earth will believe that cold fusion is real *and important*. "Until you know enough to support product development, there isn't going to be a significant market." I disagree, I think a person could become immensely wealthy just by selling demonstration kits. I suppose this is a matter of definitions. What do you mean by "significant"? Millions per year, or billions? Millions would be enough to support a massive R&D effort by the standards of cold fusion. Let me list a few well known products that made their inventors millionaires long before they were practical for a sane, real-world application: * Microcomputers and microcomputer software. Anyone who remembers the SOLs, TRS-80s and CPM operating systems circa 1979 will know what I mean. They were good-for-nothing toys! * Microsoft Windows versions 1, 2 and 3. Up until 3.1 it was a dog, but it sold pretty well. That was before Microsoft grew powerful and came to think it owns the marketplace. * Automobiles from 1888 until 1908. The first automobile was built by Cugnot in 1765. The first workable machine was sold by Benz in 1888, but it was not practical. It was a frivolous, high tech toy for adventurous rich people, like the SOL and TRS-80 computers. Henry Ford got a job in the industry in 1899. He introduced the Model T in 1908, and the era of truly practical, utilitarian automobiles began. The thing to remember is: people like Benz made tons of money selling cars before cars were practical. * Transistors from 1952 to 1958 (or 1972). They were more expensive than vacuum tubes at first, because the production yields were so low. They did not replace ferrite core computer memory until the 1970s. * Automobile radios. Invented in 1929 by Galvin, who founded Motorola. Quote: "but while his first radio plays in a moving car it is twice the size of a tackle box, its bulky speaker is stuffed under the floorboards, and its audio qualities leave much to be desired." It led to: * The "walkie-talkie" radio, also designed by Gavlin for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in 1933. Completely impractical at first. By 1941 they were much better than nothing and they also led to: * "Portable" short-wave radios used by isolated island coast-watchers during WWII in the South Pacific. With their charging engines and various tubes and batteries, they required several strong men to carry, or one man running back and forth up and down a jungle trail all day. They *did* work, but only because of heroic efforts and skill of the operators. Coastwatchers sometimes made hazardous journeys through enemy territory via dugout canoe in order to get spare parts, like tubes and power supplies. The parts did not survive airdrops and there were never enough submarines. The technology was pushed beyond reasonable limits, because it was desperately needed. Nobody in his right mind would go off into the jungle with a radio like that today. * Ocean going steamships. They ran on government subsidies from 1800 until about 1840, burning wood, coal and money. River boats were practical, but long after the "Savannah" crossed the Atlantic (1819) marine steamships were economically insane. Still, people made a lot of money building them, thanks to military and government contracts. Ship builders, shippers, captains, admirals and other practical men of affairs cried out year after year that the government was wasting money on pie-in-the-sky technology. From 1810 to 1860 those men of affairs perfected the clipper ships, which reached the full flowering of beauty, speed, practicality, and immense profitability in 1851, when some could travel 400 miles a day. They were the mainframe computers of their era: splendid, large, safe, cheaper and faster than steam ships, designed by the best scientists and engineers, based on the most up-to-date of physics and marine technology, incorporating the latest materials and shipbuilding techniques. Obsolete, but magnificent. McKay launched his last clipper ship, "The Glory of the Seas," in 1869. It remained in service until 1923. In 1870, steamships finally reached 16% of the world shipping market, even though they were still often slower than clipper ships, and you had to pay for fuel. Sailing ships were free energy devices. * Steam locomotives on railroads. They were impractical for the first 40 years of development, from 1790 until Stevens invented the flanged T-rail in 1830. The steam engines themselves worked fine. Rail-roads with wooden and iron tracks were widely used with horse-drawn vehicles in urban transport, and they had been used in mines since the 1550s, but no rail could support a heavy locomotive for long. The early railroads were heroic demonstrations of an impractical technology. Some of them made money though! The novelty value alone sold. In 1808, Trevithick laid a circular track near Euston and offered rides in a carriage pulled by a locomotive named "Catch Me Who Can." It was an impractical demonstration of an oversized toy, but on the other hand nobody could catch it, engineers like Stevens got the message, and 20 years later railroads produced the largest economic boom in history, and the most profound changes in the shortest period of time any technology has ever produced, I think. * Airplanes -- my favorite! (You knew I couldn't resist listing this one.) Before 1914 they made millions of dollars. In 1912 there were over 100,000 people building and selling them. But they were the most impractical technology ever devised. I have a photograph of the first 6 people who learned to fly for the Wright exhibition team in 1910. This was the most professional, safest, and best trained group of pilots in the world at that time. By 1912 all but one had been killed in crashes, and the last man, Bonney, was killed in 1928. Many other pioneers of that era died in crashes, including C.S. Rolls of Rolls Royce. Accidents and near misses were as common as microcomputer software "crashes" in 1980. People often say: "Well, if CF was as impractical or dangerous as the airplane was in 1910, it would never be allowed. If CF might produce tritium, it will never sell. We have higher standards than people did back in 1910." No, actually, we don't. People still do a booming business selling ultralight airplanes, hang gliders, and for that matter, large motorcycles, which are terribly dangerous. "You could sell a few at $x,xxx each and more at $xxx, but that's not a business. Oh Yes It Is A Business. It is a small business. It is like selling one-of-a-kind custom furniture suites, or auto transmission jobs one at a time, or customized computer software. I know people who make a good living doing those things. "The Japanese may be very well aware of this, which why there has been a lot of money flowing without any product showing up -- yet. With all due and great respect to Patterson, I can see a huge gap between the present status of the cell and a mass marketed product." This is slightly off the subject, but I think the Japanese corporations doing CF are strongly oriented towards traditional mass-produced, mass-marketed goods. That is why they have done a lousy job selling computers and computer generated individually fitted shoes and blue jeans, which are two examples of latest high-tech of fully automated non-mass-production. I think mass production of identical items and keeping items in inventory are nineteenth century ideas whose time has passed. The U.S. and Italy are leading the way with products that are fabricated one at a time, on demand, when the customer orders them. For many products this is now cost competitive with mass production, and in the future it will be cheaper. I expect that in a few years, most automobiles will be assembled to order the way Dell Computers manufactures computers. Getting back to the point, I think the Japanese have failed to develop CF as quickly as they might have, and they have failed to take advantage of the emerging and already-emerged commercial opportunities because they have forgotten how to think small, and how to think near-term. And this is the same problem they have with the new production technologies, where you measure some guy's foot and produce a shoe that fits it perfectly. They have forgotten that ultimately, no matter what you make, you sell goods one at a time to individual customers. Unless you happen to make bridges or airplanes, every day you must make new sales starting from scratch, and you sales can drop to nothing next week when the competition introduces something better. Because the Japanese think in terms of mass production circa 1850 - 1980, they do not see the opportunity to pioneer the CF market now, today, by selling 10 or 12 cells to people like me, who would pay a bundle for them. When Michael Dell was in college, he sold 10 or 12 custom built microcomputers to his friends and roommates. He does the same thing today on a grander scale. That's how new technology starts these days. Not with a dramatic roll-out of a new car model, or the test flight of the first jet passenger plane. Nowadays, major new technology starts off with some guy selling a gadget out of his apartment. The Japanese are bad at custom manufacturing technology partly because they don't want to think about it. It is rotten news for them. They are far away from their major customers. There is no way Toyota can assemble a custom built car and ship it to me in a reasonable amount of time. They have to cross the ocean! In a few years, Ford or GM will be have the ability to let the customer choose from a menu of options the way Dell does today, and in two weeks they will deliver exactly what the customer orders, out of all the thousands of possible permutations. But Toyota cannot do that for the U.S. market unless they move all of their production to the U.S., or unless they develop high speed marine transport (80,000 ton hovercraft, or what-have-you). - Jed From 72240.1256@compuserve.com Mon Apr 1 15:36:27 1996 Received: from dub-img-6.compuserve.com (dub-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.9.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA14664 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 15:36:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by dub-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id SAA20116; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:35:09 -0500 Date: 01 Apr 96 18:33:17 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Rothwell Hypotheses Message-ID: <960401233316_72240.1256_EHB59-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I thank Kirk for addressing some of the issues here. Now push has come to shove. Now you are in for it! My daughters, who have been doing homework for years know what happens when Dad Steps In To Help. They know what I say: Okay, it is time to roll up your sleeves and do some experiments. Let's have a look. "Jed calculates a flow of .21 ml is what was needed to produce the apparent heating effect from the electrolysis input. That is presumably correct, I don't know enough of the details to be sure that is the absolute requirement. Well well weeelllll . . . time to build a flow calorimeter! "Presumably correct"? "Don't know enough"?!? Don't presume anything! Never take my word for anything. If you have any doubts or if you don't know enough details yet, build a flow calorimeter. Spend $100 at the hardware store and the pet supply store and you *will know enough*. "Jed concludes that the cell would equalize the inlet and outlet temps, but I do not make that conclusion. Specifically, there is electrolysis ongoing, with the bubbles rising up the column and stirring the mixture above the bead bed. There is little of that below the bed I believe. Secondly, a hotter fluid is less dense that cold, and will rise as well. . . . ." I did not say it would equalize, I said the two would be close. The one-drip-per-minute flow rate might keep the outlet slightly warmer than the inlet, but not 8 deg C. Or, if the outlet *was* 8 deg C hotter, that would indicate a much higher power level than it would with a normal flow calorimeter. Much more than 0.1 watts. "Reason #2: This is interesting. This is the first time I have really heard someone say the cell 'leaks heat like a sieve'. If that is true, the back-of-the-envelope analysis I am doing *is* totally irrelevant, because now I have to consider all the leaks." Of course it loses heat! It is ordinary transparent glassware, tall and thin. What would you expect it to do? Get some glassware, fill it with warm water, and find out for yourself. Compare it to a Dewar. I stated that the cell loses heat many times. I pointed out that the dummy cell (and the CF cell when turned off) have negative Delta T temperatures when warm water is run through. "Reason #3: Again, Jed assumes rapid cooling that I do not, and uses that assumption in making his point. I don't understand how Jed decided a 10-20 minute time period and /or a 10 cm distance would be all that was required to reduce the fluid to room temperature. Wouldn't it depend on the insulating quality of the tubing?" As I stated many, many times previously, I did not "assume" or "decide" anything. I measured the heat loss from the tube, in a crude fashion, by observing the fluid temperature drop between reservoir and the inlet thermocouple. The temperature dropped 0.5 to 1.0 degrees, so the tubes lost 35 to 70 watts, depending on how hot the water was. That's about what you expect from a plastic body of that size. Now, here is the point: Why is Kirk wondering about the insulating quality of the tubing? Why does he question whether or not the water will cool in the time it takes to travel from the reservoir to the cell? You do not answer questions like that by wondering, whying and turning the pages of your textbook. At least, I don't. Try it! Test it! Get a tube and find out! It's simple. *It could not be simpler*. Look here: I computed it wrong the first time, it would take the water about 4 hours to reach the cell. Okay, so get a meter long tube, fill it with 40 deg C water, and leave it for 4 hours. Does it cool down to room temperature? Sure does! And if you record the temperature every 10 minutes you can draw a nice heat loss curve, too. Filling the tube with warm water all at once will make it stay warm longer than it would if you started with room temperature water and drip in the warm water. It is an approximation; a best-case (warmest case) test. If you really want to test dripping warm water, get a medical IV bag, put a joule heater in it, and drip it through a meter long 3/8" tube, hung in a "U" shape with both ends open. Make the outlet side a little lower than inlet, so that the warm incoming water displaces the cool outlet side. You will find out how far along the water gets before it cools down completely. "Of great interest to me is the comment about the flow sample volume and tubing volume. This is the first time that I can clearly separate the temperature at the cell from that in the beaker. This establishes that the observed temperature in the beaker *can* be irrelevant to the cell temp under appropriate assumptions." Irrelevant?!? How the hell can it be irrelevant? IT IS THE SAME WATER, A MOMENT LATER! You mean it can be *different* under some circumstances. Mais oui! Of course. And we know exactly what those circumstances are, why the temperatures are different, what it means, and why the temperatures were very close in most cases. This is not terra ignito. The physics that describe what happens when you put water into bodies and containers of different temperatures, such that the water temperature falls and the body heats up, have been well understood since the early 19th century. Heat capacity and specific heat are not complex concepts. (They couldn't be, because I understand them just fine, and I am allergic to complex concepts.) I trust that all other readers of this forum know why the temperature falls a lot when you pour warm water into some containers, and why it does not fall measurably when you pour water into other containers. If anyone don't know, or if you think this can introduce impossibly complex factors into the experiment, then it is time for you to close that textbook, go to the kitchen, get out the tea kettle, the thermometer and some cups *and find out*. "Thus a temp check at the cell, followed by a sample collection/ temp check is certainly inadequate experimental procedure. The detailed response of the temperatures in the cell is of import." Oh Give Us A Break Kirk. Can you think a better experimental procedure? Can you think of a more bulletproof, more certain, simpler, better way to check the outlet thermocouple reading? I can't! Stop playing games. Tell us how you would do it. Better yet: do it. Try your method and report back. "Again Jed uses the idea that the incoming fluid is at room temperature to try to prove the impossibility of my scenario. You misunderstand completely. I know the incoming fluid is at room temperature. I measured it! I felt it! I say that it would have to be cold if your slow flow hypothesis was correct. I didn't say was. It was warm! "Unfortunately, he forgets that he measured the reservoir temp and the inlet temp and both were much higher, so the use of the 'R.T. fluid' is again inappropriate." Right, but I am pretending your hypothesis is correct. "By the way, it is unclear to me if the reservoir is being heated by the pump, which has continued to try to pump at full speed against almost a complete flow blockage. So what if it is? That does not affect the calorimetry, as dozens of people have pointed out. The calorimetry does not care what the inlet temperature is. "My explanation presumed the 5C deltaT across the cell, with the inlet *and* outlet temp ending up at the reservoir temp rather quickly after the flow measurement began. Recall that the whole measurement took about 15 seconds." What?!? What are you talking about? The temperature measurement was continuous, the whole time I was there. I kept an eye on the thermocouples. They hardly varied at all. "I contended that the temperature drop you postulate would occur also, but to a much lesser extent because of the higher inlet temp in my case *and* because of the inherent response lag of the thermocouple/ well setup. . . . Sorry, this makes no sense. There was no temperature drop. There is no thermocouple / well setup. Some people mistakenly believed there was, but there is no such animal. The TC s are right in the flow, just behind the inline mixers. "*Further* I cautioned against using the deltaT measurement in this case because of the extreme linearity of the K-type thermocouple response in this temperature regime." Nonsense. They are manufactured for this purpose, and in use in millions of labs and industrial sites all over the world at this moment. You can measure a steady 8 to 15 deg C Delta T with these things *with absolute, unshakable confidence*. Try it, if you have any doubts. Report back if you find any problems. Don't just talk about extreme linearity and this temperature regime, try it, find out, report back. "Those two things together would mean that the change from near-zero flow to 1 L/min would produce a nearly concurrent drop in both inlet and outlet temps, producing the *same* deltaT as before the flow measurement! Ahem. . . the inlet and outlet temperature did not drop. The TCs were sometimes set to show both absolute and Delta T temperature. (That's what confused that poor fellow who reported on s.p.f. -- those flashing numbers.) There were no significant changes. And if 250 ml of cold water had flowed through the cell, *and if true power output was only 0.1 watts* then the Delta T would have fallen to zero and stayed that way for an hour, as I pointed out earlier. "Any change would need to be observed either directly in the temp itself, or in the full dynamic response over a time frame equivalent to several time constants of the system. . ." Whatever the time constants of the TC s may be, I am sure it ain't 70 minutes, which is how long it would take to heat up the water again. That's assuming you can only cram 5 ml in there. I'll bet you can fit more. "Unfortunately, the gas and liquid flow rates in a two-phase system are completely separate. Oh, come now. Gas caught in a horizontal stream of water does not flow 4000 times faster than the water. That's ridiculous! "The observation of moving gas bubbles simply means that electrolysis was continuing, which I don't argue with. I do contend that Mr. Rothwell has neither a calibrated ear or eye with respect to quantitative flow measurements, and I have always considered his 'audio' signal of flowing water to be valid, which is why I always conceded some flow was occurring. (The zero-flow case is a useful endpoint for consideration however, when then modified by a low flow.)" Okay, guy, go watch some water flow through a tube. Change the flow from a liter per minute to one drop per minute. Report back! Tell us whether you can observe any difference or not. And if "some flow is occurring" -- any flow at all, even 100 ml! -- then there must be massive excess heat and this entire argument is stupid. "Mr. Rothwell then reminds us about 45 watts and 90% flow rate reductions etc. He seems to imply that I am claiming a 99.977% flow reduction, and I guess that I am. You guess?!? Well, are you or aren't you? If I computed it wrong, correct me. If that is not what you are claiming then tell us! Are you claiming that the cell was actually only producing 1000 times input? 2000 times? 500 times? If so, you are wasting our time, because nobody really cares whether it was 500 or 4500. "Thus, I am simply stating that I feel there are enough flow resistances in the excluded part of the flow circuit to move from that 90% restricted point to whatever it takes to explain the data. Say what?!? The flow was never at that 90% restricted level. It was a liter per minute, not 100 ml. "To reiterate, I am pointing out that the PowerGen demo system was highly stressed, and that minimal additional stress could alter the flows dramatically, thus invalidating the use of Mr. Rothwell's flow numbers in the Power Out calculation." It was not highly stressed. There was tons of pump capacity left. Most of the restriction was at the valves. The tests with flowmeters before and again after the conference showed that the remainder of the loop made no measurable difference. "Reason #7 [flowmeters were used]: Again, please restrict this discussion to the PowerGen case, as it is the pump used there that I believe is at fault." HELLO! Earth to Kirk! We are talking about the *same* pump, *same* cell, *same* tubes a week earlier, equipped with flowmeters, running at 500 ml/min. Why should we restrict the discussion to PowerGen? Have we stopped believing Cravens? "I will simply note that I do have lots of data, observations, and tests, mainly supplied by Mr. Rothwell himself! Thank you!" No, you have practically nothing from me. Just a bare bones description and two data readings. You need to make your own observations before you can spin out all these complex hypotheses about the performance of the pump, circuit impedance, K-Type thermocouples and all the rest. You cannot even begin to address these issues with what I have told you. You do not have a handle on the problem. You don't even know that glassware cools down quickly; you are not sure whether you are claiming a 90% reduction or a 99.977% reduction; you "don't know enough of the details to be sure" that a 0.21 ml flow is what you have in mind; you have no idea how quickly K-Type thermocouples respond to temperature changes; and you cannot suggest to us the proper way to check to performance of the outlet TC. In short, you do not know enough about this system to make intelligent hypotheses about it. You could learn, I am sure. Anyone can. Just go to the hardware store and spend few weeks fiddling around with water. By the way, in case anyone has any doubts about it, I have spent lots of time fiddling around with calorimeters. In Gene Mallove's basement, among other places. - Jed From FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Mon Apr 1 16:06:41 1996 Received: from emout06.mail.aol.com (emout06.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.43]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA20884 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:06:40 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Received: by emout06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA09133 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:05:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:05:18 -0500 Message-ID: <960401190517_503269834@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: Book Status: RO X-Status: Gatek...the Az dept of energy is trying to check them out. Frank Z --------------------- Forwarded message: From: JEFFJ@ep.state.az.us (Jeff Jowett) To: fznidarsic@aol.com ('Frank Znidarsic') Date: 96-04-01 11:23:54 EST Frank, Thanks for the book on a disc. I'll take a look at it. Let me know if you hear anything from Galtech. J2. From 75110.3417@compuserve.com Mon Apr 1 17:31:29 1996 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA05919 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 17:31:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id UAA11180; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:30:05 -0500 Date: 01 Apr 96 20:25:49 EST From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Vortexians Subject: vtx: ZPE: what is it? Message-ID: <960402012549_75110.3417_CHK69-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: RO X-Status: Hi Robert, >> Dave what specific equipment did Russell and Tesla design and build to engineer ZPE properties? << I found that description of ZPE by following one of the links from Bill B's "Wierd Science" WWW page at: http://www.padrak.com/ine/ There a lot more where that came from (including Russell ...). (BTW -- this is a re-send as the first message was bounced back by Vortex-L) Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.6G) From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Mon Apr 1 20:59:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA09490; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:43:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:43:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604012123.AA06651@gateway1.srs.gov> Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Kirk L. Shanahan" To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Bead Packing X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jed writes: > Kirk L. Shanahan writes: > > "Yes but in the packed bed variant, the possibility of bead movement is > still allowed . . ." > > No, the beads are crammed together and held in a pack with a spring or > bolts. > The trick is to cram them together tightly, but not too tightly, or they > crack > and the thin film falls off. They do not move. In an old cell, the > build-up of > dirt and discoloration on the glass shows that they are stuck together and > immobile. > > - Jed The possibility is still allowed. Again, the extent of this is not clear. In packing any material into a cylinder, there will be some extent of failure to pack perfectly. The analytical measure of this is called tap density (from the fact that the apparatus 'taps' the material holder to better pack the material). On top of this, size differences in the material will leads to the larger particles bearing the stress, while smaller ones end up free to move. Patterson/CETI probably do the best at avoiding this, as they go to such lengths to avoid large size dispersion in their samples. I feel that one aspect of their patent that might not be clear is the extent to which they have optimized the loading process. Scott, this may be another difference between your beads and CETI's. If yours are not as 'monosized', there may be a lot more 'rattling' beads, which could lead to lifetime problems. Also, the packing force concerns could be different for you. --- Kirk Shanahan (My opinions ... noone else's) P.S. I failed to sign my "Rothwell Hypotheses" post this morning with my usual signature. Please append this one to that (mentally). Thanks and sorry! From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Mon Apr 1 21:02:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA10163; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:47:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:47:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604020350.TAA00559@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Jurich" To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Kamada, Kinoshita and Takahashi Paper ... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 35 (1996) pp. 738-747 Part 1, No. 2A, February 1996 Anomalous Heat Evolution of Deuteron-Implanted Al upon Electron Bombardment Kohji KAMADA, Hiroshi KINOSHITA [1] and Heishitiro TAKAHASHI [1] National Institute for Fusion Science, Nagoya 464-01, Japan [1] Center of Advanced Research Energy Technology, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 062, Japan (Received December 7, 1994; accepted for publication November 6, 1995) Anomalous heat evolution was observed for the first time in deuteron- implanted Al foils upon 175 keV electron bombardment. Local regions with linear dimension of more than 100 nm showed simultaneous transformation from single-crystalline to polycrystalline structure within roughly one minute during the electron bombardment, indicating a temperature rise to above the melting point of Al from room temperature. The amount of energy evolved was estimated to be typically 160 MeV for each transformed region. The transformation was never observed in proton-implanted Al foils. Micro- structures in the subsurface layer of the implanted Al, investigated by elastic recoil detection (ERD) method and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), were presented for numerical discussions of the experimental results. Possible causes of the surface melting, such as the heating effect of the electron beam, size effect of the melting point, difference in the implanted depth profiles between hydrogen and deuterium, and possible chemical reac- tions due to the bombardment in D2 collections, were investigated. We consider that some kind of nuclear reaction occurring in the D2 collections is the only explanation for the observed melting. The reaction was esti- mated to continue for only a short time, presumably less than 10E-10 s, and the energy gain, which is defined as the ratio between the amount of energy evolved and the energy loss of the impinging electrons through the Al specimen, amounts to more than 1E5. KEYWORDS: deuteron implantation, electron bombardment, melting From mwm@aa.net Tue Apr 2 14:04:56 1996 Received: from big.aa.net (root@big.aa.net [204.157.220.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA02989 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:04:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from Default (s1c0p0.aa.net [204.157.220.164]) by big.aa.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA06422 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:03:50 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199604022203.OAA06422@big.aa.net> X-Sender: mwm@aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:03:19 +0800 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: vtx: Can I put out an unsolicited recommendation? Status: RO X-Status: At 12:44 PM 3/30/96 -0600, you wrote: >At 12:23 PM 3/24/96 PST, you wrote: >>From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >>Subject: Can I put out an unsolicited recommendation? > >>could I recommend LabTech Notebook? > >>I have recently aquired the "compeditors" demos for LabTech (I'll NOT >>mention those names, as I think that is uncouth....) > >Oh come on, Mark! We're having a friendly discussion in private here. >You're not on national TV. Please discuss openly which mfgr's demos you've >looked at, what you found bad/good about each, etc. I'm in the market right >now myself. I've been playing with LabTech Notebook Pro's demo and so far >it has crashed my computer more times than everything else in the past year >combined. National Instrument's LabView looks neat but I'm shy of it's cost >(~$2000)... > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > > Memory management issues with virtual runtime buffering is probably what is killing you. I installed and experimented with Labtech Notebook, all flavors, for an engineering friend of mine about 14 months ago or so under Win 3.11/Dos 6.22 on a 486 system with lots of ram. I stabilized it. Under no circumstances would I attempt to get it running under Win95. Win95 sucks turds when it comes to memmory management. Win 3.11/Dos 6.22 ironically is a more mature environment. Another issue comes with Labtech itself. It is one huge hodgepodge of work arounds and cudgled maybe bungled shoehorned codex. The graphics frontend is really a strange antique acquisition which under the best of circumstances cannot be setup and used without several undiagnosable crashes before you have a runtime which will work. One trick I learned about the front-end is to NEVER edit its graphics. Learn to compose it and build it up as a new file from scratch after you know what you want. That solved a lot of problems that I had with it. Suggest you try NT. I am succeesfully doing text and graphics under Win95, but only because I am forced to use the 32 bit environment for productivity issues and being able to simulate unix file names. Shortly I am setting up serious computing on NT. You might check out "Test & Measurement World", a freebie monthly mag (if you seem to be a purchaser of serious gear) 1-800-828-6344 ext 002. A great sourcing tool. Next, give serious consideration to dumping Labtech altogether. National Instruments has good stuff (seemingly, I haven't personally tried to make it work) a big catalog, all kinds of boards and a serious competitor to Labtech called LabVIEW and a family of software widgets for controlling and sampling, some expressly designed for NT. Another possibility is to zero in on specific modules for specific tasks. AD and DA boards and sensors can be found at low cost per unit (as little as $200) in cookbooks like the Omega catalogs. Omega has a standard url: omega.com I always used to think that the omnibus stuff was the best way to go. I no longer think that way. PC technology is too damn buggy to put any faith in expensive "integrated" solutions which you attempt to shoehorn into "something" Windows. The great advantage of moving to NT is the possibility of running multiple boards, each with their own software. Make sure you have lots and LOTS of RAM on board, though, and hey, it's a cheap solution these days. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From aki@ix.netcom.com Mon Apr 1 23:55:11 1996 Received: from ix10.ix.netcom.com (ix10.ix.netcom.com [199.182.120.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29898 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 23:55:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from by ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id XAA26795; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 23:53:53 -0800 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 23:53:53 -0800 Message-Id: <199604020753.XAA26795@ix10.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Losing "vtx" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A You wrote: > > >Unfortunately we lose the "vtx:" in the subject line. Listproc allows >this feature to be turned on for *all* lists at eskimo.com, but not >for individual lists, and right now we listowners are fighting between >yes/no list title in the subject line. There are enough "yes" people >that something will probably be done, but not as yet. > Why not an innocuous single letter that can be tolerated by eskimo.com? At least, we can differentiate quickly between vortex e-mail and other e-mail. -AK- From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 01:44:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA04999; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:24:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:24:20 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604020630.AAA01503@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bead Packing X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 08:43 PM 4/1/96 -0800, Kirk wrote some stuff about fluidized bead beds and then said: >Scott, this may be another difference between your beads and CETI's. If >yours are not as 'monosized', there may be a lot more 'rattling' beads, >which could lead to lifetime problems. Also, the packing force concerns >could be different for you. A very real possibility, Kirk. It's hard to tell just what CETI is presently using. One of Patterson's earlier patents makes a big deal about getting monosized beads...but then the photo of real CETI beads on Logajan's web page shows them to be noticeably variable in size. I'd say that the ersatz beads that I had made are more uniform in size than those in the photo. Also, at the flow rates we're using, there's virtually ZERO force available for "rattling" the beads. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 00:28:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA05078; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:24:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:24:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chemistry help, please. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Scott Little wrote: > Dieter, et al: > > I bought some As2O3 and went to make a "doping solution" such that 0.5 ml (a > quantity I can dispense reasonably accurately with my 5ml pipette) of this > solution added to my typical 60ml charge of electrolyte would make the > electrolyte about 10^-5 M As. My doping solution recipe is 0.024 grams of > As2O3 in 100ml of water. Problem: As2O3 doesn't dissolve in water! Right > now I'm heating and stirring and so far, no luck at all. [...] > Is there some way I can bring this stuff into solution using something that > won't be objectionable later when I mix it with the Li2SO4 electrolyte? The Merck Index says that it's sparingly and extremely slowly soluble in cold water, but in 15 parts of boiling water. So... MI also reads slightly over the top on the extreme toxicity of the stuff, a bit more than usual in a book full of poisons. I know you know, and Mitch has wagged his finger, but do work cleanly, won't you, mate. No wiping the spatula on the lab coat etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 00:33:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA05098; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:25:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:25:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604020736.XAA12504@ix2.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chemistry help, please. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > >So far the As2O3 just sits there on the bottom of both containers. > >Is there some way I can bring this stuff into solution Looking at the 76th ed. Handbook on Chemistry & Physics page 4-42 under As2O3 as a white cubic crystal, CRC notes it as being slighty soluble in H2O. As a white monoclinic crystal, CRC notes it as being also soluble in dilute acid (weak H2SO4 in your Li2SO4 solution?), soluble in alkaline solutions, insoluble in ethanol. Now, Arsenic Oxide as As2O5, a white amorphous powder, CRC says it is very soluble in water. So you might get arsenic oxide as As2O5 rather than As2O3 or alter the ph of the electrolyte. Perhaps the final word from Dieter is in order here. The Patterson electrolysis Cell's electrolyte might be a slightly acidic (I suggest H2SO4 or D2SO4! for a common -SO4)) Li2So4 solution in order to carry As2O3. -AK- From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 00:33:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA05106; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:25:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:25:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Kamada, Kinoshita and Takahashi Paper ... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 35 (1996) pp. 738-747 >Part 1, No. 2A, February 1996 > >Anomalous Heat Evolution of Deuteron-Implanted Al >upon Electron Bombardment > >Kohji KAMADA, Hiroshi KINOSHITA [1] and Heishitiro TAKAHASHI [1] >National Institute for Fusion Science, Nagoya 464-01, Japan >[1] Center of Advanced Research Energy Technology, Hokkaido University, > Sapporo 062, Japan > >(Received December 7, 1994; accepted for publication November 6, 1995) > > Anomalous heat evolution was observed for the first time in deuteron- >implanted Al foils upon 175 keV electron bombardment. Local regions with >linear dimension of more than 100 nm showed simultaneous transformation >from single-crystalline to polycrystalline structure within roughly one >minute during the electron bombardment, indicating a temperature rise to >above the melting point of Al from room temperature. The amount of energy >evolved was estimated to be typically 160 MeV for each transformed region. >The transformation was never observed in proton-implanted Al foils. Micro- >structures in the subsurface layer of the implanted Al, investigated by >elastic recoil detection (ERD) method and transmission electron microscopy >(TEM), were presented for numerical discussions of the experimental results. >Possible causes of the surface melting, such as the heating effect of the >electron beam, size effect of the melting point, difference in the implanted >depth profiles between hydrogen and deuterium, and possible chemical reac- >tions due to the bombardment in D2 collections, were investigated. We >consider that some kind of nuclear reaction occurring in the D2 collections >is the only explanation for the observed melting. The reaction was esti- >mated to continue for only a short time, presumably less than 10E-10 s, >and the energy gain, which is defined as the ratio between the amount of >energy evolved and the energy loss of the impinging electrons through the >Al specimen, amounts to more than 1E5. > >KEYWORDS: deuteron implantation, electron bombardment, melting Wow! Of course the obvious questions arise about data on concurrent neutron and xray spectra. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From 100060.173@compuserve.com Tue Apr 2 01:21:55 1996 Received: from dub-img-6.compuserve.com (dub-img-6.compuserve.com [198.4.9.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA21966 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 01:21:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by dub-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id EAA17505; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 04:20:27 -0500 Date: 02 Apr 96 04:17:29 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Chemistry help, please. Message-ID: <960402091728_100060.173_JHB29-2@CompuServe.COM> Status: RO X-Status: Scott asks: >> Is there some way I can bring this stuff [As2O3] into solution using something that won't be objectionable later when I mix it with the Li2SO4 electrolyte? << My old text-books indicate that As4O6 (I presume = As2O3) is only slightly soluble in boiling water. However it will dissolve well in dilute Ammonia. How this would react with the Li2SO4 is difficult as there will probably be a precipitate. Don't ask me for any more in depth details!!! Norman From britz@kemi.aau.dk Tue Apr 2 02:52:58 1996 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA02376 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 02:52:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA31410; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:52:49 +0200 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:52:48 +0200 (MET DST) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chemistry help, please. In-Reply-To: <960402091728_100060.173_JHB29-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Norman Horwood wrote: > Scott asks: > > >> Is there some way I can bring this stuff [As2O3] into solution using > something that won't be objectionable later when I mix it with the Li2SO4 > electrolyte? << > > My old text-books indicate that As4O6 (I presume = As2O3) is only slightly > soluble in boiling water. However it will dissolve well in dilute Ammonia. How > this would react with the Li2SO4 is difficult as there will probably be a > precipitate. > > Don't ask me for any more in depth details!!! Norman Well, I was going to suggest dissolving the stuff in either H2SO4 or LiOH, and then neutralising again with the other. That way you'd end up with it in the same electrolyte as you are using. As2O3 (or more correctly As4O6, Norman is right) can act as an acid or a base. But when I read the bit about soluble in 15 parts of boiling water, I figured all this was unnecessary. While I'm here, an added note about diffusion of H (or D) in PdHx; I got interested reading the recent Mengoli paper showing the dependence D(x), but Todd Green has pointed out to me that they already had this in their 1993 paper AND that then (and it turns out, now) they ignore earlier work by Baranowski, published in Ber. Bunsenges. 78 (1974) 335, and J. Phys. Chem. Solids 43 (1982) 1119. I might chase these papers up and maybe stick them in the bibliography under peripherals. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:12:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA01991; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 13:59:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 13:59:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604021404.JAA27217@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: XRF analysis X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: >At 08:40 3/29/96 -0800, Bill Page wrote: > >>2) Very small concentrations (10^-10 mole/liter) are quite >> relevant. > >Jeez, Bill. My electrolyte solutions probably have 10^-10 moles/liter of at >least half the elements in the periodic table! If this level of impurities >is really important, it's no wonder at all that CF experiments are not >reproducible. > EXACTLY! Reproducibility is a major problem in electrochemistry - not just in "cold fusion" experiments. Notice that Pons and Fleischmann always use experimental setups where they run large numbers of test cells - that way, at least some of the cells might turn out to have the right conditions to show the putative effects, and you also can get some idea of the variability of the phenomena that you are trying to measure. McKubre's approach also relies on these methods. But the situation is not really quite so bad - most of the elements in that "half of the periodic table" are not nearly as (surface) active as the electrochemical poisons we have been discussing. Still, very very clean electrodes and very very pure solutions are goals to be striven for. Think in the same terms as you may already be used to in your surface analysis experience (XRF etc.). In the case of the CETI experiments, because you normally have only one test cell and because of the very large surface area with which the electrolyte comes into contact, I think it might very well be desirable to incorporate an activated carbon filter of the type mentioned by Dieter in the electrolyte circuit. Even using a switchable diverter into a pre-electrolysis cell in parallel with the test cell might be a desirable addition. I can imagine a pre-experiment stage, running the electrolyte through the cleaning cell for some period of time, then switching the flow to the test cell. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:12:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA02194; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:00:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:00:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604021405.JAA27223@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: XRF analysis X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dieter Britz wrote: > ... >A very interesting feature of the Mengoli et al paper is that they have >measured the diffusion coefficient of deuterium in PdDx as a function of D/Pd >loading, and find that it changes by about 2 orders of magnitude, going up >with x, from 10^-7 cm^2/s (x=0) to about 10^-5 at x = 0.91. Amazing, if true. > This is exactly what Bartolomeo, Fleischmann, Pons, et al. reported in the discussion of their results replicating Coehn's experiments in their ICCF4 paper "Alfred Coehn and After: The alpha, beta, gamma of the Palladium-Hydrogen System". They interpret this as direct evidence of the formation of a new previously unknown "gamma" phase of the hydride. In fact, they reference [as Ref 9] the earlier work of Mengoli (J. Electroanal. Chem. 350 (1993) 57). There are strong indications that the formation of the gamma phase is involved with the observation of excess energy. They state: The importance of this question [Is there evidence for the formation of a further gamma phase?] to the topic of excess enthalpy generation in the lattice will be apparent as the achievement of high charging ratios may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for the observation of this phenomenon. It is fortunate that the results of an independent study of the variation of the diffusion coefficient with the charging ratio have become available during our study, Fig 15 [Ref 9]. These results are truly remarkable: the diffusion coefficient rises as the formation of the beta-phase is completed (we will discuss elsewhere why such a variation would be expected to hold [Ref 12]) reaching a value of 10^-6 cm^2/s, a value 10 - 100 times higher than that for the alpha- phase. The diffusion coefficient then fails, symptomatic of a further phase transformation, to be followed by a further rise to values in the region of 10^-5 cm^2/s i.e. the diffusion coefficient approaches the value for H3O+ in acqueous solution (itself only explicable in terms of correlated motion) in a lattice where the loading ratio approaches unity! As diffusion is driven by the gradient of the chemical potential with distance, the variation shown in Fig 15 gives the evidence for the phase transformation referred to above. I have written to Bartolomeo and Fleischmann to try to obtain a copy of their Ref 12, which is described only as "To be published", however I did not receive any reply. So to my knowledge, it has not yet been published. Dieter, perhaps you might be able to use your influence to obtain a copy?? BTW: My favorite hypothesis these days is that the excess energy generation my be due to a non-conservative phase change, i.e. a spontaneous change in the structure of the metal lattice which results in the non-energy conserving motion of the mobile protons due to the quantum non-equilibrium distribution of the protons in the lattice following the phase change. The beta to gamma phase change of Palladium deuteride may be one such phase transition. I think I can show that the non-conservative nature of the transition follows from Bohm's treatment of the quantum potential, however the specific application of the lattice symmetry conditions to the many-body wavefunction and thereby the quantum potential is not at all obvious - work in progress. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:15:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA02286; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:01:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:01:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604021804.MAA22489@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chemistry help, please. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 00:24 4/2/96 -0800, Dieter wrote: >The Merck Index says that it's sparingly and extremely slowly soluble in cold >water, but in 15 parts of boiling water. So... Sure enough, it apparently has gone into solution in the water but only after an hour near boiling with lots of stirring. Now that the soln has cooled, it appears to still be in solution, at least for the most part...i.e. it'll do for my doping purposes. >MI also reads slightly over the top on the extreme toxicity of the stuff.... Yeah, I've got that book and it does instill a certain respect when you see, in italics no less; "Intensely Poisonous!" Then they go on to say that it was formerly used to treat asthma and chronic bronchitis! Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:16:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA02418; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:01:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:01:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604021900.LAA05857@ix6.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Message from Peter Gluck X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is multipart MIME message. --cktmjipcsaaovixcaowlyssujiwlqw Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="NCZ1040.TMP" Dear Scott, I am attaching e-mail received from Peter which has information to be relayed to you. Please note his alternate e-mail address. Sincerely, Akira Kawasaki --cktmjipcsaaovixcaowlyssujiwlqw Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="00000003.msg" Return-Path: Received: from roimar.imar.ro by ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id DAA13026; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 03:20:07 -0800 Received: by roimar (MX V3.1C) id 3946; Tue, 02 Apr 1996 13:29:59 0200 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 13:28:46 0200 From: itimc@ROIMAR.IMAR.RO Reply-To: itimc@roimar.imar.ro To: aki@ix.netcom.com Message-ID: <009A0420.CA832D20.3946@roimar> Subject: emergency message Status: U Dear Akira, This is an emergency message; our local lines are interupted and we don't know how long will it last. I have recv. your fax with the October setup drawing and the Miley message of Jed. Has recvd. it on e-mail yesterday and have commented it. If you or Scott have important messages please use fax or e-mail . Please tell Scott that I am discussing now the program of LANL visit with Yuri and will let him know the important facts. I am angry, have waited many important messages including one from Miley's coworker. Yours sincerely, Peter --cktmjipcsaaovixcaowlyssujiwlqw-- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:07:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA03131; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:05:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:05:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Big Gun at L.L. article (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Reply to note of 03/30/96 06:09 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: vtx: Big Gun at L.L. article Yes, when we have a properly saturated Pd piece, the Hydrogen or Dueterium exists as an ALLOY with the Pd, I have believed this for some time. The existance of metallic hydrogen is alluded to in the CRC Handbook of Chem. and Physics under the elemental hydrogen description section. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:11:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA03807; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:10:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:10:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Hugo/Champion Experiment - Questions (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Reply to note of 03/30/96 17:41 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: vtx: Hugo/Champion Experiment - Questions Horace: Got you beat on this one. I'm monitering the DC power into the motor running the perisalic pump. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:23:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA05687; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:21:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:21:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: vtx: Someone other than CETI (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Reply to note of 03/30/96 11:10 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: vtx: Someone other than CETI Although I agree with BOTH Jed and YOU on various aspects of this issue. I have a problem with the Equest claims. I've never seen DATA from your experiments. You can have a "black box", I'll trust you on that! But how about some DATA???? Can you produce some some "on line" data, I think all of your claims (verbal) have little validity, until we have some "data". We do get to the matter of trust here. Take the data that Joe C. and I have been providing. In about a week, after I do some "housekeeping" I'm going to try to get some local CF types to visit my house and AFFIRM the parameters on my data measuring. That's the "quality assurance" on what is being posted. They don't have to see "inside" the black box. You can do the same Russ. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:23:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA05977; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:23:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:23:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conduction in H2O (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- From: Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Horace has been confused about ions and electrical conduction in water. I'm no expert, but I have some limited experience on the subject, and maybe I can help. First, with regard to speed. What moves at the speed of light is the electromagnetic field. You apply a source of electrical energy to a system and electric and magnetic fields propagate throughtout in accordance with the CHANGE in conditions, in this case connection of the source. Of course, the EM fields are modified by the environment, such as by wires, pure water, electrolyte, dielectric, magnetic materials, etc. The speed of an EM wave in water (from DC to microwave range of frequencies) is about 1/9 its speed in vacuum. In conductors the electric field applies a force on charged particles as soon as it arrives, driving positive charges in one direction and negative in the opposite. This motion of positive charges relative to negative is what we call "electric current". Thus, the electric current starts as soon as the electric field arrives. This is true in ionic conductors, semiconductors, plasmas and metallic conductors. There are two complications. One is the time it takes the EM field to settle down to a steady value; because the initial current flowing in accord with the first-arrival electric field is undoubtedly inconsistent with all the constraints of steady state (DC), electric (and magnetic) field reflections bounce around the system until a steady state is reached. This can take many times longer than the first-arrival wave, but it is important to realize that it is not constrained by sound speed nor other such effects. The second complication is the detailed response of charges in the different media affected, for example, rotation of molecular electric and magnetic dipoles, charging of electric sheaths, and starting electrochemistry at electrodes. It is common practice to use electrolytes in insulating tubes to make voltage dividers for high voltage, high frequency measurements. I have used dilute CuSO4 solution with Cu electrodes for this purpose to measure 1 MV, 50 nsec pulses. In this system drift motion of Cu++ and SO4-- in the electric field cconsitute the current in the bulk of the solution. The anode removes electrons and releases Cu++ to solution, while the cathode supplies e- to the Cu++, which precipitates. When a fast electric pulse is applied, the cathode reaction begins immediately, drawing from the large number of Cu++ already present at the cathode. The anode reaction begins immediately, too. The bulk conduction begins immediately, too, because the electric field arrives "at the speed of light". Conduction in Li2SO4 solution at near neutral ph, as in a PPC, is more complex. In the bulk solution the Li+ and SO4-- ought to carry essentially all of the current, because the concentrations of H+ and OH- are simply so much smaller, yet all ions are subject to the same electric field. At electrodes, electrons are given to or taken from H+ and OH- in the water, at least according to the electrochemistry I have read and Deiter's discussions on this list. I am not at all expert in electrochemistry, but the following is what I surmise then follows: At the cathode the negative charge of the OH- product repells SO4-- from and attracts Li+ into a layer in front of the electrode. At the anode the H+ produced repells Li+ and attracts SO4--. Therefore, we have an OH- "cushion" layer pushing SO4-- ahead of it away from the cathode and an H+ layer pushing Li+ away from the anode. Given enough time the OH- and H+ meet somewhere in mid path and recombine back into H2O. This ion displacement is indeed a slow process, depending as it does on the ion drift speed, which is on the order of 10^-3 cm/s in 1 M solution for 0.1 A/cm^2. Even the slow electrolyte flow in Patterson cell flows is much more rapid. However, this only affects details; for example, the H+ and OH- recombination will occur when the ions mix in the cell exit, instead of between the electrodes. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:23:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA06054; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:23:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:23:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chemistry help, please. (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- From: Scott Little little@eden.com Dieter, et al: I bought some As2O3 and went to make a "doping solution" such that 0.5 ml (a quantity I can dispense reasonably accurately with my 5ml pipette) of this solution added to my typical 60ml charge of electrolyte would make the electrolyte about 10^-5 M As. My doping solution recipe is 0.024 grams of As2O3 in 100ml of water. Problem: As2O3 doesn't dissolve in water! Right now I'm heating and stirring and so far, no luck at all. Throwing all caution to the winds, I even tried making up a similar doping solution using not water but 2M Li2SO4, reasoning dimly that maybe the probably acidic properties of this solution would help dissolve the stuff. So far the As2O3 just sits there on the bottom of both containers. Is there some way I can bring this stuff into solution using something that won't be objectionable later when I mix it with the Li2SO4 electrolyte? Thank very much in advance. (Please ask me something about x-ray fluoresence someday, OK?) Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:25:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA06294; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:25:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:25:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- From: Frank Znidarsic Gene Mallove has really helped me out this time. I see my picture in Iinfinite Energy Magazine with Jed and George Miley. Nice picture it I must say so myself. I also see an add for my Book on a Disk in Infinite Energy, Fusion Facts, and Adventures Unlimited.. Gene also published my paper on zero point energy and gravity. Thanks Gene, you given me the break that I needed. My group of potential investors grows larger. I've been contancted, unsolisited, from a economic development authority and by Waren Myers president of CAMCO corp. Everyone wants to get on board. My Pittsburgh group is also developing into something serious. Hal Fox is sending a list of some near production technologies. Reed and I are working on a business plan. What next? With all of this taking place, wouldn't you know it, I got a letter from a VP at GPU stating that they want to reexamine this "sigificantly important technology". Apparently when I shut up they had to get their info off of network television. They saw Puthoff on the discovery channel doing some ESP (Hal do you really do this?) Someone noted that Hal and I had exchanged notes some years ago. Now they want to send me to Texas to see Jim Reding again. Just two weeks ago I was told to do my work and to shut up. With so much coming together on my own, any effort with GPU would now turn into a massive conflict of interest. I told the VP that I wanted to keep my personal interests separate from my work responsibilities. I now feel a hammer above my head. Jim Torpy of GPU is spear heading the effort for GPU. I am continuing with my plan and am partnering with a major manufacturer. For the time being manufacturing and sales will be where the potential lies. What can a Utility do? Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:26:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA06527; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:26:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:26:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx posting with file attachment(s) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Akira Kawasaki wrote: > I tried it half as an experiment and do not see the posting yet so this > raises a question: Does vtx postings accept file attachments whether in > text or other formats? I received it, it works fine (at least with Pine email program) ....................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@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:31:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA06808; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:27:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:27:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Losing "vtx" X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Akira Kawasaki wrote: > You wrote: > > > > > >Unfortunately we lose the "vtx:" in the subject line. Listproc allows > >this feature to be turned on for *all* lists at eskimo.com, but not > >for individual lists, and right now we listowners are fighting between > >yes/no list title in the subject line. There are enough "yes" people > >that something will probably be done, but not as yet. > > > Why not an innocuous single letter that can be tolerated by eskimo.com? > At least, we can differentiate quickly between vortex e-mail and other > e-mail. We can all *manually* put in a "vtx:" or "v:" in the subject line of all our messages. The pro-subject-line-list-name forces at eskimo hope eventually to convince the eskimo staff to get in and hack the listproc code so individual lists can turn the feature on and off. ....................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@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:34:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA07244; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:29:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:29:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: vtx: Hugo/Champion Experiment - Questions (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Reply to note of 03/30/96 21:28 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: vtx: Hugo/Champion Experiment - Questions John: Less than 100 grams of "Cathode" Less than 500 ml of "electrolyte" Less than 200 grams of dissolved consituents in the electrolyte. Visual examination of the "cathode" after three weeks of various levels of power input....evidences NO change. And, the electrolyte is CLEAR and not clouded. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:34:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA07693; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:32:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:32:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: conduction/polarization phenomena X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >From Bill Page's prior post: [snip] > >> Although, maybe >>the charge is carried downstream by the SO4- ions, and upstream by the H+ >>ions? Such a carge carrying mechanism could carry a pulse (current rise) >>at the speed of sound in water. >> > >No. Relatively speaking SO4- ions are almost immobile compared to the >H+. > >>The one thing I feel reasonably certain about is that all the proposed >>mechanisms involve nucleus motion, thus must be limited in propagation >>speed by a value near the speed of sound in water, about 1500 m/s. > >No, sorry, this is not true. The worst that is involved is the *rotation* >of the water molecule that is apparently needed in order to explain the >rate of H+ tunnelling from one H2O to the next H2O in the chain. It is >this aspect that is treated by non-quantum mechanical kinetics in the >current theory, the rest of the proton motion is described by quantum >mechanical tunnelling - aka. proton band states. > [snip] > >Cheers, >Bill Page. Thanks very much for the lengthy and really eye opening tuorial response. Wow! Low voltage induced proton tunneling - this sounds right up the CF alley! Could you suggest a book currently in print I could order that discusses this? Is your ICCF article online anywhere? Maybe it was discuused by the ICCF5 discussion group? I will requote my original posting here to clarify it and ask some questions: "To get a reality check, I built a "Stretched PPC", consisting of a 122.5 cm piece of 1/8" ID Tygon tubing fitted with barbed T connectors at the ends. Inside the tubing was 55 cm of .015" Pt wire, a 10 cm gap, and a 57.5 cm length of .033" nichrome wire. Roughly another 11 cm of wire extended beyond the 3 cm T's and through about 5 cm of additional tubing used to clamp the wire and make a seal. The 1 M Li2SO4 electrolyte flow rate was about .4 ml/s and 5 cm/s. With the fluid stopped and no voltage applied the cell created +.429 V at the Pt anode relative to the NiCr cathode. With fluid in motion from cathode toward anode the potential dropped to .416 V to .392 V. It appeared bubbles forming on the cathode increased the cell resistance. Cell current in mA was then measured with external power 3, 5, 7, and 11 Volts applied positively to the Pt anode, negatively to the NiCr casthode, with the electrolyte flowing forward (cathode toward anode), not flowing, and flowing in reverse. The results follow: V, Still, Flowing, Still, Reversed 3, 0.167, 0.28, 0.21, 0.29 5, 0.99, 1.06, 1.05, 1.07 7, 1.97, 2.04, 2.06, 2.04 9, 3.05, 3.05, 3.09, 3.08 11, 3.76, 3.99, 4.14, 4.09 ". (End Quote) I see I did not state that a drip degasser was in the circuit, for both the forward and reverse flow experiments. Also not stated was that the flow was reversed by exchanging the in and out tubes at the cell. The main question in my mind is how does the oxygen get to the anode when the electrolyte flow is toward the cathode? In regard to the cell operating with a reverse flow, it appears the current must be all carried by the suggested H+ exchanges. But if that is so, perhaps the O2 is manufactured at the anode by: 2(H2O) - 2(e-) -> O2 + 4(H+) In regard to pulse propagation, if you imagine all the charge carriers in a locality conected to each other by infinitely thin infinitely extendable springs that operate by the inverse square law you have a mental model for electric pulse wave propagation. The net spring tension on a particle is the local field gradient. If you push on one charge carrier it is displaced, thus changing the equilibrium of the spring network, causing a wave of force-change-thus-displacement's to occur throughout the network of masses connected by springs. From this mental model it is easy to calculate wave propagation times given masses and spring constants and extensions. It is also easy to understand other effects, like why pulses reflect from unterminated busses (or wires) for example. Having no understanding of the mechanism for pulse propagation in an electrolyte, I am at a loss to estimate the pulse propagation time. It seems like the ions must be very involved in pulse propagation, not just the protons and rotating H2O molecules. Because the ions have such a strong effect on conductivity it seems like they must be involved in the process inextricably. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:36:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA08194; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:34:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:34:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: conduction/polarization phenomena X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Oops! Another eqwuation out of balance due to last second adjustments. To quote: "The main question in my mind is how does the oxygen get to the anode when the electrolyte flow is toward the cathode? In regard to the cell operating with a reverse flow, it appears the current must be all carried by the suggested H+ exchanges. But if that is so, perhaps the O2 is manufactured at the anode by: 2(H2O) - 2(e-) -> O2 + 4(H+) " (End Quote) That should be: 2(H2O) - 4(e-) -> O2 + 4(H+) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:39:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA08913; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:38:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:38:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604021929.LAA27305@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Rothwell Hypotheses X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:24 PM 4/1/96 -0800, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >I thank Kirk for addressing some of the issues here. Now push has come to >shove. Now you are in for it! My daughters, who have been doing homework for >years know what happens when Dad Steps In To Help. They know what I say: > > Okay, it is time to roll up your sleeves and do some experiments. > snip > > "I will simply note that I do have lots of data, observations, and > tests, mainly supplied by Mr. Rothwell himself! Thank you!" > >No, you have practically nothing from me. Just a bare bones description and >two data readings. You need to make your own observations before you can spin >out all these complex hypotheses about the performance of the pump, circuit >impedance, K-Type thermocouples and all the rest. You cannot even begin to >address these issues with what I have told you. You do not have a handle on >the problem. You don't even know that glassware cools down quickly; you are >not sure whether you are claiming a 90% reduction or a 99.977% reduction; you >"don't know enough of the details to be sure" that a 0.21 ml flow is what you >have in mind; you have no idea how quickly K-Type thermocouples respond to >temperature changes; and you cannot suggest to us the proper way to check to >performance of the outlet TC. In short, you do not know enough about this >system to make intelligent hypotheses about it. You could learn, I am sure. >Anyone can. Just go to the hardware store and spend few weeks fiddling around >with water. > >By the way, in case anyone has any doubts about it, I have spent lots of time >fiddling around with calorimeters. In Gene Mallove's basement, among other >places. > >- Jed > Ahhh, what a decisively delicious tour de force. He rants with such steely-eyed rave. Bravo, bravo, bravo! ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:40:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09142; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:39:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:39:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Robert Park lecture bogus X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert L. Park gave his April fool's day lecture today. The title was "Bogus Science: Foolish, Fradulent and Phobic". Professor Park is the director of the Office of Public Information of the APS so he speaks as a member of the scientific establishment. The lecture was a big zero with no evidence given to disprove the bogus science. For his lead in he showed the ABC Good Morning America story of the PPC. His only agrument that the work was bogus was to state that it violated the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). He discussed the Joe Newman energy machine and dismissed it by citing the NBS (now NIST) study which showed it did not work and by pointing out that Joe still has the electric power lines going into his house. He then went on to discuss some other topics, like cancer from power lines, which are of no interest to energy creation theory. The only evidence presented was given after the lecture was over when Talbott Chubb got up and asked to present a view graph of some data from a Japanese lab. The moderator allowed this and the viewgraph was shown. It showed a mass spectrum of palladium that had been producing CF energy. There was a peak at mass 4 which was attributed to Helium. A mass spectrum of palladium which did not undergo CF was also shown and there was no mass 4 peak. So the only evidence shown at the lecture was in support of CF. This was a very bad lecture which had little relationship to science. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:41:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09301; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:40:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:40:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: re:Build a Joe Newman machine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I haven't received any response back from Joe Newman about posting the plans to his machine so I will not do that. Note that Joe is now going to sue Patterson for stealing his idea. The difference between the PPC and the Newman energy machine is a measure of Joe's thinking of what is sufficient cause to file a lawsuite. So I will stay away from this issue for now. I will say this though. If one wants to build a simple ou motor he could make a single pole Kawai motor. The rotor would just be a bar magnet and there would be a single field C electro magnet that would line up with the rotor magnet every 180 degrees. Joe will be including Kawai in his big lawsuite and I thing he might do a bit better there than with Patterson. Any further inquiries should be sent to me through direct e-mail and not through any news group. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 14:41:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09301; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:40:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:40:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: re:Build a Joe Newman machine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I haven't received any response back from Joe Newman about posting the plans to his machine so I will not do that. Note that Joe is now going to sue Patterson for stealing his idea. The difference between the PPC and the Newman energy machine is a measure of Joe's thinking of what is sufficient cause to file a lawsuite. So I will stay away from this issue for now. I will say this though. If one wants to build a simple ou motor he could make a single pole Kawai motor. The rotor would just be a bar magnet and there would be a single field C electro magnet that would line up with the rotor magnet every 180 degrees. Joe will be including Kawai in his big lawsuite and I thing he might do a bit better there than with Patterson. Any further inquiries should be sent to me through direct e-mail and not through any news group. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 02:54:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA10986; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:44:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:44:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: vtx: Someone other than CETI X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. wrote: > after I do some "housekeeping" I'm going to try to get some > local CF types to visit my house and AFFIRM the parameters on my data > measuring. Hey, I resemble that remark! -- - 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@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 02:59:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA11051; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:44:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:44:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: vtx: Kamada, Kinoshita also in ICCF5 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- From: Jed Rothwell [NOTE MANUALLY INSERTED 'VTX'] The info from this paper: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 35 (1996) pp. 738-747 Part 1, No. 2A, February 1996 "Anomalous Heat Evolution of Deuteron-Implanted Al upon Electron Bombardment" also appears in ICCF5, p. 41, same title. I'll bet the content is about the same. I like this paper for two reasons: 1. The evidence -- melted aluminium -- sticks around, unlike heat or neutrons. 2. They always get a reaction with deuterium and they never get a reaction with hydrogen. Horace Heffner writes: "Wow! Of course the obvious questions arise about data on concurrent neutron and xray spectra." Well, those issues are over my head. But I see no mention that they measured things like that here. There is a reference to an earlier paper by Kamada: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 31L189 (1992), which describes "particle emmission from implanted Al on the electron bombardment." They say the electron beam reactions may not have anything to do with these reactions: "The two reactions are not necessarily the same reaction at all," but what is interesting is that the beams have to be at about the same density ("fluence level"): 10^17 Deuterons / cm^2. When density changes 10% *more* or less, the effect goes away. So they say it is not simply caused by what Kamada calls "knocked on deuterons." Quote: "One of the prominent features of this phonomenon is that it was not due to the energy collisions between reacting particles." ("Knocked-on deuterons" is irresistable. Someone is going to have to finish this: Knock, knock! Who's there? Deuteron. Deuteron who? . . .) As it happens, next door to this paper on page 49 is Biberian's paper about Al CF: "Excess Heat Measurments in AlLaO3 Doped with Deuterium." - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 03:01:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA11097; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:45:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:45:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: vtx: Precleaning electrolyte X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- From: Jed Rothwell Bill Page commented: "I can imagine a pre-experiment stage, running the electrolyte through the cleaning cell for some period of time, then switching the flow to the test cell." That sounds like a good idea. Another technique used by Enyo and others is to run electolysis with a temporary Pt cathode for a week before installing the Pd electrode. I suppose many of the impurities in the electrolyte end up being galvanized onto the Pt electrode. On the other hand, perhaps new impurities leach out of it. Regarding the cleaning cell, I am not sure about carbon. I don't recall anyone using that. Cravens used a microfilter at ICCF5. That's like a microscopic sieve: just itty-bitty holes. It gets plugged up after extended use. I think I once read that the filters used in microbiology can actually filter out viruses, the holes are so small. They used to be something like unglazed pottery, I think. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 02:55:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA11170; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:45:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:45:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <31613528.26978555@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Losing "vtx" X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:26:04 -0800 (PST), Akira Kawasaki wrote: >You wrote: >> >> >>Unfortunately we lose the "vtx:" in the subject line. Listproc allows >>this feature to be turned on for *all* lists at eskimo.com, but not >>for individual lists, and right now we listowners are fighting between >>yes/no list title in the subject line. There are enough "yes" people >>that something will probably be done, but not as yet. >> >Why not an innocuous single letter that can be tolerated by eskimo.com? >At least, we can differentiate quickly between vortex e-mail and other >e-mail. > >-AK- > My mail program (Agent) is able to distinguish mail based on the contents of most of the important fields. Therefore, I simply look for vortex-l in the "to" field. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 02:58:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA11283; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:46:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:46:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: XRF analysis (moved to vortex-l) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Bill Page wrote: [...] > I have written to Bartolomeo and Fleischmann to try to obtain a > copy of their Ref 12, which is described only as "To be published", > however I did not receive any reply. So to my knowledge, it has > not yet been published. Dieter, perhaps you might be able to use > your influence to obtain a copy?? Ho ho, influence indeed. But I do get rumours that Toyota are at last closing down the Nice facility, which presumably would mean F&P will stop their work there. Maybe they will go on somewhere else, but that is what I heard. Who knows? Maybe they are moving into some production factory, to make water heaters by the thousands. {:] > > BTW: > > My favorite hypothesis these days is that the excess energy generation > my be due to a non-conservative phase change, i.e. a spontaneous > change in the structure of the metal lattice which results in the > non-energy conserving motion of the mobile protons due to the > quantum non-equilibrium distribution of the protons in the lattice > following the phase change. The beta to gamma phase change of Palladium > deuteride may be one such phase transition. I think I can show that > the non-conservative nature of the transition follows from Bohm's > treatment of the quantum potential, however the specific application of > the lattice symmetry conditions to the many-body wavefunction and thereby > the quantum potential is not at all obvious - work in progress. In one of the Goon Show series, Neddie Seagoon explains something in similar technical detail, and the old bloke (damn it, I forget his name, Min's hubbie) answers him at the end, very thoughtfully "It's not as simple as that...". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 05:50:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA01495; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 04:59:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 04:59:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: XRF analysis (moved to vortex-l) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Dieter Britz (i.e. I) wrote: > Ho ho, influence indeed. But I do get rumours that Toyota are at last closing > down the Nice facility, which presumably would mean F&P will stop their work Reading this, I note that it expresses something I didn't mean to say: the words "at last" read as if I have been waiting for this event. Sorry about that, I didn't mean it like that. Must be the Danish intruding into my English. I was trying to express the sense of "now" or "after all". I apologise for any blood that has been stirred by the former incorrect wording. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Wed Apr 3 05:57:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA01845; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 05:02:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 05:02:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <9604031153.AA20009@giasone.teseo.it> Reply-To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Subject: To all the components of vortex-l X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Please,has someone the e-mail of Jpn.J.Appl.Phys. ? Thank you. Elio Conte --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 10:54:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA02250; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:35:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:35:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Kamada, Kinoshita also in ICCF5 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >--- FORWARDED --- > >From: Jed Rothwell > >[NOTE MANUALLY INSERTED 'VTX'] > >The info from this paper: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 35 (1996) pp. 738-747 Part >1, No. 2A, February 1996 "Anomalous Heat Evolution of Deuteron-Implanted Al >upon Electron Bombardment" also appears in ICCF5, p. 41, same title. I'll bet >the content is about the same. I like this paper for two reasons: > >1. The evidence -- melted aluminium -- sticks around, unlike heat or > neutrons. > >2. They always get a reaction with deuterium and they never get a reaction > with hydrogen. > Is there any mention of how the Al foil was loaded? You seem to imply there were two concuurent beams > >Well, those issues are over my head. But I see no mention that they measured >things like that here. There is a reference to an earlier paper by Kamada: The reason for asking was to ascertain if there are signatures of D + D fusion (i.e. gamma & neutrons at right energies) or possibly some indication of e + D -> nn -> n + n (without the signature high energy gammas), possibly adding some credence to Elio Conte's theory, or other electron capture theories. >Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 31L189 (1992), which describes "particle emmission from >implanted Al on the electron bombardment." They say the electron beam >reactions may not have anything to do with these reactions: "The two reactions >are not necessarily the same reaction at all," but what is interesting is that >the beams have to be at about the same density ("fluence level"): 10^17 Uh, what other beam? A deuteron beam in the 1992 experiment at about the same energy level, 175 keV? Does it mention the method of loading the Al in the 1996 article? >Deuterons / cm^2. When density changes 10% *more* or less, the effect goes >away. So they say it is not simply caused by what Kamada calls "knocked on >deuterons." Quote: "One of the prominent features of this phonomenon is that >it was not due to the energy collisions between reacting particles." > >("Knocked-on deuterons" is irresistable. Someone is going to have to finish >this: Knock, knock! Who's there? Deuteron. Deuteron who? . . .) Deuteronayou, Deuteronomy! 8^) > >As it happens, next door to this paper on page 49 is Biberian's paper about Al >CF: "Excess Heat Measurments in AlLaO3 Doped with Deuterium." > > >- Jed Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 16:45:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01838; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:26:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:26:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604031944.OAA15459@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Kamada, Kinoshita also in ICCF5 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > [Jed wrote:] >>1. The evidence -- melted aluminium -- sticks around, unlike heat or >> neutrons. >> >>2. They always get a reaction with deuterium and they never get a reaction >> with hydrogen. [Actually, Jed, this is not exactly what he stated in the articles. He does observe charged particle emmissions from both hydrogen and deuterium implanted foils, but only observes the high temperature phase transformation in the D implanted ones.] >> >Is there any mention of how the Al foil was loaded? You seem to imply >there were two concuurent beams Hydrogen/Deuterium ion beam implantation for loading, then an electron beam (in a separate device) to initiate the observed reaction. > ... >Does it mention the method of loading the Al in the 1996 article? > Yes, the same ion beam implantation method. If you're keen, I might be persuaded to send you a fax of one or more of Kamada's articles. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 23:35:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA02275; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:28:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:28:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604031948.OAA15481@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Super-stretch cell conductivity results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > >EM waves in wires are propagated via electrons in metal conduction bands. >Since the proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron, it seems like a >propagation mechanism involving the proton would be limited to C/1836 = >1.63x10^5 m/s, unfortunately very close to, but outside, the resolution of >this experiment. It would be good to repeat the experiment using a two >channel digital oscilloscope. > No, it is the electomagnetic field that travels at (approximately) the speed of light. This has nothing to do with the mass of the charge carriers. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 16:43:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA02325; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:28:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:28:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604031936.OAA15410@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: conduction/polarization phenomena X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > ... >Wow! Low voltage induced proton tunneling - this sounds right up the CF >alley! Proton tunnelling in hydrogen bonded materials is not at all surprizing. In fact, one might even be tempted to say that it is the most fundamental process in all living systems (where hydrogen bonds are of enormous importance). It is not the "low voltage" that induces the proton tunnelling - such motion is inherent in a quantum mechanical description of these molecular structures. [Note: "tunnelling" refers to the possibility as described in quantum mechanics for a particle having insufficient energy (from a classical perspective) to none the less have a finite probability of passing through a potential barrier of greater energy.] In itself, I don't think this has direct relevance to whatever may be "up the CF alley". > Could you suggest a book currently in print I could order that >discusses this? Yes. I am quite sure that the book "Modern Electrochemistry" J. O'M. Bockris and A,K.N. Reddy, volumes 1 and 2, Plenum Press, 1973, is still available at most large university book stores and libraries [I bought my paperback $27.50/volume edition at the MIT Co-op bookstore in 1993.]. Almost all the chapters of volume 1 are relevant to your questions. See especially Chapter 4 "Ion Transport in Solutions" and Chapter 5 "Protons in Solution". There are also an enormous number of papers (both old and some new) devoted to the subject of proton motion in aqueous solutions. If you really get into this subject, I could post a list of what I think are some recent significant papers. >Is your ICCF article online anywhere? Maybe it was discuused by the ICCF5 >discussion group? Yes, that's right. Check out URL: http:\\xfactor.wpi.edu:8080\iccf5.html although, aside from my presentation of the ideas, there was not really much discussion about it. The online version of the paper is a slightly earlier but more complete version of what was eventually published in the ICCF5 proceedings. > >I will requote my original posting here to clarify it and ask some questions: > ... >The main question in my mind is how does the oxygen get to the anode when >the electrolyte flow is toward the cathode? The oxygen is already at the anode, in the solution in direct contact with the electrode. The OH- ions give up their extra electrons to the anode (as part of the electron circuit), the H+ goes to feed the H3O+ "pipeline" (as part of the proton circuit) and the O bubbles out as O2. > >In regard to the cell operating with a reverse flow, it appears the current >must be all carried by the suggested H+ exchanges. But if that is so, >perhaps the O2 is manufactured at the anode by: > > 2(H2O) - 4(e-) -> O2 + 4(H+) > [Noting your posted correction of - 4(e-).] No, I don't think this occurs in this type of cell, but what you have written is (almost) the reverse of the so called Oxygen-electronation reaction O2 + 4(H+) + 4(e-) -> 2(H2O) which is the basis for the hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell [Ref: Bockris & Reddy, volume 2, page 1251]. >... >It seems like the ions must be very involved in pulse propagation, not just >the protons and rotating H2O molecules. Because the ions have such a >strong effect on conductivity it seems like they must be involved in the >process inextricably. > For the most part, the other ions act only as "dopants" freeing the OH- and H3O+ ions to serve as charge carriers (much like holes and electrons, respectively, in a semi-conductor). Come to think of it... It is very interesting to note that Arsenic is a semi-conductor dopant that in Silicon produces an excess of electrons (n-type semi-conductor), while Aluminum as a dopant produces an excess of holes (p-type semi-conductor). Both of these elements have been used (separately) as additives in "CF" experiments to increase Hydrogen loading in Palladium. Could it be that the surface of the Palladium cathode might have some of the properties of an intrinsic semi-conductor and that is what makes these additives so surface active? Such a theory would go beyond the simple "suface blocking" model to which Dieter has referred. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 4 00:00:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA02341; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:28:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:28:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <960403204337_100433.1541_BHG96-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: His name was Crun - Henry Crun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: to:Vortex;internet:britz@kemi.aau.dk Dieter writes: "In one of the Goon Show series, Neddie Seagoon explains something in similar technical detail, and the old bloke (damn it, I forget his name, Min's hubbie) answers him at the end, very thoughtfully "It's not as simple as that..."." The old bloke was Henry Crun. I'm not sure, but I suspect that he was not married to the delectable Minnie Bannister. Maybe they were just living in sin..... Very daring for its time, the Goon Show. Do you recall the Dance Of The Seven Army Surplus Blankets? And the Street Of A Thousand Households? On a more trivial matter: "But I do get rumours that Toyota are at last closing down the Nice facility, which presumably would mean F&P will stop their work there." Well, my position on such matters is well-enough known here. This would hardly surprise me. But I love rumours, they are often much more accurate than the "pravda" - the "official truth". Isn't it splendid how Russian has two quite different words for 'truth'. To come to the point, what rumours? Plural, eh? Where from? Come on, Dieter, you can tell your old buddy Chris, eh? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 4 00:25:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA02351; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:28:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:28:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Super-stretch cell conductivity results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thanks all that have input regarding charge propagation. Please bear with me on this because hopefully going through this thought process of explaining how things work to an amateur will result in some better cell designs. Here is yet another challenge to correct me where I am wrong and thus teach: Electric field (voltage) propagation can momentarily be done via electromagnetic waves, but not without an immediate reverse response a half cycle later at the broadcast frequency. There is no way for an EM wave to carry forward a DC voltage. EM waves come and go, reflect and interfere, etc., at their own frequency. The electric field produced can propagate in a vacuum, and thus must alternate from electric to magnetic field to survive. An electromotive force (EMF) dispurses it's full potential throughout a conductor, provided that potential is not sapped along the way by heat generating resistance. But, E=R*I^2, so if there is no currrent, there is no energy loss, the full potential is delivered throughout the conductor (at least the outsides of the conductor.) This potential is the same potential as at the source. It is not a field from the source, because electric fields obey the inverse square law. You could not convey the full EMF by this method, beacuse a 6 V battery could not project it's field at any significant strength over hundreds of feet, much less miles as has been done in telegraphy. A sustained change EMF must be the result of charge motion. To create a sustained increase in EMF at the end of a wire by applying an EMF to the front of the wire, work must be done on the charges in the wire to "compress" them, i.e. increase the constant forces between each charge and it's neighbors. Conveying the charge though the wire therefore takes force*distance work, the charges must be moved against their own repulsive forces to "compress" them and thus raise the potential of the wire. This fact is seldom thought about practically because the work done is very small to propagate the charge. The nature of the work is exactly the same as charging a capacitor, because the wire is a capacitor, just like an isolated sphere is a capacitor (you don't need to have two plates to form a capacitor, the universe acts as the other plate.) A sphere, for example has a capacitance C = (0.556x10^-12 F/cm) d, where d is the diameter. The work to charge such a capacitor to electrolysis voltages is seldom significant. Electolytes must act similar to conductors in all the above, except both posistive and negative charges are free to move, and their masses are significantly different from the electrons, and there is more resistance to their motion. The important point is that for DC voltage propagation to occur, charges must move. The more charges per unit volume, the less distance the average charge must move to propagate and stabilize a voltage from the source, but, unless instantaneous tunneling is involved, the speed of propagation of the EMF is dependent on the mass associated with the charges that must move to propagate that EMF. The field strength change due to the motion of a single charge is an EM wave, which propagates at the speed of light *between* the charges. However the effect of a single particle field change drops rapidly with distance. Completed propagation of the EMF field strength change requires the motion of adjacent particles. The more ions per unit volume, the closer the average ion distance, the stronger the force, the faster the propagation, and the larger the amount of energy that can be carried by a charge propagation wavefront, thus the larger the current, the less the resistance. The heavier the ions, the slower the propagation. During transport, no reactions need occur. The only thing important is the availability of ions to carry the EMF from one electrode to the vicinity of the other to establish a field gradient to do the chemical work at the electrode surface and near vicinity. Chemically active products or ions created as a result of actions at the electrode can then diffuse or be driven throuh the electrolyte until finding candidates for a reaction not dependant on the presence of an external electric field or electrons. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 4 03:19:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08437; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:27:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:27:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: conduction/polarization phenomena X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page wrote (in addition to lots of much appreciated info): >Come to think of it... > >It is very interesting to note that Arsenic is a semi-conductor dopant >that in Silicon produces an excess of electrons (n-type semi-conductor), >while Aluminum as a dopant produces an excess of holes (p-type >semi-conductor). Both of these elements have been used (separately) >as additives in "CF" experiments to increase Hydrogen loading in >Palladium. Could it be that the surface of the Palladium cathode might >have some of the properties of an intrinsic semi-conductor and that is >what makes these additives so surface active? > >Such a theory would go beyond the simple "suface blocking" model to >which Dieter has referred. > >Cheers, >Bill Page. Just noticed that AL is cubic, face centered, it's bond length 2.8630 A not too far from Pd, 2.7511 A, but further from Ni, 2.4916 A. Also noticed arseninc antimony, and bismuth are all rhombohedral. Maybe Sb or Bi would work as a dopant as well as As? At least they aren't as toxic. Maybe it would be possible to plate a little Al and Sb or Bi into the Pd layer while it is being built, or even ion implant them. Also, as I have said many times, but probably will never be able to get a license to do, it would be a good idea to try a strong beta emitter in there also. The Kamada results just add one more weight to the notion of third body precipitated Bose condensate waveform collapse. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 4 03:16:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08504; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:27:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:27:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Can I put out an unsolicited recommendation? (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- --- On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:43:22 -0800 (PST) Michael Win 3.11/Dos 6.22 on a 486 system with lots of ram. I stabilized it. Under no circumstances would I attempt to get it running under Win95. Win95 sucks turds when it comes to memmory management. Win 3.11/Dos 6.22 ironically is a more mature environment. -----------------End of Original Message----------------- Dear vortex, Just a few comments. I have written a number of programs for aquiring data and control. After years of dealing with these types of programs I must agree with Mike. Win95 is a poor choice for scientific data handling. When I run MS windows, I always use NT 3.51 (soon to be 4.0). LabVIEW is a nice product for the price, In my mind the most bang for buck. For simple get up and run fast and cheap, it cannot be beat. If you want a system that will not crash, and do not want to upgrade your hardware to run NT, there are several mutitasking 32 bit DOS operating systems out there. This was my salvation for the satellite tracking and control systems I developed. One system near the north pole has been on line for three years now without a glitch. I buy primitives and GUI modules from a company in Atlanta. I use these for simple instrument control and data gathering in the lab as well as complex systems in the field. Robert ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 4/3/96 Time: 10:21:11 AM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 4 03:10:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08569; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:28:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:28:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604040447.WAA28573@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: bead report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The latest batch of beads, the ones that were notable because the coating didn't split open, have reached new heights of durability! Over the weekend I had the electrolysis current off, trying to calibrate the NLC part of my dual-method calorimeter. Monday, I turned it back on (with the same batch of good beads) and raised the current to 50mA (it had been at 20mA since the beginning). It ran at 50mA over Monday night and then Tuesday, I raised the current to 100mA. It ran all Tuesday night at 100mA and this morning (Wed) the beads were still in perfect shape. No sign of excess heat during all of this! Present sensitivity is +/- 0.1 watt and typical electrolysis input power is about .1 or .2 watts. If my cell suddenly started producing 2-5 watts as has been reported for "small" Patterson cells, my delta-T traces would quit dribbling around zero and would shoot right off scale! In other words, I'm not just missing it. On the "to do" list: Try doping electrolyte with As. Try conditioning a new batch of beads by cycling temp, then test in cell. A number of improvements to the new calorimeter (better enclosure insulation, low-temperature heaters, etc.) - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 4 03:34:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA16481; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:36:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:36:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604040817.AAA17416@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Kamada, Kinoshita also in ICCF5 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 04:26 PM 4/3/96 -0800, you wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: > >> [Jed wrote:] >>>1. The evidence -- melted aluminium -- sticks around, unlike heat or >>> neutrons. >>> >>>2. They always get a reaction with deuterium and they never get a reaction >>> with hydrogen. > >[Actually, Jed, this is not exactly what he stated in the articles. He >does observe charged particle emmissions from both hydrogen and deuterium >implanted foils, but only observes the high temperature phase transformation >in the D implanted ones.] > >>> >>Is there any mention of how the Al foil was loaded? You seem to imply >>there were two concuurent beams > >Hydrogen/Deuterium ion beam implantation for loading, then an electron >beam (in a separate device) to initiate the observed reaction. > >> ... >>Does it mention the method of loading the Al in the 1996 article? >> > >Yes, the same ion beam implantation method. > >If you're keen, I might be persuaded to send you a fax of one >or more of Kamada's articles. > >Cheers, >Bill Page. > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 4 03:34:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA16636; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:37:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:37:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: If your mail bounces... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The "unknown mailer error" is a new eskimo.com bug that has something to do with heavy CPU load. It happens randomly, but usually around early evening Seattle time. For now, if you get bounces and error messages, just send the message again and it will usually go through. IT`S ALWAYS SOMETHING! ....................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@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:31:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA28336; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 03:17:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 03:17:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <828615192.14561.0@survival.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Bill Wright To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: The Muller GenMotor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Michael said, > > >> Apparantly, Bill Muller's work is the base from which the > >> Takahashi and the > Kawai magnetic motors were developed. This is my observation, based > on issues of timing and the interpretation of events from the mid > 1980's. << > > Have you included the works of Adams and Aspden in your analysis? > From my own investigations, together with Chris Tinsley and Morriss, > this subject has been done to death over the last few years, with no > satisfactory ou conclusion. > > Where is Muller located and what are his credentials? If I should > know him by repute I apologize in advance. > > Norman. > > P.S. I will use vortex-l this time! > Just to follow up this article. I would be very interested to learn more about the work of Bill Muller, Takahashi, Kawai, Adams and Aspden. I have built an Adams Motor Generator and am now starting to test it out. Can anyone tell me what might be the expected out from such devices. Any help, hints and tips would be greatly valued. Many thanks Bill Bill Wright London England E-Mail bill@survival.demon.co.uk From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:27:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA28428; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 03:18:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 03:18:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Can I put out an unsolicited recommendation? (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >If you want a system that will not crash, and do not want >to upgrade your hardware to run NT, there are several >mutitasking 32 bit DOS operating systems out there. >This was my salvation for the satellite tracking and >control systems I developed. One system near the north >pole has been on line for three years now without a >glitch. I buy primitives and GUI modules from a company in >Atlanta. I use these for simple instrument control and >data gathering in the lab as well as complex systems in >the field. > >Robert > What operating systm was it, linux? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:33:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23258; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 06:25:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 06:25:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604041407.JAA27162@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conduction in H2O (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com wrote: > ... >Conduction in Li2SO4 solution at near neutral ph, as in a PPC, is more >complex. In the bulk solution the Li+ and SO4-- ought to carry essentially >all of the current, because the concentrations of H+ and OH- are simply so >much smaller, yet all ions are subject to the same electric field. My understanding is that exactly the opposite is the case. > >At electrodes, electrons are given to or taken from H+ and OH- in the >water, at least according to the electrochemistry I have read and Deiter's >discussions on this list. I am not at all expert in electrochemistry, but >the following is what I surmise then follows: At the cathode the negative >charge of the OH- product repells SO4-- from and attracts Li+ into a layer >in front of the electrode. At the anode the H+ produced repells Li+ and >attracts SO4--. Therefore, we have an OH- "cushion" layer pushing SO4-- >ahead of it away from the cathode and an H+ layer pushing Li+ away from the >anode. Given enough time the OH- and H+ meet somewhere in mid path and >recombine back into H2O. This ion displacement is indeed a slow process, >depending as it does on the ion drift speed, which is on the order of 10^-3 >cm/s in 1 M solution for 0.1 A/cm^2. Even the slow electrolyte flow in >Patterson cell flows is much more rapid. However, this only affects >details; for example, the H+ and OH- recombination will occur when the ions >mix in the cell exit, instead of between the electrodes. > Again, my understanding of the role of the SO4-- and Li+ ions is that they are very little involved in the overall conductivity of the electrolysis cell. Could we discuss specific references to experimental results here? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:38:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18348; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:21:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:21:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604041452.JAA27350@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Neddie's excess energy hypothesis X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Henry Crun wrote: > ... >Neddie Seagoon wrote: >> ... >>My favorite hypothesis these days is that the excess energy generation >>my be due to a non-conservative phase change, i.e. a spontaneous >>change in the structure of the metal lattice which results in the >>non-energy conserving motion of the mobile protons due to the >>quantum non-equilibrium distribution of the protons in the lattice >>following the phase change. The beta to gamma phase change of Palladium >>deuteride may be one such phase transition. I think I can show that >>the non-conservative nature of the transition follows from Bohm's >>treatment of the quantum potential, however the specific application of >>the lattice symmetry conditions to the many-body wavefunction and thereby >>the quantum potential is not at all obvious - work in progress. > > It's not as simple as that... I suppose its up to me to try to explain what Neddie meant. First of all, you have to realize the Neddie has been studying David Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics for some time now. His mind is focused on the notion that quantum mechanics can be understood in a quite concrete and intuitive way if we admit the existence of *both* particles and wavefunctions. Particles have well defined, although difficult to measure, exact positions at all times. The wavefunction acts like a real physical force field affecting the particle motions and evolves according to the usual equations of quantum mechanics. One of the peculiar features of Bohm's interpretation, is that all of the predictions of the usual approach to quantum mechanics are exactly reproduced in his formulation *provided* you start by assuming that the particles are statistically distributed according to the probability density defined by rho = |psi|^2 If this is true at the being, then the detailed equations of motion of the particles guarrantee that it will be true at all times later. This is what is known as the "quantum equilibrium" hypothesis. As long as this remains true, then nothing more surprizing than just regular quantum mechanics (which in itself is often quite surprizing) will occur. BUT, consider that Bohm's equations are only accurate in the non- relativistic limit (slow velocities). Suppose that something happens, say in a crystal lattice, for example, that very rapidly and coherently changes the configuration of the potential energy. If this is sufficiently rapid, then the particle distribution will not have time to react. Now we have a situation in which the quantum equilibrium has been disturbed - not too different from a system that is not in thermo- dynamic equilibrium. Bohm's equations of motion of the particles will, however, after some period of time and numerous interactions, act to bring the system back into quantum equilibrium. But in the process, energy conservation is violated! Now, Neddie tells me that if the violation of the law of conservation of energy is too much for you to swallow, you may wish to extend Bohm's model to explain that the action of the wavefunction on the motion of the particles (i.e. the quantum potential) can be thought of as the result of the interaction of the particle with a zero point field (ZPF) just as in the theories of Puthoff et al. Where Neddie is having trouble is that detailed calculations require being able to deal with the full time varying many-body wavefunction which describes the quantum state of a hydrogen/deuterium loaded metal lattice, without making very many of the approximations that are so often necessary in quantum mechanics. The only really successful techniques for doing this depend heavily on taking account of the symmetries of the lattice which are necessarily reflected as symmetries in the many-body wavefuntion. During a phase transition in a crystal, these symmetries change in a discontinuous manner. But Neddie has apparently not spent enough time in school lately, [or perhaps he didn't pay close enough attention when is was!] so it will probably take him some time to work this all out in enough detail to convince anyone else. [But, of course, I am a special case, and tend to believe Neddie more often than I should...] Perhaps Henry can tell us where he thinks the additional complications lie. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:35:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18733; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:23:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:23:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: bead sharp edges X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hang in there you null result PPC people. The effect is so large that you should be getting something as soon as you figure out what you are doing wrong. Just a suggestion here. The effect of a very high electric is essential to my theory and I think it should be considered. Dieter Britz said that he was afraid to mention the high electric field in electrochemical cells as it might cause an excessive promotion of new bogus theories. For myself Dieter was too late as I have already been using the high electric field. The electric field, E, is on the order of: E = V / D with V the electrolysis potential and D the Debye legnth. Estimating D as about 10 nm and V as 1 volt, we have E about 10^8 volts/meter. This field would only exist at the surface of the cathode. It is very high but still not high enough to cause some of the effects in my theory. The only way to increase E is to have small cracks or flakes with sharp edges protruding out from the cathode. If these sharp edges are on the order of or smaller then D then E would be increased. With D about 10**(-8) meters or 100 A these edges must be very sharp. The new CETI specs for coating on the order of 100 A makes sense for this theory. If some flake edges came off and protruded into the electrolyte they would be sharp enough to cause a big increase in the electric field. That is something that I think is worth trying: very small coatings (around 100 A) which could be subjected to micro flaking. The Ni, Pd layers are good for that as the Pd would probably expand more than the Ni causing the Ni to crack. The cracking may be necessary. Mabey the plastic core expands more than glass does and a bead material that will expand more is needed to cause more coating fractures. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:27:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18857; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:23:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:23:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604041838.MAA00133@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: The Muller GenMotor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:17 4/4/96 -0800, Bill Wright wrote: >I have built an Adams Motor Generator and am now starting to test it >out. Can anyone tell me what might be the expected out from such >devices. Nominally, the desired result is more mechanical power produced by the motor than electrical power consumed. You need to cobble up some kind of dyamometer to measure the mechanical output power and you need some decent electronic gear to measure the electrical input power accurately. If you would like suggested designs/arrangements for each of these measuring systems, I would be glad to elaborate...if you will provide a reasonably complete description of what you've built. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 4 11:36:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA19042; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:24:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:24:56 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604041857.KAA18118@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: The Muller GenMotor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:17 AM 4/4/96 -0800, you wrote: >> Michael said, >> >> >> Apparantly, Bill Muller's work is the base from which the >> >> Takahashi and the >> Kawai magnetic motors were developed. This is my observation, based >> on issues of timing and the interpretation of events from the mid >> 1980's. << >> >> Have you included the works of Adams and Aspden in your analysis? >> From my own investigations, together with Chris Tinsley and Morriss, >> this subject has been done to death over the last few years, with no >> satisfactory ou conclusion. >> >> Where is Muller located and what are his credentials? If I should >> know him by repute I apologize in advance. >> >> Norman. >> >> P.S. I will use vortex-l this time! >> > > >Just to follow up this article. > >I would be very interested to learn more about the work of Bill >Muller, Takahashi, Kawai, Adams and Aspden. > >I have built an Adams Motor Generator and am now starting to test it >out. Can anyone tell me what might be the expected out from such >devices. Any help, hints and tips would be greatly valued. > >Many thanks > >Bill > > >Bill Wright >London >England > >E-Mail bill@survival.demon.co.uk > > I am definitely not ignoring you guys. I am in the midst of reviewing and scanning in a lot of Muller material for the generation of digital data...am constructing a website for Muller and will post the material in a week or so. I will ask Muller specifically about Adams and Aspden. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:26:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA17088; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:42:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:42:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604042040.OAA10419@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: bead sharp edges X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:23 4/4/96 -0800, Larry wrote: >Hang in there you null result PPC people. >The cracking may be necessary. I've been working on making it NOT crack. Before I figured out how, I ran several batches for long periods after they'd cracked...and got nothing. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:36:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA17408; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:44:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:44:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neddie's excess energy hypothesis X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >Where Neddie is having trouble is that detailed calculations >require being able to deal with the full time varying many-body >wavefunction which describes the quantum state of a >hydrogen/deuterium loaded metal lattice, without making very many >of the approximations that are so often necessary in quantum >mechanics. The only really successful techniques for doing this >depend heavily on taking account of the symmetries of the lattice >which are necessarily reflected as symmetries in the many-body >wavefuntion. During a phase transition in a crystal, these >symmetries change in a discontinuous manner. But Neddie has >apparently not spent enough time in school lately, [or perhaps he >didn't pay close enough attention when is was!] so it will probably >take him some time to work this all out in enough detail to convince >anyone else. > >[But, of course, I am a special case, and tend to believe Neddie >more often than I should...] > >Perhaps Henry can tell us where he thinks the additional complications >lie. > >Cheers, >Bill Page. I am curious to ask to which "phase transition in a crystal" you refer? Perhaps it is a loading phase, or do you mean like the crystal melting, as in the Kamada experiment? I envy your ability to attack this problem quantitatively, and am aware that I am way out of my league in this newsgroup, but maybe a few questions will help stir this pot. There are many experiments that indicate wavefunctions can collapse, e.g. large photons from distant stars, tunneling electrons, etc., instantly changing the center of mass *and* psi^2 distribution. This implies that under certain conditions, matter can move at faster than light speed, thus momentarily suspending conservation of energy, because under any other circumstances acceleration beyond light speed would require an infinite amount of energy. However this borrowed infinite energy is compensated for by making the term of the load 0 time. Now 0/0 is undefined, and thus this phenomenon appears to me to be out of the world of analysis and in the world of experiment for the time being, at least I have not seen any theories of the mechanics of wavefunction collapse, or wavefunction collapse simulations. Such things, if they exist, must occur in other unsensable dimensions in 0 time. If you conceive of a non-conserving paradox in a relativistic environment, and you create such an environment, nature may respond by collapsing a wavefunction to eliminate the paradox, moving one or more of the masses out of pardoxical harm's way. Maybe the trick is to contrive a situation that leaves only one door open for such a collapse, a mass to energy converting door, like fusion, or a mass creation door, like photon emission. The question is if the mass cloud can not respond, and energy is violated, and energy is created at the location, how is it manifested? Personally, I like the notion of a two particle Einstein Bose Condensate being disturbed by a high energy electron. This creates the paradox that, viewed from the electron, the particles must have the same center of mass, but small deviation psi^2 function. It seems like a wave function collapse of the EBC on the electron would tend to produce a sudden tunneling of one constituant to the other's location. You might get a skew toward a reaction like D + D + e- -> He3 + P + e- + nu, with most of energy going to the neutrino and the electron, or maybe, since the coulomb barrier was overcome to some extent, no fusion, but the sudden explosive departing of the two D's, distributing .5 MeV between the D's and the e-. The e- is then free to go on creating havoc, and the D's free to disrupt the lattice, thus creating a massive shower of energetic electrons inside the lattice to continue the process. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:36:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA17451; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:44:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:44:13 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <960405023503_72240.1256_EHB136-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: vtx: New Japanese data shows over-unity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex April 4, 1996 This evening Akira Kawasaki faxed me some data from the FIELD company in Japan which I have never seen before. This is for two tests of the Yusmar device: 1. October 4, 1995 at Asahi Industrial Electric Corp (Asahi Denki Kogyo K.K), showing a C.O.P. of approximately 211% for the first hour 2. October 6, 1995 at FIELD Company, showing a C.O.P. of 164% for the first hour, trailing off slightly during the next hour. These are two tables of temperature readings taken every 5 minutes. Peter Gluck faxed this to Akira, who translated the headings, data labels and whatnot and faxed them to me along with the originals. The results look unequivocal to me. Why would these people see such dramatic results and then ignore them? This Yusmar story grows more and more baffling. Maybe Akira should talk to them. This is the craziest thing I have ever seen. Let me describe the data. Two tests were performed with all equipment fully submerged in a tank, including the Yusmar and pump. The Yusmar circulates the water from the tank. Temperature and flow rate are read on meters installed outside the tank. This is done by by having the outlet pipe from the Yusmar go connectors in the tank wall, out of the tank, straight up for 400 cm, right- face, and back into the tank. The thermometer and flowmeter is installed on that 400 cm section of pipe just outside the tank. There is no by-pass pipe fitted on the Yusmar. At least, none is shown on this sketch. With this configuration you would expect to recover nearly all of the input heat. It is measured by watching the temperature rise in the total mass of water in the tank. Summary of Test 1, at Asahi Denki: Input is 380 volts, 11.5 amps. They do not list power, so I estimated it at 3.60 KW (as explained below). 3.60 KW = 216 KJ/min = 51.4 KCal/min or 3086 KCal/hour The mass of water is 300 l Starting time 11:55 a.m., starting temperature 23.5 deg C The test went for 95 minutes but I pegged it at 12:55, minute 60, where the temperature was 45.2 deg C. Temperature rise: 45.2-23.5=21.7 deg C 21.7 deg C * 300 l = 6510 KCal 6510 / 3086 = 211% C.O.P. Summary of Test 2, at FIELD Corp: Input is 380 volts, 7.5 amps. Motor power is listed this time, at 2.35 KW. Going back to test 1, I figured that the amperage is 1.53 times greater and voltage is the same, so I figured the power for Test 1 should be 2.35*1.53 Anyway, 2.35 KW = 141 KJ/min = 33.57 KCal/min or 2014 KCal/hour The mass of water is 150 l this time Starting time 13:55 a.m., starting temperature 30.0 deg C The test went for 170 minutes but I pegged it at 14:55, minute 60, where the temperature was 52.0 deg C. Temperature rise: 52.0-30.0=22.0 deg C 22.0 deg C * 150 l = 3300 KCal 3300 / 2014 = 164% C.O.P. For the next hour, the temperature rise is 20.5 deg C, instead of 22.0 deg C. Obviously this is because the water is hotter and more heat is lost from the tank. Well, there you have it . . . I don't know what to make of it. This is the first independent test of the Yusmar that I have seen that shows clear evidence of excess heat. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 4 23:50:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29681; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:07:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:07:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <960405033453_72240.1256_EHB82-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: vtx: Cracked beads don't work X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Larry wrote: "The cracking may be necessary." Scott responded: "I've been working on making it NOT crack." I believe that is the correct thing to do. By all accounts from Patterson, Cravens and Miley, cracking, flaking and other physical damage to the beads will prevent the reaction from occuring, or quench it if the damage occurs after the heat turns on. Storms and many others have shown that Pd-D CF also depends on the structual integrity of the cathode. This is critical. Cracking, swelling, discoloration, skin oil dirt and gunk will kill the cells. My impression is that Ni is somewhat more robust than Pd, but still it must be kept as clean and free of damage as possible. Scott adds: "Before I figured out how, I ran several batches for long periods after they'd cracked...and got nothing." You may get nothing now, for some other reason (which I could not guess). Patterson got nothing for many years. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:29:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01033; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:39:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:39:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604050424.WAA13816@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: peristaltic pump power X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mainly of interest to Horace, who is using the same pump as I: I measured the req'd torque to turn the peristaltic pump I'm using today (with zero head). In the pump was a well-used (i.e. broken-in) piece of the black Norprene tubing. 60 grams of force on an arm 5.12" long turned the pump shaft. This is .077 newton-meters. At 30 rpm, which is the speed of my sync gearmotor, the pump is absorbing 0.24 watts of mechanical power, virtually all of which is dissipated as heat in the tubing, some of which is thus added to the liquid being pumped. ..just another indispensable fact from EarthTech International! - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:27:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01481; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:44:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:44:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604050428.WAA14051@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: New Japanese data shows over-unity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:44 PM 4/4/96 -0800, Jed wrote: >Why would these people see such dramatic results and then ignore them? This >Yusmar story grows more and more baffling. Maybe Akira should talk to them. >This is the craziest thing I have ever seen. Puthoff & I have got a workable communication going with Field Co. now. We will certainly ask them about these "October" results. We'll announce on Vortex what they have to say. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:29:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01609; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:45:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:45:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604050515.XAA17247@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: more facts X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Recently, I set my lab slave...er, assistant...to the task of measuring the specific heat of 2M Li2SO4 solution. With a bit of coaching, he devised an apparatus and procedure which returns 4.19 +/- 0.04 j/gm*K (i.e. 1% relative measurement precision) on pure water. He got an average of 3.53 j/gm*K on carefully prepared 2M Li2SO4 (2.000 gm-mol-wts of Li2SO4 in 1.00 liter of solution...not 1.00 liters of H2O). We also measured the specific gravity of that soln (using a 50ml volumetric flask and a decent balance) and got 1.17 gm/ml. For those of us using flow calorimetry, a useful value is the heat required to raise 1ml of the soln 1K. This works out to 4.13 j/ml*K...quite close to water's value. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:27:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01781; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:46:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:46:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: New Japanese data shows over-unity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > > >Well, there you have it . . . I don't know what to make of it. This is the >first independent test of the Yusmar that I have seen that shows clear >evidence of excess heat. > >- Jed Is the current given possibly for just one phase of a 3 phase supply? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:38:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01928; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:47:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:47:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: COLD FUSION TIMES is in error (from s.p.f) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The following was posted March 24: >-------------------- >Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) >Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion >Subject: COLD FUSION TIMES is in error >Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 15:35:19 GMT >Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway > >Mitchell Swartz in advertising his Cold Fusion Times claims that >"Bose-Einstein condensation may explain cold fusion." That notion >has been challenged repeatedly, and the advocates of such theories >have never responded to the challenges. Simply stated, there is >no theory for cold fusion that is in accord with the experimental >claims. > >We should first note that in order to have a Bose-Einstein condensation >we must first have an ensemble of bosons - something that would appear >to be lacking in the case of the Patterson cell, for example. > >Furthermore the discussions involving Bose-Einstein condensation have >attempted to address only the problem of enhancing the expected fusion >rate by the required enormous factor. Even if a condensation were to >result in a higher fusion rate none of the experimental evidence supports >the notion that fusion, in fact, does occur. > >As an aside I may also remark that one well known advocate of strange >ensemble wavefunctions could not even list the nuclear coordinates of >the problem properly so none of his theoretical musings could possibly >have any real significance. > >It generally turns out to be very difficult to produce a solid theory >that explains bogus results so it is not all that surprising to find >that theory has not kept up with cold fusion experimentation. In any >case Mitchell Swartz's headline is clearly an overstatement. > >Dick Blue > >-------------------- I would like to respond that I do not recall any unanswered refutation of the "Bose Condensate Hypothesis of CF" that I posted in s.p.f some time ago. I must admit I stopped reading s.p.f for a while because I am now busy doing experiments and don't have time for much reading. To reopen the subject, if you wish, here is a somewhat revised version of the original hypothesis: THE STIMULATED BOSE CONDENSATE HYPOTHESIS OF COLD FUSION BACKGROUND The recent creation of a .002 inch 3000 atom Bose condensate by Carl Weiman and Eric Cornell may provide a possible insight to some cold fusion phenomena. The rubidium atom condensate was created with much difficulty and ingenuity at the extreme temperature of 20 nanokelvins, which was created by applying an RF field to atoms in a magnetic trap. The RF field was tuned to resonate with higher energy atoms, and thus caused these rubidium atoms to flip and then be shot out of the trap, thus leaving only those atoms with no significant energy. Though this was a difficult and amazing feat, demonstrating the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates to a true physical state of matter, not just experimental uncertainty, perhaps nature readily accomplishes it in a small way in metallic lattices. It is a much less difficult feat to create an overlap of two hydrogen nuclei in a 1 A condensate than it is to create an overlap of 3000 rubidium atoms in a 500,000 A condensate. The rubidium atom overlap was sustainable for more than 15 minutes. To be significant to CF, a condensate of two protons or deuterons in a lattice site need only be formed a very short time, if formed often enough. It seems that the Weiman-Cornell experiment, supported by the Pritchard slit experiments, clearly demonstrates the reality of the wave nature of matter. Perhaps it is the only form of matter. The particle nature of matter might be explained strictly by wave function collapse, which is not a characteristic of ordinary waves, but clearly is a characteristic of quantum waveforms. For example, looking at the photoelectric effect, suppose a huge photon waveform from a distant star impacts via it's own random selection process at a particular point on a metal surface, ejecting an electron, why do we have to say the photon is a particle at the point of the electron ejection? It could just as easily be considered (called) a collapsed photon waveform as it could be considered a particle. A waveform collapse consists of an instantaneous change in wave form center and distribution. Such a collapse also clearly accounts for tunneling effects as well. Where is the need for a particle model at all? If matter is totally wave like, it seems inescapable that charge must therefore be distributed in the waveform, as there exists no point to carry it. This has the benefit, as Richard Feynman pointed out, of conservation of energy, because a point charge could generate an infinitely intense field, as you approach the point, requiring an infinite amount of energy to create the field. THE HYPOTHESIS Wave function collapse occurs probabilistically on the relative approach of two or more quantum waveforms. One quantum waveform can collapse to the location of the other. If two overlapped, i.e. relatively to each other slow, waveforms in a Bose condensate are penetrated by a high velocity waveform, a collapse can occur. Also, a kind of paradox occurs. All motion is relative. Assume the condensate is two deuterons, and the high velocity waveform is an electron. From the point of view of the proton condensate, the wavelength (size) of the electron is small. From the point of view of the electron, though, the condensate must appear very small, and more importantly, since the waveforms of the deuteron condensate are phase locked and overlapped, the condensate must appear, from the electron's point of view, phase locked and overlapped in a small volume, because the de Broglie wavelength of the single waveform of the condensate appears small to the electron due to the high relative velocity. Thus, if there is an interaction, it would seem there would be a high probability that the interaction would be a 3 body interaction. That is to say the formation of a single waveform of a condensate would greatly change waveform co-location probabilities from the perspective of the electron. Given two deuterons jammed into a lattice site, the Schroedinger Equation predicts that they will co-located, i.e. tend to be found in opposing locations within the site. However, should they form a Bose condensate, it is logical that the two deuteron locations would appear to a fast moving particle to be nearly the same , even though still co-located in the smaller volume, because the centers of mass of the individual particles will approach each other during the formation of the condensate, and their distributions co-mingle in the small de Broglie wavelength of the condensate, from the fast moving particles prospective. SOME EXPLAINED EFFECTS This hypothesis provides some explanation for various effects. One is the Kasagi experiment, where deuterated titanium is bombarded with deuterons. The reaction hypothesized by Kasagi to account for the observed results: D + D + D -> p + n + alpha (+ 21.62 MeV) requires a mechanism to make such a reaction likely in the matrix, i.e. to cause target deuteron pairs to tend to be located at nuclear distances from each other. The subject hypothesis provides such a mechanism. Similarly, the original experiments by Pons and Fleischmann, tended to produce neutrons in pairs, i.e. from single events. A deuteron condensate, stimulated by particles resulting from cosmic rays, could produce a variety of products, including neutron pairs, He4, He3, and T, as well as, depending on the type of impacting particle, transmutations such as Li and Be. Let [D + D] represent a two deuterium atom condensate. If a cosmic ray struck a deuterium nucleus, which then struck a deuterium condensate, we could have something like: D + [D + D] -> n + n + p + He3 (+ .584 MeV) Similarly, in various observed hydrogen systems a condensate could form, giving e + [p + p] -> n + p (+ energy) or e + [p + Li(n)] -> Li(n+1) (+energy) or e + [p + D] -> T (+energy) where the possibility of such formations is a matter of considerable debate. The case of : e + [p + p] -> n + p (+ energy) is just a variation of: e + p -> n (+ energy) proposed by Elio Conte. The importance of Conte's theory in this regard is that it predicts the possibility of creating such a bound state with the release of energy (17 KeV) and without a neutrino. To a much smaller degree, it seems possible that a Bose condensate might momentarily be formed between adsorbed hydrogen and lattice atoms. Such cases, as well as cases of neutron formation noted above, could possibly account for various transmutations observed in CF experiments. This hypothesis also provides some explanation for observed positive effects of using particles to stimulate loaded cathodes. The hypothesis possibly explains the recent Kamada, et. al. results, where massive heat generation melted small areas throughout the surface of an aluminum target, indicating MeV energy releases. The target was loaded by deuteron beam, but the interesting thing about the experiment is that the melting was precipitated by a 175 keV electron beam. THE ENERGY WITH NO ASH EFFECT One of the most difficult effects to explain is the excess heat with no nuclear ash. If the subject hypothesis is correct, there is a potential energy generating mechanism not requiring fusion. The possibility is that the hypothesized waveform "collapse at a point" usually does *not* result in a fusion, and the deuterons simply fly apart. In this case, the two impart whatever energy had been gained by, in effect, tunneling through the coulomb barrier during the condensate waveform collapse. This is not tunneling in the conventional sense, only a result of the waveforms overlapping before collapsing. The original impinging electron would be freed, plus massive numbers of neighboring electrons excited, thus potentially creating a reaction chain. The resulting energy would tend to be split about 50/50 between the two deuterons, i.e. unlikely but at most about 0.25 MeV each, and the electron might even potentially lose some of its energy since it ended up in a coulomb well, and undoubtedly radiated. The coulomb well is greatly "shallowed" by the fact the electron provides some degree of shielding for the repulsing deuterons. This could account for the lack of detectable signatures. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS One way to test the hypothesis would involve colliding a particle beam with a Bose condensate and looking at the resulting products spectographically, e.g. bombard with protons and look for Strontium, Tungsten, or Osmium, etc., spectral lines in the results, and the presence of high energy neutrons or other particles. Additionally, high energy electron bombardment of the Bose condensate might create similar effects by catalyzing the condensate waveform collapse. PRACTICAL APPLICATION If true, the hypothesis indicates that spiking the cathodes of CF electrolysis cells with particle emitters should greatly increase the yield and reliability of the CF effects. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 02:34:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01954; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:47:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:47:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <31647ef2.9677565@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: conduction/polarization phenomena X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:28:38 -0800 (PST), Bill Page wrote: [snip] >It is very interesting to note that Arsenic is a semi-conductor dopant >that in Silicon produces an excess of electrons (n-type semi-conductor), >while Aluminum as a dopant produces an excess of holes (p-type >semi-conductor). Both of these elements have been used (separately) >as additives in "CF" experiments to increase Hydrogen loading in >Palladium. Could it be that the surface of the Palladium cathode might >have some of the properties of an intrinsic semi-conductor and that is >what makes these additives so surface active? > >Such a theory would go beyond the simple "suface blocking" model to >which Dieter has referred. > >Cheers, >Bill Page. > > If I may indulge in a little wild speculation here: Suppose that such a surface in places were to act as a very high frequency diode. If we now further assume that all mass is composed of photons, then perhaps such diodes succeed in "rectifying" some of these photons, thus generating excess direct current, in minute pulses. Such a current could then result in the production of more hydrogen and oxygen than could otherwise be accounted for by the supplied electrolysis current, and with powerful chemical recombination catalysts such as Ni, Pd, Ti, etc. present in the cell much of this excess would immediately recombine into water, releasing heat. In short, such a cell would be a direct mass -> energy converter. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 10:45:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA06591; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 04:19:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 04:19:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: two errors re. Field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: There are two errors in the message re. the New Japanese data: a) The motor power for test no. 2 is 2.85 kW not 2.35kW; accordingly the C.O.P values are 173% (not 211) for the first case and 134% (not 164%) for the second case. b) The length of the outer connection is 40 cm (not 400). Overunity and the necessity to discuss with FIELD remain valid, exactly as I have requested at February 14 when these data have been published for the first time on Vortex. Peter Gluck From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 00:48:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA12724; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:03:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:03:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <960405165452_72240.1256_EHB94-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: vtx: New Japanese data / peristaltic pum X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Peter Gluck writes: "The motor power for test no. 2 is 2.85 kW not 2.35kW." A third-generation fax problem . . . 8 looks like 3. "The length of the outer connection is 40 cm (not 400)." Oops! That's what I meant. I do tend to get these things mixed up! Twice in this forum in the last month. How embarrassing. Horace Heffner asks: "Is the current given possibly for just one phase of a 3 phase supply?" That's the problem! That's where the confusion lies. The report said voltage=380, amperage 7.5. 380*7.5=2.85 kW. Yesterday, when I thought it was 2.35, I assumed they were subtracting something for the power factor. Today I don't know what to make of it. I presume if this was 3 phase power, and they made a mistake, real input would be approximately 8.55 kW. That makes no sense. Total input over one hour in Test 2 would equal 7329 KCal, with only 3300 KCal captured in the tank. The tank could not have such high thermal conductivity. If it did, it would start by warming up quickly and then the heat loss would increase, and the curve would level off. That does not happen. Here are the temperatures for the first 12 5-minute increments (the first hour): 0 30.0 (starting temperature) 5 31.0 10 33.0 15 34.5 20 37.0 25 39.0 30 41.0 35 42.0 40 45.0 45 46.5 50 49.0 55 50.5 60 52.0 By hour 2 the temperature has reached 72.5, an almost linear increase. It could not have been losing heat rapidly. I cannot see how FIELD Co. could have made a mistake reading 1 phase of 3 phase power. The data does not fit that hypothesis. I am not sure how you compute total 3-phase power given only amperage reading, but I presume it is roughly 3 times. Anyway, as Peter said some time ago, it is unlikely that the people at FIELD and Asahi both screwed up a simple ac power reading. I presume that amperage reading is the total for all three phases, adjusted for power factor and whatnot. I don't know who Asahi Denki Kogyo K.K. is. They are not listed in the First or Second Section stock market guides for 1991. Whoever they are, they must be pretty dumb. That's all I can think. Ditto for FIELD company. Otherwise both of them would be turning cartwheels in the hallways and setting off fireworks. How could anyone look at result like this and not go ape with excitement? Yet the tone of their other letters seemed dismissive. It makes no sense. Scott Little writes: "At 30 rpm, which is the speed of my sync gearmotor, the pump is absorbing 0.24 watts of mechanical power, virtually all of which is dissipated as heat in the tubing, some of which is thus added to the liquid being pumped." What is the flow rate in this particular case? All of the mechanical power *has to be dissipated as heat*, but before it dissipates, some of it moves the water! :-) - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 00:59:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13151; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:05:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:05:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <9604052001.AA31448@giasone.teseo.it> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: About psi collapse in quantum mechanics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Considering a recent discussion on vortex-l ,it becomes important to be= present with some important specification. 1- the mechanism by wich the psi collapse happens ,is a tab=F9 in the usual= =20 quantum mechanics;please,let us avoid forcing from one part or another: no physicist in the past,I REPEAT :no physicist,was able in the past to= clear how this phenomenon happens.Prevalently,in the past,we have had two= different impostations of the problem but no physicist has been able to clear by a=20 definitive physical model When or Why this process occurs! 2- We have also to define with the required rigorous details what a psi=20 collapse is. The basic point is that correctly the usual quantum mechanics,for the first= time in physics,discovers that at the quantum level of its physical=20 investigation,exist particular physical states.What is the reason for this particularity?It is= =20 that these states are COHERENT and sovrapposed.In other terms,in quantum mechanics it is need the superposition principle that is the basic foundation of all= =20 the quantum=20 mechanics.Roughly speaking,states regarding a physical property and the= property that in our logic is antithetical to the first,coexist simoultaneously.The= =20 quantum physics is the mathematical-physical picture in which one thing is living=20 and died simoloutaneously,is up and down simoultaneously and so on.This is not a= joke, this is perfectly the physical reality pictured by quantum mechanics and=20 confirmed at all the levels of controls that still to day we have performed.We are=20 boolean machines and thus we are acoustumed to think a neutron as neutron=20 and stop: in quantum mechanics the physical state is a coherent superposition of the= =20 state=20 neutron and the state of its possible decay(in p+e +..).Do we understand the= =20 meaning of the superposition principle?Do we understand what are the quantum= =20 obiects in absence of observation? If we do not intend this point we will= never intend the psi collapse:in absence of observation the quantum states are a= =20 coherent superposition of physical conditions that we (since we are boolean machines)= are inclined to consider as one alternative to the other.In the quantum world=20 all this does not happen! Well,if this is the quantum reality.how is that we in our processes of=20 observation are inclined instead to see a proton as a proton ,or a spin up as a spin up and= =20 so on=20 and never we observe both a spin up and a spin down ,a neutron and its= decay, a cat living and died simoultaneously?We have arrived to the psi collapse. It is just the process by wich the quantum reality (a particle,the previous= =20 neutron...) represented,before of our observation,by quantum states obeying to the=20 superposition principle(that we have said earlier) becomes a MIXTURE OF= STATES where,this is very important,the previously said coherence is destroyed and= =20 finally we have any possible quantum state singly and with its statistical property= =20 to be detected.Thus ,during the psi collapse,we have an evolution of the system= from being represented from the superposition principle before the measurement to= =20 becomea mixture of states as consequence of the measurement itself.In other terms,during the psi collapse,the system passes from having for us a=20 noboolean logic before the measurement to haver a boolean logic as=20 consequence of the psi collapse itself. 3- In the past have we had some physicist or some physical theory that was= able to explain when or why this unpredictable transition from a supwerposition= =20 of states to a mixture occurs?The answer is no.It was and it has remained a tab=F9 for= the quantum mechanics sice it,the psi collapse,is also in contraddiction with=20 Schrodinger equation that instead perfectly describes the evolution of= closed ATOMIC SYSTEMS or,in any case,only a restricted family of quantum systems= =20 under time evolution. 4- let me conclude with the biquaternion quantum mechanics.For the first= time from researchs during from 1927,this theory is able to describe in detail=20 the psi collapse,for the first time this theory calculates step by step how happens= the transition from a superposition of states to a mixture,for the first time=20 clears this process of transition that characterizes the psi collapse,this transition=20 from the=20 noboolean logic of the system before the measurement to the boolean logic=20 that we have as consequence of the measurement.The theory exactly describes the=20 transition that we have from the quantistic world before the measurement to= that one after the measurement that is marked by our SELETCTIVE attidude and= logics. In the last number of Physics Essays there is my article that appears to me= =20 of interset on this subject where ,on the basis of a criticism that I turn= =20 to the great expert pf epistemology that A: Fine is,I show how the problem of psi= collapse is also the problem of a correct impostation of a new=20 paradigm.,energy-matter-infor- mation,instead of energy - matter as it was in all the physics in the past= time. 5-There is another question that I must regard to Horace Heffner.When and=20 how the psi collapse happens? Horace,the psi collapse is determined from an hidden= =20 variable in biquaternion quantum mechanics and this hidden variable accounts obviously for the nature of the process,in case the macroscopic character of= the measuring apparatus and so on.If the psi collapse that you indicate should= =20 regard an hidden variable valuable to induce psi collapse,it certainly should= happen. Regards.Elio Conte st --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 00:56:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13339; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:06:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:06:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <960405195716_100433.1541_BHG41-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: The Yusmar o-u report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex I've only glanced briefly at the interesting reports - and all our appreciation should go to Akira Takahashi for his fine translation efforts - but I was a bit bothered about the electrical measurements. I'm a bit rusty on 3-phase inter-phase voltages, so I checked with Chris Morriss (who has email at only one of his locations, so has missed some of this stuff). He points out the following, which may be relevant and which suggest that the input power measurements are indeed 'real' - or perhaps slightly conservative if there is a power factor. Europe (east and west, including the former Soviet Union) are all on 50Hz at voltages in the region of 230V. There has been some standardisation to 230V, the UK used to be 240V, and 220V is not unusual. Japan, I'm told, has the lowest voltage anywhere - 60Hz 100V. Consider a 3-phase supply as a three-pointed star, or as a point (A) (0V) connected via lines to the three vertices of an equilateral triangle (B, C, and D). There is an ac voltage between A and any of the three apices, and this is generally quoted as the RMS value of the sine wave. (sqrt 2 of the height - or depth - of the peak voltage from the zero line) If the voltage of a single phase (A-B, A-C, or A-D) is 220V, then the voltage between B-C or C-D or D-B (which will sum to a sine wave of the same frequency - excuse me going so far back to basics) will, because they are 120deg apart, be 380V - which is one of the voltages mentioned. Similarly, if the basic voltage A-B is 240V, the V between any two apices is 415V. I suppose that any big electrical company in Japan has any voltage which suits it, for whatever purpose it requires. All this suggests that they are using an electric motor driven between two phases of a 3-phase supply. I doubt very much if they would incompetently quote power, though they might well ignore the phase angle. To refresh any memories which are even rustier than my own, the true power consumed by a load from AC is in fact V(rms) * I(rms) * cos phi where phi is the angle between the V and I sine waves. Phi will only be zero if the load is purely resistive. There will always be a phase angle with any electric motor, but it can be quite small. This angle is quite properly ignored in some cases of looking for o-u, because the input power can be quoted as V*I - knowing that this will always be conservative in that the true input power will never exceed that value. Jed Rothwell suggests that the 'strange' reaction to the apparent o-u is in fact, "Well, this looks good, maybe the Potapov Quantum Machine is also good. Therefore let us please have one of *those* to look at." That sounds quite credible to me. Apologies to most for the basic lesson in electrical power, it seemed like a good opportunity for *me* to pontificate for once. By the way, I've just had my copy of the double issue of Infinite Energy (5 & 6). This is a magnificent achievement by Gene Mallove. Those who don't subscribe are missing out on a great deal here. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 03:23:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA00834; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:14:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:14:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604052217.OAA15457@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Note on errors & misc. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Peter, you wrote of Jed's post, >There are two errors in the message re. the New Japanese data: >a) The motor power for test no. 2 is 2.85 kW not 2.35kW; OKEY, fine. The left side of the '8' detail was indecisive in the fax definition. Add to that a line running through the figure added to choosing '3' rather than '8'. >accordingly the C.O.P values are 173% (not 211) for the first case >and 134% (not 164%) for the second case. >b) The length of the outer connection is 40 cm (not 400). 40/2.54= 15.74 inch loop approx. This part of the information is missing from the original diagram. Jed must have received the added information. I will incorporate it the drawing. >Overunity and the necessity to discuss with FIELD remain valid, >exactly as I have requested at February 14 when these data have been >published for the first time on Vortex. Scott Little of EarthTech Int. initiated talks with Field Co. through Hal Puthoff. Peter Gluck has been recommending establishing communications with Field Co. for some time to last years' Yusmar experimentors in the U.S.. EarthTech took it seriously. They have received test data from Field Co. dated around July, 1995. And Field Co. indicated a positive response to exchange further information. Peter Gluck had earlier received an October test data which gave even more positive results than the one Scott received for July. It seems hardly anybody noticed the vortex posting Peter Gluck made back in Feb., 1996 on the Field testing. I didn't notice it myself. Sorry about that Peter, I was not into Yusmars. Scott, aside from his busy bead experiments, is in the process of formulating questions of Field Co. in regard to the Yusmar tests. If there are questions you want Scott to pose of Field it should be transmitted, at the risk of Scott receiving repetitative questions, to Scott Little (little@eden.com). On the question of power calculations, Field Co. indicated use of a 3 phase (3F) motor and a wattmeter. I would presume they used a 3 phase wattmeter. I hardly think Field co. or Asahi Denki Kogyo attached a single phase wattmeter to a three phase motor and expected to get correct readings as some suspicious have suggested. I guess it could still be asked. Field Co. is interested in the new generation 'Quantum Generator' that Potapov has produced which is claimed to be Self Sustaining. And Potapov has been formally invited by Los Alamos NL to demonstrate the new device. Arrangements are currently being organized I hear. -A.K.- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 03:00:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA00922; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:14:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:14:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <960405222603_100060.173_JHB96-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: two errors re. Field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Peter said: >> C.O.P values are 173% (not 211) for the first case and 134% (not 164%) for the second case. << Like Horace said - this is looking very like a root3 factor as in 3 phase power. Anyway, for ****'s sake someone get hold of one of the supposedly ou bits of pipe and run it with known instruments in English! No offence mates, but we are in danger of getting hysterical here. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 03:12:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01012; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:15:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:15:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604052314.RAA10048@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: New Japanese data / peristaltic pum X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 02:03 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Jed wrote: >I cannot see how FIELD Co. could have made a mistake reading 1 phase of 3 phase >power. The data does not fit that hypothesis. I am not sure how you compute >total 3-phase power given only amperage reading, but I presume it is roughly >3 times. As Mike Schaffer pointed out a while back, it is 1.732*V*i where V is the leg-to-leg voltage and i is the current in one leg (assuming all three legs have equal currents which is usually the case). I am trying to sort out all the data we've gotten from Field Co so we can formulate some good questions for them. This issue will be among the first questions raised. > "At 30 rpm, which is the speed of my sync gearmotor, the pump is > absorbing 0.24 watts of mechanical power, virtually all of which is > dissipated as heat in the tubing, some of which is thus added to the > liquid being pumped." > >What is the flow rate in this particular case? 23.5 ml/min, Jed. Yes, of course some of the energy moves the liquid but, in this case, the "flow work" as I like to call it is totally negligible. I'd estimate that my total loop pressure drop (that the pump has to work against) is no more than 5 inches of water column. At 23 ml/min, that amounts to a whopping .5 milliwatts of flow work! - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 03:18:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01077; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:15:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:15:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: peristaltic pump X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >Scott Little writes: > > "At 30 rpm, which is the speed of my sync gearmotor, the pump is > absorbing 0.24 watts of mechanical power, virtually all of which is > dissipated as heat in the tubing, some of which is thus added to the > liquid being pumped." > >What is the flow rate in this particular case? > >All of the mechanical power *has to be dissipated as heat*, but before it >dissipates, some of it moves the water! :-) > >- Jed I've done a little fiddling with this myself. Almost no energy is going into pushing the water. The biggest pressure head I have experienced with a normal flow rate of .40 to .41 ml/s was 42 mmHg. You can pinch off the tubing a bit, and as long as the pressure head is not excessive the motor does not seem to skip and the pump just keeps right on rotating at the designed 30 RPM. The current draw and torque go up, though, to meet the added demand caused by increased flow resistance. My original vinyl tubing pump/motor coupling was insufficiently designed but worked fine with the lightweight flow tubing provided with the pump. As soon as I put the heavy duty long lasting rubber tubing into the pump the coupling twisted like taffy and separated. The pump looked like it never missed a beat. There was no significant or even readily measurable flow resistance or pressure head on the pump at the time. Most of that torque is going into heating the rubber tubing. In normal operation, the flow rate remains constant, but current draw and torque vary by demand changes caused by changes in flow resistance. The excess power draw caused by the rubber tubing is well worth it, because you get 1000's of hours of operation instead of 100's. This is a chance to correct an error prviously posted. I said the pump creates a pressure that oscillates at 2 Hz. That is in error. There are three rollers in the peristaltic pump, which rotates at 30 RPM, or 2 Hz. That's 3 pressure oscillations in 2 seconds, or 1.5 Hz. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 03:07:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01181; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:16:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:16:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <960405185354_463371809@emout09.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Boson X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I find the boson idea to be along the lines of what I have been thinking. If we could but a frictional force on an electron we may be able to extract the force associated with its spin. Puthoff's work indicates that the spin is driven by ZPE so does my work. How then do you put a frictional force on an elementary particle? You can't. The fundimental property of any ZP condesed system the the linking of the spin states This is done by a vibrational mode know as a phonon. This spin linking allows an electron cluster to condense below the Femi energy level. It is possible to put a frictional force on this macroscopic spin state. In fact my original work was with superconductors, a macroscopic zero point system. I was trying expliot the locked up spin states by putting a frictional force on the whole suberconductor. Miley's swariming electron theory states that electron clusteres exist between the layers in the CETI cell. These clusters are a Bose condensation. The transfer of angular momentum by phonons in a Bose condenstation allows a spin one photon and a spin 2 graviton to be simultanously emitted. You will find my paper on the subject posted on http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se elektromagnum and on weird science. My book on a disk has one MB of info on this subject. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 03:28:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01280; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:17:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:17:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Some Ideas for Cell Design X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: If fluid flow direction has no significant effect on the chemistry of the PPC, I have some suggestions regarding cell design. From the prior experiments posted, it seems the ideal cathode bead bed depth is .5 to 1 cm. in relation to the direction of the anode. We have known that maintaining close proximity of anode and cathode reduces cell resistance, and therefore (i^2)*r losses. Fluid flow should be upwards to promote bubble dislodging. One major problem in my mind is the mixing of the H2 and O2 in the degassing chamber. I think this can be avoided with a coaxial cell design. The outer wall of the cell would have an appx. 1 cm layer of beads supported by the outer wall of the cell on the outside and a very fine mesh supported by a heavy mesh inside. The fine mesh (or membrane or other barrier) would be to prevent gas from mixing. Call the supportive mesh and the membrane combined the separating mesh. Inside the separating mesh would ideally be an anode with the same area as the outside, to provide equivalent current density and imperviousness to bubble collection. I propose the ideal solution to this requirement is Pt coated beads of the same diameter as the cathode beads. A good alternative for the anode might be Ti beads or chunks, or Ti coated beads. The axis would be vertically oriented and the fluid flow bottom to top. This, in effect, would provide numerous cells electrically in parallel yet in series with regard to fluid flow. The H2 laden and O2 laden electrolyes could then be sent to separate degassing chambers. This complicates calorimetry, but that problem is in no way insurmountable. An alternative to coaxial design is simply bead beds 1-2 cm. wide, with the separating membrane in the middle. The depth of the beds would only be limited by the temperature rise and by the cell efficiency drop caused by the accumulated quantity of bubble accumulation. The top of the bead beds could be covered by the supportive but bubble passing mesh. This design can obviously be scaled up to meet any power requirement by putting lots of bead beds together side by side and extending the length of the cell as long as desired. The square shape involved is ideal for stacking cells. In this configuration the anode might also simply consist of titanium plates surrounded with separating mesh. The cathode might consist of titanium plate cell separators which provide negative current to adjacent Pd beads in the two adjacent cells. The cell support structures could be mass produced from plastic. The supportive mesh could be made like a flat screen that inserts into grooves in the cell chamber walls. The top of the bead bed could be a moulded manifold, with a sealing gasket, directing O2 bearing fluid one way, H2 bearing fluid the other. Electrolyte could be delivered to the bottom of the bed by tubing with holes in the sides, or by a premoulded double floor with holes in it toward the inside. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From conte@teseo.it Sat Apr 6 00:28:01 1996 Received: from giasone.teseo.it (giasone.teseo.it [194.21.136.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA20521 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 00:27:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from cappa.teseo.it by giasone.teseo.it; (5.65/1.1.8.2/03Oct95-0808PM) id AA32513; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 10:27:29 +0200 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 10:27:29 +0200 Message-Id: <9604060827.AA32513@giasone.teseo.it> X-Sender: conte@teseo.it (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) Subject: About psi collapse in quantum mechanics X-Mailer: Status: RO X-Status: >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) >Subject: About psi collapse in quantum mechanics > >Considering a recent discussion on vortex-l ,it becomes important to be= present >with some important specification. >1- the mechanism by wich the psi collapse happens ,is a tab=F9 in the usual= =20 >quantum mechanics;please,let us avoid forcing from one part or another: >no physicist in the past,I REPEAT :no physicist,was able in the past to= clear >how this phenomenon happens.Prevalently,in the past,we have had two= different >impostations of the problem but no physicist has been able to clear by a=20 definitive >physical model When or Why this process occurs! >2- We have also to define with the required rigorous details what a psi=20 collapse is. >The basic point is that correctly the usual quantum mechanics,for the first= =20 time >in physics,discovers that at the quantum level of its physical=20 investigation,exist >particular physical states.What is the reason for this particularity?It is= =20 that these >states are COHERENT and sovrapposed.In other terms,in quantum mechanics >it is need the superposition principle that is the basic foundation of all= =20 the quantum=20 >mechanics.Roughly speaking,states regarding a physical property and the=20 property >that in our logic is antithetical to the first,coexist simoultaneously.The= =20 quantum >physics is the mathematical-physical picture in which one thing is living= =20 and died >simoloutaneously,is up and down simoultaneously and so on.This is not a= joke, >this is perfectly the physical reality pictured by quantum mechanics and=20 confirmed >at all the levels of controls that still to day we have performed.We are=20 boolean machines and thus we are acoustumed to think a neutron as neutron=20 and stop: >in quantum mechanics the physical state is a coherent superposition of the= =20 state=20 >neutron and the state of its possible decay(in p+e +..).Do we understand=20 the meaning of the superposition principle?Do we understand what are the=20 quantum obiects in absence of observation? If we do not intend this point we= =20 will never >intend the psi collapse:in absence of observation the quantum states are a= =20 coherent >superposition of physical conditions that we (since we are boolean=20 machines) are >inclined to consider as one alternative to the other.In the quantum world= =20 all this does >not happen! >Well,if this is the quantum reality.how is that we in our processes of=20 observation are >inclined instead to see a proton as a proton ,or a spin up as a spin up and= =20 so on=20 >and never we observe both a spin up and a spin down ,a neutron and its= decay, >a cat living and died simoultaneously?We have arrived to the psi collapse. >It is just the process by wich the quantum reality (a particle,the previous= =20 neutron...) >represented,before of our observation,by quantum states obeying to the=20 superposition principle(that we have said earlier) becomes a MIXTURE OF= STATES >where,this is very important,the previously said coherence is destroyed and= =20 finally >we have any possible quantum state singly and with its statistical property= =20 to be >detected.Thus ,during the psi collapse,we have an evolution of the system= from >being represented from the superposition principle before the measurement= =20 to becomea mixture of states as consequence of the measurement itself.In= other >terms,during the psi collapse,the system passes from having for us a=20 noboolean logic before the measurement to haver a boolean logic as=20 consequence of the psi >collapse itself. >3- In the past have we had some physicist or some physical theory that was= able >to explain when or why this unpredictable transition from a supwerposition= =20 of states >to a mixture occurs?The answer is no.It was and it has remained a tab=F9= for the >quantum mechanics sice it,the psi collapse,is also in contraddiction with= =20 Schrodinger equation that instead perfectly describes the evolution of= closed > ATOMIC SYSTEMS or,in any case,only a restricted family of quantum systems= =20 >under time evolution. >4- let me conclude with the biquaternion quantum mechanics.For the first= time >from researchs during from 1927,this theory is able to describe in detail= =20 the psi >collapse,for the first time this theory calculates step by step how happens= the >transition from a superposition of states to a mixture,for the first time= =20 clears this >process of transition that characterizes the psi collapse,this transition= =20 from the=20 >noboolean logic of the system before the measurement to the boolean logic= =20 that we >have as consequence of the measurement.The theory exactly describes the=20 transition that we have from the quantistic world before the measurement to= that >one after the measurement that is marked by our SELETCTIVE attidude and= logics. >In the last number of Physics Essays there is my article that appears to me= =20 of interset on this subject where ,on the basis of a criticism that I turn= =20 to the great >expert pf epistemology that A: Fine is,I show how the problem of psi=20 collapse is >also the problem of a correct impostation of a new=20 paradigm.,energy-matter-infor- >mation,instead of energy - matter as it was in all the physics in the past= =20 time. >5-There is another question that I must regard to Horace Heffner.When and= =20 how the >psi collapse happens? Horace,the psi collapse is determined from an hidden= =20 variable in biquaternion quantum mechanics and this hidden variable accounts >obviously for the nature of the process,in case the macroscopic character= =20 of the >measuring apparatus and so on.If the psi collapse that you indicate should= =20 regard >an hidden variable valuable to induce psi collapse,it certainly should= happen. > Regards.Elio Conte > >st > --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 05:02:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA29115; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 01:36:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 01:36:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: About psi collapse in quantum mechanics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Considering a recent discussion on vortex-l ,it becomes important to be= > present >with some important specification. >1- the mechanism by wich the psi collapse happens ,is a tab=F9 in the usual= >=20 >quantum mechanics;please,let us avoid forcing from one part or another: >no physicist in the past,I REPEAT :no physicist,was able in the past to= > clear >how this phenomenon happens.Prevalently,in the past,we have had two= > different >impostations of the problem but no physicist has been able to clear by a=20 >definitive >physical model When or Why this process occurs! If you think about it a few general conditions are available. The conditions are there must (1) be a waveform (mass) that is a candidate for the collapse, (2) another waveform (mass) which establishes collapse candidate conditions in the probability space of the first waveform, and (3) an energy balance that prevents the waveform collapse (i.e. the quantum leap) from reversing immediately, i.e. from existing as a two way process, thus an indeterminate state. The collapse is permanent, or at least tends to exist in the collapsed state momentarily, not in a duality. The most important aspect of these 3 conditions for puposes of my hypothesis is the recognition that there must be 2 waveforms, 2 masses interacting. The meters diameter photon from a distant star collapses to a point to cause the photoelectric effect upon interacting with an atom in the photomuliplyer surface. It doesn't take much matter to create the necessary conditions. Tunneling electrons require some place to tunnel *to* that is at a potential that prevents return from being immediate. The tunneling is an instantaneous collapse of the electron quantum waveform center of mass one place and it's rebirth in another place. I added two more conditions to make the hypothesis work: (1) the candidate for the collapse is a condensate and (2) the mass creating the collapse conditions is very high energy, which generates a paradox regarding the de Brolie wavelengths of the two masses with respect to each other. >2- We have also to define with the required rigorous details what a psi=20 >collapse is. >The basic point is that correctly the usual quantum mechanics,for the first= > time >in physics,discovers that at the quantum level of its physical=20 >investigation,exist >particular physical states.What is the reason for this particularity?It is= >=20 >that these >states are COHERENT and sovrapposed.In other terms,in quantum mechanics >it is need the superposition principle that is the basic foundation of all= The waveform collapse appears to involve momentary escape from the superposition principle. >=20 >the quantum=20 >mechanics.Roughly speaking,states regarding a physical property and the= > property >that in our logic is antithetical to the first,coexist simoultaneously.The= >=20 >quantum >physics is the mathematical-physical picture in which one thing is living=20 >and died >simoloutaneously,is up and down simoultaneously and so on.This is not a= > joke, >this is perfectly the physical reality pictured by quantum mechanics and=20 >confirmed >at all the levels of controls that still to day we have performed.We are=20 >boolean machines and thus we are acoustumed to think a neutron as neutron=20 >and stop: >in quantum mechanics the physical state is a coherent superposition of the= >=20 >state=20 >neutron and the state of its possible decay(in p+e +..).Do we understand the= >=20 >meaning of the superposition principle?Do we understand what are the quantum= >=20 >obiects in absence of observation? If we do not intend this point we will= > never >intend the psi collapse:in absence of observation the quantum states are a= >=20 >coherent >superposition of physical conditions that we (since we are boolean machines)= > are >inclined to consider as one alternative to the other.In the quantum world=20 >all this does >not happen! >Well,if this is the quantum reality.how is that we in our processes of=20 >observation are >inclined instead to see a proton as a proton ,or a spin up as a spin up and= >=20 >so on=20 >and never we observe both a spin up and a spin down ,a neutron and its= > decay, >a cat living and died simoultaneously?We have arrived to the psi collapse. >It is just the process by wich the quantum reality (a particle,the previous= >=20 >neutron...) >represented,before of our observation,by quantum states obeying to the=20 >superposition principle(that we have said earlier) becomes a MIXTURE OF= > STATES >where,this is very important,the previously said coherence is destroyed and= >=20 >finally >we have any possible quantum state singly and with its statistical property= >=20 >to be >detected.Thus ,during the psi collapse,we have an evolution of the system= > from >being represented from the superposition principle before the measurement to= >=20 >becomea mixture of states as consequence of the measurement itself.In other >terms,during the psi collapse,the system passes from having for us a=20 >noboolean logic before the measurement to haver a boolean logic as=20 >consequence of the psi >collapse itself. >3- In the past have we had some physicist or some physical theory that was= > able >to explain when or why this unpredictable transition from a supwerposition= >=20 >of states >to a mixture occurs?The answer is no.It was and it has remained a tab=F9 for= > the >quantum mechanics sice it,the psi collapse,is also in contraddiction with=20 >Schrodinger equation that instead perfectly describes the evolution of= > closed > ATOMIC SYSTEMS or,in any case,only a restricted family of quantum systems= >=20 >under time evolution. >4- let me conclude with the biquaternion quantum mechanics.For the first= > time >from researchs during from 1927,this theory is able to describe in detail=20 >the psi >collapse,for the first time this theory calculates step by step how happens= > the >transition from a superposition of states to a mixture,for the first time=20 >clears this >process of transition that characterizes the psi collapse,this transition=20 >from the=20 >noboolean logic of the system before the measurement to the boolean logic=20 >that we >have as consequence of the measurement.The theory exactly describes the=20 >transition that we have from the quantistic world before the measurement to= > that >one after the measurement that is marked by our SELETCTIVE attidude and= > logics. >In the last number of Physics Essays there is my article that appears to me= >=20 >of interset on this subject where ,on the basis of a criticism that I turn= >=20 >to the great >expert pf epistemology that A: Fine is,I show how the problem of psi= > collapse is >also the problem of a correct impostation of a new=20 >paradigm.,energy-matter-infor- >mation,instead of energy - matter as it was in all the physics in the past= > time. >5-There is another question that I must regard to Horace Heffner.When and=20 >how the >psi collapse happens? Horace,the psi collapse is determined from an hidden= >=20 >variable in biquaternion quantum mechanics and this hidden variable accounts >obviously for the nature of the process,in case the macroscopic character of= > the >measuring apparatus and so on.If the psi collapse that you indicate should= >=20 >regard >an hidden variable valuable to induce psi collapse,it certainly should= > happen. > Regards.Elio Conte > I don't propose any hidden variable to account for conditions of the psi collapse. It simply happens when it is possible as often as probable. Because psi collapse appears to be instantaneous, I would suspect the possibility of one or more hidden variables involved in the actual event mechanism, if there is one, because obviously time is not. It would appear such events, being unknowable, would only be well understood by the most extraordinary physicists. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 06:54:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA22581; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 05:16:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 05:16:56 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604061205.EAA10066@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Oct. Field data, errors, and Scott X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is another attempt at a vtx posting after several days of "address unknown" notices and rejections. Peter wrote of Jed's Field posting: >There are two errors in the message re. the New Japanese data: >a) The motor power for test no. 2 is 2.85 kW not 2.35kW; OKEY, fine. The left side of the '8' detail was indecisive in the fax definition. Add to that a line running through the figure added to choosing '3' rather than '8'. >accordingly the C.O.P values are 173% (not 211) for the first case >and 134% (not 164%) for the second case. >b) The length of the outer connection is 40 cm (not 400). 40/2.54= 15.74 inch loop approx. This part of the information is missing from the original diagram. Jed must have received the added information. I will incorporate it the drawing. >Overunity and the necessity to discuss with FIELD remain valid, >exactly as I have requested at February 14 when these data have been >published for the first time on Vortex. Scott Little of EarthTech Int. initiated talks with Field Co. through Hal Puthoff. Peter Gluck has been recommending establishing communications with Field Co. for some time to last years' Yusmar experimentors in the U.S.. EarthTech took it seriously. They have received test data from Field Co. dated around July, 1995. And Field Co. indicated a positive response to exchange further information. Peter Gluck had earlier received an October test data which gave even more positive results than the one Scott received for July. It seems hardly anybody noticed the vortex posting Peter Gluck made back in Feb., 1996 on the Field testing. I didn't notice it myself. Sorry about that Peter, I was not into Yusmars. Scott, aside from his busy bead experiments, is in the process of formulating questions of Field Co. in regard to the Yusmar tests. If there are questions you want Scott to pose of Field it should be transmitted, at the risk of Scott receiving repetitative questions, to Scott Little (little@eden.com). On the question of power calculations, Field Co. indicated use of a 3 phase (3F) motor and a wattmeter. I would presume they used a 3 phase wattmeter. I hardly think Field co. or Asahi Denki Kogyo attached a single phase wattmeter to a three phase motor and expected to get correct readings as some suspicious have suggested. I guess it could still be asked. Field Co. is interested in the new generation 'Quantum Generator' that Potapov has produced which is claimed to be Self Sustaining. And Potapov has been formally invited by Los Alamos NL to demonstrate the new device. Arrangements are currently being organized I hear. -A.K.- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 06:53:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA22670; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 05:17:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 05:17:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <01I37OQMPF3699MZ6V@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Yusmar o-u report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Quite true Chris, W= I*V / I*V*PF where Power Factor is the percent of leading or lagging current. This is true of any circuit with capacitance or inductance. In which case there will be active and reactive power. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 06:54:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA22908; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 05:19:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 05:19:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604061244.EAA14322@dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: vtx: Field Oct. report note X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To Yusmar involved vortexers: A part of an e-mail sent to Peter Gluck may be useful here to help clarify the power question. > I have examined the documents more closely. The 50Hz, 60 Hz differences are NOT a mistake by Field Co.. Japan has a dual power grid system. Odd as this is, it makes sense when examined from the history of the country's rush to catch up technologically during the latter half of the nineteenth century. The region around Tokyo first developed a power distribution system. It adopted a rational choice of choosing a 50 HZ, 100V system. Shortly afterward the Osaka region, known for its mercantilist activity, pragmatically chose the american system of 60 HZ, 110V (110-120v?). So this means that the test results on the Yusmar probably came from two testing laboratories in two different areas in Japan and not necessarily a Field Co. laboratory. In fact the data may have come from three laboratories when you include the data EarthTech received. One of your test sheet dated October 4th is identified as Asahi Denki Kogyo K.K.(Inc.). Its character type is different from Field, was run under 60HZ, 11.5A, 380 V. and used 300 liters of water. The Field page has 50HZ, 7.5A, 380V. and used 150 liters of water. The basic single phase 60 HZ supply is 110 V. (Asahi Denki report) The basic single phase 50 HZ supply is 100 V. (Field Co. report) Sincerely, Akira Kawasaki From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 11:59:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA14298; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 08:05:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 08:05:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: About psi collapse in quantum mechanics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I hesitated to post the following sci.physics.fusion post due to the argumentative nature. Please ignor that, because there is some content which may be food for thought. >-------------------- >Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) >Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion >Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times is wrong >Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 17:10:23 GMT >Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway > >Horace Heffner seems to think I overlooked his contribution to the >theory of cold fusion. I'll try to make up for that oversight. > >Horace starts by noting the recent report by Weiman and Cornell regarding >the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate of rubidium atoms. My response >is, "So what?" The possible formation of a BE condensate under appropriate The "so what" is a big mass of electrons, protons, and neutrons, all fermions, formed a condensate. All of those neutrons and protons were not bound to each other by the strong force. >conditions has never been in dispute. There is, however, a question as to >whether the conditions under which cold fusion experiments are done can >realistically be considered suitable for the formation of such a condensate. >In that regard, Horace, take note of the temperature which you report - >20 X 10^9 Kelvin. Now a typical cold fusion temperature is 3 X 10^2 K. >Did that difference by eleven orders of magnitude slip by you unnoticed, >Horace? (1) Heat in a lattice tends to be more organized than heat in a gas. There tend to be hot and cold spots in the lattice due to latice boundary conditions and resonance. (2) The bond between two H nuclei in a lattice site is not to the lattice, thus the nuclei heat, i.e relative motion of the trapped nuclei with respect to each other, can be much less than the surrounding lattice. (3) Much of the lattice motion can be resonably expected to be in the form of compression waves. All such waves cross zero once a phase. (4) As I said: "It is a much less difficult feat to create an overlap of two hydrogen nuclei in a 1 A condensate than it is to create an overlap of 3000 rubidium atoms in a 500,000 A condensate" > >Further on, Horace, I see indications that you have failed to grasp one >very rigid requirement for the formation of a BE condensate. Not just >every old particle is allowed into this game. So when you mention >"condensate of 2 protons" or "a possible Bose condensate that might >monentarily be found between absorbed hydrogen and the lattice" I am >led to ask whether you have the slightest clue as to what you are >talking about? OK, you got me there! I am just a rank amateur doing dilettante science. However, that does not change any facts about the real world. Either condensates are forming in the crystal lattices, or not. Maybe condensate is the wrong word for the phenomenon, maybe wavfeform unification or waveform co-centering is better. Also, either waveforms collapse, or they do not. Whatever the phenomena is it has been acieved with Li atoms as well. > >Then when we get to your discussion about two deuterons gaining energy >without fusion all doubt about your level of understanding is swept away. >You are seriously in over your head, Horace! Not true here. I suggest you show me where the potential energy is if two positive charges and one negative charge are co-centered or co-existant at a point. The potential energy due to net charge is zero. There is nothing to prevent a waveform collapse to this configuration (except the Pauli exclusion principle), or possibly a few quantum energy levels away from it. This state, if achievable, represets a net reduction in potential energy, thus is a viable tunneling candidate space. [snip] The energy arsies if the particles do *not* bond via the strong force. There is nothing to prevent the collapse from being to a 1 fm diameter or so, but also nothing to prevent it from being much larger, especially if the electron ends up shielding one of the nuclei momentarily. All of the arguments used in the past about electron shielding being insufficient to permit nuclei approach sufficient for tunneling and fusion are here in favor of fusion not occuring and thus energy being generated! It is when the electron departs the two nuclei that energy is proposed to be created. To the degree shielding is *not* provided by the electron, statistically, energy is created, and it has no signature. > >The only thing that redeems you is that those reactions you put down seem >to indicate neutron emission following fusion. I am relatively sure that >none of those reactions could possibly occur as indicated at sufficient >rates to be interesting, but that is a moot point because Mitchell Swartz >would certainly not allow you to say that there is any neutron emission >involved in Cold Fusion Times. There has been lots of evidence of *some* neutron production since day one. Dieter Britz's bibliography is full of studies showing neutron production and gamma production. The problem has been that transmutations, neutron and gamma production observed have always been very small and are not consistent with claimed energy production. The Japanese may have found some regimes where this is no longer true, but the jury is out on that. > >Finally, before you get too excited about what might happen when two deuterons >get within 1 A of each other, may I suggest you look up the range of the >nuclear potential? One angstrom, actually less on average, is only the starting point for the formation of the condensate, which would initially be nearly one A in diameter. The distribution of psi^2 of the condensate after the waveform collapse into the impinging electron waveform would be a function of the energy of the impinging electron, but could easily briefly be 1 fm or less, per the above. > >Dick Blue > >-------------------- Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 16:09:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA13878; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:16:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:16:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604061608.KAA07121@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Some Ideas for Cell Design X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 10:17 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Horace wrote: >One major problem in my mind is the mixing of the H2 and O2 in the >degassing chamber. What undesirable effects does this cause? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 16:18:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA14098; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:17:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:17:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604061626.IAA01627@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: It bounces X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear B. Beaty, What's the latest? I posted two vtx messages, was posted successfully and I got a message from a "<>" that it was undeliverable. This happened to some other private e-mails sent that were combined with a vtx address. Is it eskimo.com or something awry with my mail program? Plus I do not receive too many vtx and zero vorcor messages. By the volume received, I do not see the vtx being crowded at all. Pardon me if I am getting neurotic. -AK- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 16:25:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA14218; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:18:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:18:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960406121934.23bf77cc@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Perturbed experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >You're right, John, but there is one case where Horace might be right. The >conductivity of "hydrogen ions" is abnormally high, and is thought to be due >to a different way of conducting, than the usual erratic movement of whole >(hydrated) ions, in this case H3O+. It is thought to be a passing of H+ from >H3O+ to a nearby H2O, a faster process. This works only for this one particular >ion, though. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >| Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | >| Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | >| Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Intermolecular proton transfer occurs mainly at the electrodes. Intramolecular proton transfer is the dominant intrinsic effect. If you calculate the concentration of H30+ available, you might note the likelihood of such bulk intermolecular proton transfer is dim. Hope that helps. Mitchell From vortcor-list@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 14:39:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA15729; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:38:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:38:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960406121903.23bf30ea@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Originator: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: vortcor-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chemistry help, please. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 02:01 PM 4/2/96 -0800, you wrote: >At 00:24 4/2/96 -0800, Dieter wrote: > >>The Merck Index says that it's sparingly and extremely slowly soluble in cold >>water, but in 15 parts of boiling water. So... > >Sure enough, it apparently has gone into solution in the water but only >after an hour near boiling with lots of stirring. Now that the soln has >cooled, it appears to still be in solution, at least for the most >part...i.e. it'll do for my doping purposes. > >>MI also reads slightly over the top on the extreme toxicity of the stuff.... > >Yeah, I've got that book and it does instill a certain respect when you see, >in italics no less; "Intensely Poisonous!" Then they go on to say that it >was formerly used to treat asthma and chronic bronchitis! > >Scott Little >EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA >512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > > > Unable to find a reference for that in medical texts. Hippocrates used arsenic disulfide for several diseases but arsenicals were used mainly in recent history for syphilotherapy. The only human use I know of is for trypanosomiasis and amebiasis (or for canine filariasis (drocarbil)). Hope that helps. Best wishes. mica Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 20:32:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA16012; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:40:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:40:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <9604061952.AA01259@giasone.teseo.it> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re.about psi collapse in quantum mechanics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: No Horace.What does it mean "escape from superposition principle".All the=20 quantum states have the basic property to obey to the superposition= principle: if you want ,you may prepare quantum states that ,for the particular nature= =20 of the preparation,are not the result of a superposition. You are wright:noone knows actually what a measuring apparatus is,it could= be in effect a magic property of mind or an action of our consciouness as some= one hypothized in the past,but one thing is sure:a psi collapse is that= particular transition of a quantum system from the physical condition where the superposition is the "law" to the new physical condition in which a mixture is the "law",and the difference between these two physical conditions of the= =20 states is very very high.In the first you have not a particle,a defined value of=20 the spin,...... you have not definite properties of the things(I have done the example of=20 the neutron) in the second case you have the transfer of a reality that appears to us so= =20 indefi- nite since we are boolean machines,to our definite,selective logical reality= =20 where all the things are definite,the red is red,the particle is particle,the spin= =20 is up or is down.Some physicists,as I said,retained that this transfer is obtained as= =20 action of our consciousness,other physicists hypothized that ONLY THE MACROSCOPIC CHARACTER OF A MEASURING APPARATUS is able to cancel the quantum effects and thus to give a mixture,but all the physicists agree that the psi collapse is the tarnsition from states obeying to the superposition =20 principle to mixed states.But what is a macroscopic apparatus?It is the gamma counter of my laboratory(and its wavefunction obviously) ,it is the star that is at= =20 a distance of 10 ^..... from us or the human cell of the blood that acts as a measuring= =20 apparatus.Noone Knows this thing ,no physicist in the past realized a= reasonable model of measuring apparatus(thus able to induce,when it is in interaction= with our measured system,the collapse of the psi and ,in other terms,the= transition from...... to a mixture:and this operation,as I have explained in my= previous contribution,could not have success because it is uncorrect as biquaternion quantum mechanics has cleared efforting also numerous detailed examples of psi collapse.You have S and M as two interacting systems:biquaternion=20 quantum mechanics shows that this interaction is regulated by an hidden=20 variable that we call L.This is not a parameter but a rather difficult functional L=20 (...,.....,....,.......) depending from several variables and in particular depending on the nature= of S and M,depending from the space time in which the interaction takes place, depending on....... and so on.On the basis of the features of this=20 L(.........) we have that M may react to the interaction with S so to record only= particular and selected features of S:in other terms.those mixture of states that= instead in S were expressed by the superposition principle. This is all that happens during the psi collapse and if your system has L= with this features,the psi collapse is possible.It is the particular value of L= that regulates the happening of the phenomenon.At the basis of your=20 phenomenon,have you an L?It seems impossible to adfirm yes or not a=20 priori.We may have only indirect exstimation of its presence.One must=20 construct the physical system and must verify if,calculating some specific properties of this system, an= hidden variable with L different from one is involved or not.All this is predicted= =20 from the biquaternion quantum mechanics and it is important to repeat that= =20 this theory is the only that is able to actually produce a description of this=20 phenomenon(the psi collapse,I intend). Sincerely,Elio Conte --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 20:08:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA16341; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:42:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:42:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <960406171018_265590629@mail06> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: FrankStenger X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I would like to introduce my friend Frank Stenger fstenger@interlaced.net who has just joined our group. Frank is retired from NASA's Lewis research in which he did some outstanding work during the Space Race. Frank and I have together designed and completed many ball lightining experiments. Frank built a machine that produces +250,000 amps and built a 100,000 volt capacitor as big as a large desk. We did many micorwave ball lightning experiments. Frank is an expert at solving differential equations and has worked years in solving the differential equations associated with force free field configurations. If you ask him Frank my send you a video of his experiments. H. Heffner saw the experiments and liked them. Welcome to the group Frank. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 20:13:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA16452; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:43:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:43:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <960406171419_507317421@emout06.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: arsenic X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Fwd: arsenic Date: 96-04-03 17:18:25 EST From: FZNIDARSIC To: little@eden.com,Puthoff --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: arsenic Date: 96-04-02 22:25:45 EST From: FZNIDARSIC To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I undersdand that in the last century arsenic was added to women's make up. In small doses it tended to clear up the skin, remove pimples, and add to the complection. It also made the users very sick. Some womam tried larger doses..a little does good..more will be better...these women were not around long to discuss the merrits of the more is better theory.. Scott, If someone tells you, "Scott, how nice you look, your skin really his a nice shine to it." Pack up you bags, tell Puthoff to clean up the office, and hit the road !!!! Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 20:15:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA17598; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:08:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:08:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604070021.QAA01318@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conduction in H2O (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page wrote: >Again, my understanding of the role of the SO4-- and Li+ ions is that >they are very little involved in the overall conductivity of the >electrolysis cell. Could we discuss specific references to experimental >results here? The concentrations of Li+ and SO4-- are on the order of 1 M in the bulk solution away from the reaction regions near the electrodes. At neutral ph the concentrations of H+ and OH- are 10^-7, while at ph = -9 recommended by Patterson's patent the concentrations are [H+] = 10^-9 M and [OH-] = 10^-5. Although H+ and OH- are more mobile than Li+ and SO4--, the difference is not that great. Therefore, when the bulk solution is subject to an electric field, Li+ and SO4-- carry the overwhelming share of the electric current by shear weight of numbers. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 20:11:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA17905; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:10:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:10:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604070037.SAA29013@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Some Ideas for Cell Design X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 02:41 PM 4/6/96 -0800, Flynn wrote: >Explosive mix? Good point, you sure don't want to fill a sizeable chamber with it...but if you keep it in small dia tubing and vent it into a huge space (i.e. the building), there's no problem. The flow rate is tiny. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 20:14:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA18102; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:12:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:12:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Help in Locating McMillan Company X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Help in Locating McMillan Company - I am trying to locate a McMillan Company in Texas. They have a decent flow metering (lab type) device for under $250...and I'm ready to buy it. I found them again, in the Palmer cataloge, but only for an airflow device. Palmer wouldn't give me their address, just said they'd contact them. That was 4 days ago, so I think I am small potatoes. (Note spelling of potato... same as 80 million "ENGLISH" speakers...) - Does anyone know how to locate this McMillan company??? - Thanks! MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 06:44:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA13948; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:06:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:06:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Some Ideas for Cell Design X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 10:17 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Horace wrote: > >>One major problem in my mind is the mixing of the H2 and O2 in the >>degassing chamber. > >What undesirable effects does this cause? > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) Hopefully none of us will find out! 8^) Explosion is the concern. It is of special concern to me because of the confinement of all the components in the electrolyte loop are in dewars and foam, except for the pump. A comparatively large buildup is possible. In an industrial strength version the concern would also be danger due to the quantity of gas generated plus there would be a desirability of recovering it for use in a fuel cell. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 06:34:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA14152; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:07:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:07:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: It bounces X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Dear B. Beaty, > >What's the latest? I posted two vtx messages, was posted successfully >and I got a message from a "<>" that it was undeliverable. This >happened to some other private e-mails sent that were combined with a >vtx address. Is it eskimo.com or something awry with my mail program? >Plus I do not receive too many vtx and zero vorcor messages. By the >volume received, I do not see the vtx being crowded at all. Pardon me >if I am getting neurotic. > >-AK- I am seeing lots of traffic, but much of it is bounced messages from . Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 06:46:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA14340; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:09:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:09:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re.about psi collapse in quantum mechanics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >No Horace.What does it mean "escape from superposition principle".All the=20 >quantum states have the basic property to obey to the superposition= > principle: By this I mean at one moment, prior to the collapse there is one waveform being "superpositioned", and after the collapse, there is totally a new waveform. The subsequent superposition is different from the first. An electron which has just tunneled across a vacuum gap still "superpositions" it's waveform back accross the the gap, but most of volume of the waveform has instantaneously "escaped", i.e. moved, from it's former position across the gap. The new waveform has a new center of mass and distribution. >if you want ,you may prepare quantum states that ,for the particular nature= >=20 >of the >preparation,are not the result of a superposition. >You are wright:noone knows actually what a measuring apparatus is,it could= > be >in effect a magic property of mind or an action of our consciouness as some= > one >hypothized in the past,but one thing is sure:a psi collapse is that= > particular >transition of a quantum system from the physical condition where the >superposition is the "law" to the new physical condition in which a mixture >is the "law",and the difference between these two physical conditions of the= >=20 >states >is very very high.In the first you have not a particle,a defined value of=20 >the spin,...... >you have not definite properties of the things(I have done the example of=20 >the neutron) >in the second case you have the transfer of a reality that appears to us so= >=20 >indefi- >nite since we are boolean machines,to our definite,selective logical reality= >=20 >where >all the things are definite,the red is red,the particle is particle,the spin= >=20 >is up or >is down.Some physicists,as I said,retained that this transfer is obtained as= >=20 >action >of our consciousness,other physicists hypothized that ONLY THE MACROSCOPIC >CHARACTER OF A MEASURING APPARATUS is able to cancel the quantum >effects and thus to give a mixture,but all the physicists agree that the psi >collapse is the tarnsition from states obeying to the superposition =20 >principle to >mixed states.But what is a macroscopic apparatus?It is the gamma counter >of my laboratory(and its wavefunction obviously) ,it is the star that is at= >=20 >a distance >of 10 ^..... from us or the human cell of the blood that acts as a measuring= >=20 >apparatus.Noone Knows this thing ,no physicist in the past realized a= > reasonable >model of measuring apparatus(thus able to induce,when it is in interaction= > with >our measured system,the collapse of the psi and ,in other terms,the= > transition >from...... to a mixture:and this operation,as I have explained in my= > previous >contribution,could not have success because it is uncorrect as biquaternion >quantum mechanics has cleared efforting also numerous detailed examples of >psi collapse.You have S and M as two interacting systems:biquaternion=20 >quantum mechanics shows that this interaction is regulated by an hidden=20 >variable that we >call L.This is not a parameter but a rather difficult functional L=20 >(...,.....,....,.......) >depending from several variables and in particular depending on the nature= > of >S and M,depending from the space time in which the interaction takes place, >depending on....... and so on.On the basis of the features of this=20 >L(.........) >we have that M may react to the interaction with S so to record only= > particular >and selected features of S:in other terms.those mixture of states that= > instead >in S were expressed by the superposition principle. >This is all that happens during the psi collapse and if your system has L= > with >this features,the psi collapse is possible.It is the particular value of L= > that >regulates the happening of the phenomenon.At the basis of your=20 >phenomenon,have you an L?It seems impossible to adfirm yes or not a=20 >priori.We may have only indirect exstimation of its presence.One must=20 >construct the physical system and >must verify if,calculating some specific properties of this system, an= > hidden >variable with L different from one is involved or not.All this is predicted= >=20 >from the biquaternion quantum mechanics and it is important to repeat that= >=20 >this theory is >the only that is able to actually produce a description of this=20 >phenomenon(the psi >collapse,I intend). Sincerely,Elio Conte >--- >Prof Elio Conte >Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia >Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia I do not have a theory, only a hypothesis. It seems to me that is all that is required at this point. You build a gap, put a potential across it, and electrons will tunnel across in a very predictable manner. Build a photomultiplyer and it will work in a very utilitarian way. Utilizing waveform collapse is not superscience. The hypothesis should be easily tested by anyone capable of creating a condensate and bombarding it with energetic electrons. Alternately, mixing high energy particle emitters, especially beta emitters, into the plated layers of cathode metals of a CF cell might also provide a verification of the hypothesis. This seems like the simplest and easiest thing to try. Positive replicatable results would certainly be more meaningful than endless quantities of theory, however beautiful the theory might be. I think the hypothesis explains a lot. Unreliability for one, as performance would be a function of background radiation and cosmic rays. Another thing explained might be why runaway chain reactions are unlikely, and local meltdowns do not occur - a sufficiently hot spot would immediately shut down a reaction by preventing condensates from forming, or reducing their density (condensates/m^3) in the lattice. A meltdown would require a continual external source of impinging particles, as in the Kamada experiment. It does not explain the requirement of a specific energy level that Kamada notes. In any event, it is only a hypothesis presented to stimulate thinking and maybe some tinkering. Just bouncing the ball around a bit. Now look what you've done Neddie! 8^) (This is a reference back to Bill Page's orginal stimulating post which started this ball bouncing.) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 06:35:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA20294; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 01:54:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 01:54:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Help in Locating McMillan Company X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Help in Locating McMillan Company >- >I am trying to locate a McMillan Company in Texas. They have a decent flow >metering (lab type) device for under $250...and I'm ready to buy it. I found >them again, in the Palmer cataloge, but only for an airflow device. Palmer >wouldn't give me their address, just said they'd contact them. That was >4 days ago, so I think I am small potatoes. (Note spelling of potato... >same as 80 million "ENGLISH" speakers...) >- >Does anyone know how to locate this McMillan company??? >- >Thanks! MDH According to the Thomas Regsiter at , a really valuable resource, the address is: McMillan Co. Georgetown, TX 78627-1340 512-863-0231 FAX 512-863-0671 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 06:26:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA27493; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 04:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 04:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960407102343_100276.261_JHF42-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Wolfram Bahmann <100276.261@compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Inquiry X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: to all vortexians: Could anybody provide me the postal address, phone and fax-no. of Hydrodynamics / Jim Griggs ? Thank you! Wolfram Bahmann Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. - EURO. SECR. Feyermuehler Str.12 D-53894 MECHERNICH Germany fax: Int+49/ 2443-8221 e-mail: 100276.261@compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/wbahmann From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 18:12:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA06355; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 12:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 12:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: dacha@shentel.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: two errors re. Field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Peter, My Associates in St.Pete could not get in to see Potapov. The fee at the door was several hundred dollars to get in. Is was more of a conference on how to collect money for power bills, so it is OK that they didn't get in. Please let me know if I can do anything to help you. My only perpose in all of this is to help. Happy Easter, Robert ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 4/7/96 Time: 12:33:12 PM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 18:23:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA00199; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:40:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:40:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: Perturbed experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>You're right, John, but there is one case where Horace might be right. The >>conductivity of "hydrogen ions" is abnormally high, and is thought to be due >>to a different way of conducting, than the usual erratic movement of whole >>(hydrated) ions, in this case H3O+. It is thought to be a passing of H+ from >>H3O+ to a nearby H2O, a faster process. This works only for this one >>particular >>ion, though. >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>| Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | >>| Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | >>| Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > Intermolecular proton transfer occurs mainly at the electrodes. >Intramolecular proton transfer is the dominant intrinsic effect. >If you calculate the concentration of H30+ available, you might >note the likelihood of such bulk intermolecular proton transfer >is dim. > > Hope that helps. > > Mitchell If true, this seems to leave electrons as the primary vehicle for charge equalization, and ions for current transport. What else besides electrons can move a DC EMF from one end of a cell to the other at 1/10 light speed. Maybe my experiment or interpretation is flawed. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 18:31:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA00424; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Cell EMF Propagation Speed Experiment Images X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Courtesy of my 15 year old son John, images of the oscilloscope traces from the super-stretch electrolytic cell EMF propagation speed experiments are now available on www at: These images are provided so others can interpret the data directly. The images were taken today, by direct video. with the Pt elctrode as input and nichrome electrode as output. They are representative of the waveforms referenced in prior posts. Electrolyte flow was from the nichrome electrode toward the platinum electrode. Other cell conditions were as stated in the orginal post, and as restated below for convienience. Exactly the same waveforms ocurred regardless of fluid direction or reversing the leads. The input waveform appears at the top of the first two photos, and is 10 V peak to peak and 1 kHz. In the first two photos the two waveforms are presented simultaneously on the oscilloscope by chopping together the output of two preamplifiers. The quality of the third image is much improved because it was obtained by replacing the two-cahnnel chopping pe-amp module in the scope with a single channel wide-band (well it was wide-band in the 60's) pre-amplifier module to get a better picture of rise time. The output waveform was obtained using a 100 MHz rated probe purchased yesterday, but that did not change the waveform from prior measurements using a lesser probe. The ouput waveform is between 7.5 an 8 V, indicating a current draw is present corresponding to about a 1 megohm impedence from the scope and probe. Both probes were set to 1x. Note that photo 2 shows no readily discernable time delay between leading edges of the input and output traces. The reaminder of this post was extracted from the original post regarding this experiment. The cell length is 10.31 m of 1/8" ID tygon tubing. The length of the Pt exposed to the electrolyte is 6 cm, the NiCr wire 18 cm. The length of Pt wire exposed to moving electrolyte is 3 cm., the NiCr wire, 13 cm. The difference is due to the fact the wires are inserted into the flow using a 1/8" ID barbed T connector, where the electrolyte enters from a 90 degree angle and the wire goes straight through the T. The end seals are compression fittings made by cutting halfway though a rubber stopper and inserting the wire. This was fit into the large end of a threaded 1/4" pipe to hose fitting. A compression cap was made by drilling a 1/4" hole in an ordinary 1/4" pipe cap. A piece of 1/6" thick rubber spacer was cut to fit on the end of the stopper and a small hole was punched through the middle to accept the wire. The compression cap was fitted over the spacer with the wire extending through the middle and tightened down. All the seal parts were bought at Eagle Hardware. The electrolyte used was 200 ml of 1 M Li2SO4. Fluid flow velocity was 9'5" in 60 s or 4.78 cm/s. Fluid flow rate was 23.9 ml in 60 s or 0.40 ml/s. Pressure oscillated between 21 and 22 mmHg at the pump rotational frequency of 2 Hz. A drip degasser was included in the fluid circuit to ensure the current flow was one way. The steady state and flowing state battery voltage from the Pt-NiCr battery was .382 V. For this experiment flow was always from the NiCr electrode towards the Pt. electrode. The electrode leads were switched between the two sets of measurements. The following V vs uA measurements were made: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 11, 39.1, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 uA with - on Pt and + on NiCr V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 13.1, 12.6, 12.5, 12.4 5, 23.3, 22.9, 23.0 22.9 7, 33.3, 33.5, 32.7, 33.3 11, 53.6, 55.3, 51.9, 55.2 The measurements were made by starting with a steady flow at 3 V and moving up to 11 V, then turning on the pump and varying the voltage dowward to 3 V, and the turning off the pump and variying the voltage upward. The significance of this is in the fact the changes in uA between steady and flowing involved no change of settings on the power supply, the current simply increased when the flow was turned on, i.e. 39.1->49.9, 49.4->49.6, 53.6->55.3, 51.9->55.2. The current increases took place over a period of about 10 seconds. I have no explanation for the very large increase of 39.1->49.9 uA atr 11 V in the first set of data, but it is not an error in recroding the data. It is possible (but not likely) some bubbles were very slowly cleaned off the electrodes, but the other data was taken in the same fashion and the 10 V change never occurred again. To check propagation rate a 5 V 1 kHz A/C square wave, with the plus pulse slightly longer than the negative pulse, was applied in both flowing and steady state electrolytes. The results were indistinguishable. The output waveform matched the shape of the input, except the there was a typical RC response delay curve in both the rise and fall edges, indicating a significant capacitance. To check that the RC curve was not due to inductance, a copper wire was laid out on the floor next to the 10 m loop of Tygon and connected in the circuit in place of the fluid circuit. The ouput waveform exactly matched the square input waveform. The time constant of the RC response was about 40 us, i.e. the waveform reached 66 percent in two divisions or 4x10-5 seconds. This means the peak voltage is 99 percent reached in 2x10-4 s on a pulse width of 1/2000 th of a second, or 5x10-4 s. To check this the Tygon tubing was pinched with thumb and forefinger, thus increasing resistance, and the curve flattened out. As a cross check a DMM was used to measure the capacitance. With the + lead connected to the Pt the capacitance was .094 nF or 9.4x10^-11 F. Reversing the leads the capacitance was measured at .084 nF, or 8.4x10-11 F. Using the first V vs uA table value of 17.8 uA at 5 V, we get a resistance of 280k, or 2.8x10^5 ohms. This yields a time constant Tc = (9.4E-11 F)*(2.8E5 Ohm) = 2.6E-5 s, or about 26 microseconds, which is not far from the 40 microsecond Tc approximated from the waveform. This large time constant is an indication that the capacitance of the fluid will prevent better measurments of propagation rate of the electric pulse using this technique, even with a better oscilloscope, due to the long rise time caused by the fluid capacitance and resistance in a 10 m cell. Earlier Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com wrote: "First, with regard to speed. What moves at the speed of light is the electromagnetic field. You apply a source of electrical energy to a system and electric and magnetic fields propagate throughtout in accordance with the CHANGE in conditions, in this case connection of the source. Of course, the EM fields are modified by the environment, such as by wires, pure water, electrolyte, dielectric, magnetic materials, etc. The speed of an EM wave in water (from DC to microwave range of frequencies) is about 1/9 its speed in vacuum." This experiment is completely in accord with 1/9 C as a propagation time, but can not confirm it, as at this speed the propagation time in the 10.31 m cell would be 3.44x10^-8 s, or .034 microseconds, which makes the 40 microsecond rise time look gigantic. However, the pulse leading edges matched the input waveform to a resolution of about 1 part in 100 or to 10 microseconds. This means the propagation speed can not be less than 100,000 m/s. This greatly exceeds the 1,500 m/s speed of sound in water. EM waves in wires are propagated via electrons in metal conduction bands. Since the proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron, it seems like a propagation mechanism involving the proton would be limited to C/1836 = 1.63x10^5 m/s, unfortunately very close to, but outside, the resolution of this experiment. It would be good to repeat the experiment using a two channel digital oscilloscope. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 8 01:42:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA08739; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960407230810.4087c306@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conduction in H2O (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:25 AM 4/4/96 -0800, you wrote: > >Again, my understanding of the role of the SO4-- and Li+ ions is that >they are very little involved in the overall conductivity of the >electrolysis cell. Could we discuss specific references to experimental >results here? > >Cheers, >Bill Page. > > Lithium, like sodium, acts to change the intrinsic dieletric spectra (measured from about 10-7 to 10^4 hertz) by adding new components. The intrinsic dipole motions (D- and L- defects) arise at a cheaper (thermally speaking) expense. This is in addition to the direct conduction, and clathrate, and other effects. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 8 01:49:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA08859; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Cell EMF Propagation Speed Experiment Images X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This message bounced back to me the 1st time, so here it goes again! Taking a second look at the oscilloscope traces on www at: and considering I said in the prior posts: "This experiment is completely in accord with 1/9 C as a propagation time, but can not confirm it, as at this speed the propagation time in the 10.31 m cell would be 3.44x10^-8 s, or .034 microseconds, which makes the 40 microsecond rise time look gigantic. However, the pulse leading edges matched the input waveform to a resolution of about 1 part in 100 or to 10 microseconds. This means the propagation speed can not be less than 100,000 m/s. This greatly exceeds the 1,500 m/s speed of sound in water. EM waves in wires are propagated via electrons in metal conduction bands. Since the proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron, it seems like a propagation mechanism involving the proton would be limited to C/1836 = 1.63x10^5 m/s, unfortunately very close to, but outside, the resolution of this experiment. It would be good to repeat the experiment using a two channel digital oscilloscope." it seemed a detailed specification of the EMF propagation velocity calculation would be a good idea. Noting the middle photo, there is appx 10 cm per 1x10^-3 seconds. Each cm is therefore about 10^-4 s, and each 2 mm division about 2x10^-5 s. The two waveforms match to at least .5 divison, which is 1x10^-5 s. The distance traveled is 10.31 m., so the minimum velocity must be (10.31 m)/(1x10^-5 s) = 1x10^6 m/s. My earlier estimate of 100,000 m/s was low because of the mental error of forgetting the cell was 10 m long. The corrected upper limit for propagation velocity is much faster than the suggested 1.63x10^5 m/s upper limit for EMF propagation speed via the proton, so, by the arguments earlier posted regarding EMF propagation mechanisms, confirms that the only viable mechanism for propagating the EMF is via the electron. This to me is somewhat surprizing, and therefore highly suspect. Please correct me if you find an error in this thinking or calculating. If no error is found I will attempt to put all these thoughts together in one document and put them and the photos on a web page. For once, maybe I'll even use a spelling checker. Still too cheap to buy Eudora-pro. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 8 04:28:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA28084; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conduction in H2O (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 06:25 AM 4/4/96 -0800, you wrote: > >> >>Again, my understanding of the role of the SO4-- and Li+ ions is that >>they are very little involved in the overall conductivity of the >>electrolysis cell. Could we discuss specific references to experimental >>results here? >> >>Cheers, >>Bill Page. >> >> > Lithium, like sodium, acts to change the intrinsic >dieletric spectra (measured from about 10-7 to 10^4 >hertz) by adding new components. Could you elaborate on "intrinsic dieletric spectra"? Also, is "10-7" above supposed to be 10^7? > > The intrinsic dipole motions (D- and L- defects) >arise at a cheaper (thermally speaking) expense. > > This is in addition to the direct conduction, >and clathrate, and other effects. Any good accessable references to suggest on this stuff? > > Hope that helps. > > Mitchell Swartz It is interresting that Storms in his "Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion Effect", page 42, item 10, states that RF frequencies, especially 82 MHz, is helpful. Maybe the electrolyte plays a role as a resonator/oscillator in this regard. If your get the right electrolyte mix, you get the right resonant frequency. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 8 04:29:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA28188; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31687007.9997064@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conduction in H2O (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:08:43 -0800 (PST), Schaffer@gav.gat.com wrote: > >Bill Page wrote: >>Again, my understanding of the role of the SO4-- and Li+ ions is that >>they are very little involved in the overall conductivity of the >>electrolysis cell. Could we discuss specific references to experimental >>results here? > >The concentrations of Li+ and SO4-- are on the order of 1 M in the bulk >solution away from the reaction regions near the electrodes. At neutral ph >the concentrations of H+ and OH- are 10^-7, while at ph = -9 recommended by >Patterson's patent the concentrations are [H+] = 10^-9 M and [OH-] = 10^-5. >Although H+ and OH- are more mobile than Li+ and SO4--, the difference is >not that great. Therefore, when the bulk solution is subject to an >electric field, Li+ and SO4-- carry the overwhelming share of the electric >current by shear weight of numbers. If this is so, and it is also true that all electrons delivered by the cathode to the solution are accounted for by H+ ions being converted into H atoms, then at some point, the charge carried by e.g. SO4-- must be conveyed to to H+, or ? So just which reactions do take place at the electrodes? (Dieter?) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 16:08:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA11392; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 04:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 04:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM)" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: new Japanese results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Re : New Japanese results. One interesting aspect, not mentioned in the info re. the results obtained at FIELD - the case with the lower C.O.P and with 150 L water in the vessel there is a small diagram showing the position of the vessel. The vessel having a volume of some 360 L, a part being filled with the immersion pump and the Yusmar plus two massive rubber cushions which keep the setup in place, is positioned horizontally and the Yusmar is near the bottom of the vessel. In my opinion this is due to the necessity to have the cyclone part of the Yusmar completely under water; the recirculation tube being replaced by a calibrated hole in the cover of the Yusmar. A jet of water is sucked and enters the middle of the vortex formed in the cavitation tube. This hydrodynamic is very complex and is the clue of the o/u of the machine. Peter Gluck From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 16:01:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA00671; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960408124220_102021.3045_EHT92-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "k J. Sparber" <102021.3045@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Ion mobility X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Since the use of an alkali metal is favored in the electrolysis setup so that it doesn't plate out on the cathode, but rather hydrolyzes, one wants low mobility of these ions which points to the use of Cesium Sulphate Cs2SO4 or Selenate Cs2SeO4. I think this would give more favorable results in the tests. FJS From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 16:04:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA12470; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604082341.TAA29793@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cell EMF Propagation Speed Experiment Images X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >Courtesy of my 15 year old son John, images of the oscilloscope traces from >the super-stretch electrolytic cell EMF propagation speed experiments are >now available on www at: > > > Nice pics Horace and John! I guess this means that when you finally get the "elephant" up off the ground, we be seeing some nice photos of your setup and the calorimeter results, right? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 17:11:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA12531; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3169f642.2555385@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cell EMF Propagation Speed Experiment Images X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:07:07 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >mental error of forgetting the cell was 10 m long. The corrected upper >limit for propagation velocity is much faster than the suggested 1.63x10^5 >m/s upper limit for EMF propagation speed via the proton, so, by the >arguments earlier posted regarding EMF propagation mechanisms, confirms >that the only viable mechanism for propagating the EMF is via the electron. Horace, from what I have been reading lately on this forum about transportation by fields, I get the impression that one can think of the whole cell as one large capacitor etc., such that the propagation delay is determined by things like inductance and capacitance. This means that information is in fact transported by low frequency photons, or electromagnetic waves if you wish. The delay is therefore determined by the dielectric constant of the medium (mostly?). It is not propagated by particles at all (unless you wish to think of photons as particles). The current on the other hand is composed of particles, however their velocity in the cell is irrelevant to the propagation delay of signals. Just as in a copper wire, "pushing an electron in one end, causes a different electron to pop out the other end almost instantaneously" so to speak. The energy is passed as an electromagnetic wave, while the charges themselves travel at drift velocity, determined by flow and field gradient. In other words, the physical velocity of the particles has little or nothing to do with the speed with which they pass along information from one to the next (information in the form of energy, or changes in force). At least according to my imperfect understanding. > >This to me is somewhat surprizing, and therefore highly suspect. Please >correct me if you find an error in this thinking or calculating. If no [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 17:10:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA22028; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Stephan Marinov E&M X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In honor of new vortex member Frank Stenger I thought I would mention Stephan Marinov's E&M. Frank has been a leader in investigating the logitiduinal electromagnetic force which is a magnetic like force that is directed along a particle's velocity. Stephan's force equation appears as an advertisement in the latest Nature. There are very major problems with his theory but it did catch my interest as he actually gives a force equation which contains a longitudinal force. The mathematics are correct and the theory flows only from the hypothesis that the magnetic force between two particles should be symmetric. He gives a simple experiment to test this force which I think is worth doing. You take a cylindrical magnet and then cut it along its axes. You then flip one of the sections and let the two stick together. The magnetic force will be attractive so they will hold together on their own. this magnet is then placed in a mecury filled container, axis pointing up. A copper ring is constructed that will just fit over the magnet. This ring is placed over the magnet and allowed to float on the mecury. Then two electrodes are placed in the container at right angles to the plane of the magnet cut. Then a current on the order of tens of amperes is passed through the electrodes and the ring rotates. This alleged experimental result is interesting in view of the lower currents required and its symmerty properties. Another experiment using a copper rod in a mecury trough sends a much higher current along the rod axes and the rod moves but not very far. Also an argument may be made that the Hall voltage causes a slight diference of charge between the rod and the mecury bath. This slight charge would be subject to the electric field force. With this ring experiment the symmetry makes it difficult to argue for a charge build up on the ring and it is thus difficult to argue for a significant electric force. And of course, the ring keeps on rotating which is more impressive than a rod moving a short distance and then stopping (because it hits the end of the trough). Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 16:09:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA07814; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604091517.LAA09207@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cell EMF Propagation Speed Experiment Images X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >... >EM waves in wires are propagated via electrons in metal conduction bands. >Since the proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron, it seems like a >propagation mechanism involving the proton would be limited to C/1836 = >1.63x10^5 m/s, unfortunately very close to, but outside, the resolution of >this experiment. I don't believe it is correct to state that EM waves in wires are propagated via electrons, although it is certainly true to claim that the electric *current* is carried by electrons. It is possible to establish a potential difference (voltage) between two ends of a wire or between two electrodes in a solution at essentially the speed of light (as mentioned by Michael J. Schaffer in a previous message), but the current flow (amperage) will be delayed due to several effects. For a more complete picture of what is going on, you should be measuring the time variation of both the potential and the current. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 16:38:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA08219; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604091517.LAA09210@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Conduction in H2O (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > >The concentrations of Li+ and SO4-- are on the order of 1 M in the bulk >solution away from the reaction regions near the electrodes. At neutral ph >the concentrations of H+ and OH- are 10^-7, while at ph = -9 recommended by >Patterson's patent the concentrations are [H+] = 10^-9 M and [OH-] = 10^-5. >Although H+ and OH- are more mobile than Li+ and SO4--, the difference is >not that great. Therefore, when the bulk solution is subject to an >electric field, Li+ and SO4-- carry the overwhelming share of the electric >current by shear weight of numbers. > Consulting Table 4.13 of Modern Electrochemistry, Bockris & Reddy, (page 366, volume 1 of the paperback edition) we see that the "equivalent conductance at infinite dilution and 25 deg. C." of the H+ ion is 349.82 cm^2/ohm almost 10 times greater than Li+ at only 38.69 cm^2/ohm. Similarily the OH- ions carry about 3 to 4 times the current of most other anions. There are a lot of details to be concerned about and it is definately a good idea to consult the text in some detail on these issues, but basically: equivalent conductance - measures the conductivity of a ionic species at a standardized concentration of 1 mole of charge Now it is very important to realize that this equivalent conductivity varies with concentration. In fact, it *increases* as the ionic concentration decreases. It asymptomically reaches its highest value at "infinite dilution". So increasing the concentration of Li+ ions and SO4-- ions will only *decrease* the amount of current carried by these species. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 17:18:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA08463; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:51:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:51:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604091517.LAA09214@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neddie's excess energy hypothesis X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > >I am curious to ask to which "phase transition in a crystal" you refer? >Perhaps it is a loading phase, or do you mean like the crystal melting, as >in the Kamada experiment? No. The phase transitions that Neddie is talking about are related to the metal lattice structure. This structure changes as the concentration of H (or D) is increased. In the alpha-phase, Pd retains the face-centered cubic structure that it has with no H present. In the beta-phase, Pd-H atoms apparently take on more of a NaCl-like alternating structure. P&F claim that as the concentration is further increased, a third phase they call the gamma-phase forms. The exact lattice structure of this form has not be determined (to my knowledge). It is also apparently unstable as ordinary (room) temperatures and pressures. These changes are called "phase" changes although no actual melting, etc. occurs, there are significant changes in physical properties such as specific heat, thermal conductivity and electrical conductivity. > >I envy your ability to attack this problem quantitatively, and am aware >that I am way out of my league in this newsgroup, but maybe a few questions >will help stir this pot. Never stop asking questions no matter how you feel about your level of competance. Really, there are very few answers, all we really do is to learn to ask better questions! > >There are many experiments that indicate wavefunctions can collapse, e.g. >large photons from distant stars, tunneling electrons, etc., instantly >changing the center of mass *and* psi^2 distribution. In David Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics there is no wavefunction collapse. At all times, even during measurements, the wavefunction evolves according to the Schrodinger equation. It is one of the shakiest parts of the conventional interpretation that it is necessary to violoate Schrodinger's equation during measurements, where instead of evolving according to Schrodinger's equation, a measurement "causes" the wavefunction to randomly transform to a stationary state (eigen-state). In Bohm's case, the effect of measurements is not obtained by such a collapse, but rather by the fact that in some cases particle motion can only be affected by a limited part of the wavefunction and not its full form. In this sense some wavefunctions (or parts of wavefunctions) can be considered to be "empty" and will have no effect on subsequent particle motion. Basically this occurs because the equations of motion of the particles are such that their trajectories cannot pass through nodes (zeros) in the wavefunction. But as the wavefunction evolves there will arise situations where these trajectories are chaotically determined (not probablistic, but chaotic because the trajectory depends infinitismally on its initial conditions). The chaos is just that which is sufficient to "explain" the apparent intrinsic randomness of the measurement process. It is really in his description of the measurement process that Bohm departs most clearly from the conventional interpretation. In any case, in the interpretation that Neddie is using these days, there is no such thing as a "wavefunction collapse". >Personally, I like the notion of a two particle Einstein Bose Condensate >being disturbed by a high energy electron. This creates the paradox that, >viewed from the electron, the particles must have the same center of mass, >but small deviation psi^2 function. It seems like a wave function collapse >of the EBC on the electron would tend to produce a sudden tunneling of one >constituant to the other's location. > ... In order to talk consistently about this, you really need a "language" in which both particles and wavefunctions "really exist". Bohm's interpretation is the only interpretation of quantum mechanics that I am aware of that would allow you to do this. I think you will see, if you follow Bohm's discussion of EBC, that the situation is quite different than what you describe. But that's a long story which I will have to delay for later since I'm meeting Neddie of lunch to discuss his latest attempt at learning more about solid state physics, group theory etc. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 17:24:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA08697; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cell EMF Propagation Speed Experiment Images X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >Horace, from what I have been reading lately on this forum about >transportation by fields, I get the impression that one can think of >the whole cell as one large capacitor etc., such that the propagation >delay is determined by things like inductance and capacitance. This >means that information is in fact transported by low frequency >photons, or electromagnetic waves if you wish. The delay is therefore >determined by the dielectric constant of the medium (mostly?). It is >not propagated by particles at all (unless you wish to think of >photons as particles). >The current on the other hand is composed of particles, however their >velocity in the cell is irrelevant to the propagation delay of >signals. >Just as in a copper wire, "pushing an electron in one end, causes a >different electron to pop out the other end almost instantaneously" so >to speak. The energy is passed as an electromagnetic wave, while the >charges themselves travel at drift velocity, determined by flow and >field gradient. In other words, the physical velocity of the particles >has little or nothing to do with the speed with which they pass along >information from one to the next (information in the form of energy, >or changes in force). >At least according to my imperfect understanding. >> [snip] > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Electromagnetic fields can convey only oscillating fields, not a static charge. Only a particle can carry a charge. Even a purely static electrostatic field can only extend potentials according to the inverse square law. A static 10 V EMF at the tip of a .015" wire can barely be measured at 1 m, much less 10 m. You certainly can not do it with my equipment. If what you were saying were true you could simply remove the water from the 10 m cell and still measure the same EMF. That will not work. The EMF can not be carried by photons, except *between* particles. The charge bearing particles receiving the impulse then must *move* to propagate a field strength change on to the neighboring (chargewise downstream) particles. I can believe an EM pulse could induce voltages, at least a momentary field gradient, at 10 m distance, but it would require major energy, and would be clearly dynamic. If you look at the 1 kHz pulse it comes up to equilibrium - it in effect is not a pulse. If you connected a 10 V battery instead of the square wave generator, it would come up to the same potential at the same speed and stay there indefinitely. An electromagnetic field is propagated in a sinusoidal form. For every potential swing there is an equal energy but opposite polarity swing due to the generated magnetic field collapse. Think about this. There would be some indication of backswing before the particle carried pulse arrived. What do you think? Try to work out an example with some numbers as to how your mental model of this could possibly work. Where am I wrong? It appears I definitely was wrong earlier when I was thinking molecular ions carried the potential forward. Am I wrong about this too? There is some evidenence the potential can be carried forward by electrons in electrolytes. That evidence is the fact the Faradaic efficiency is not 100 percent. Some of the currrent must be in the form of electrons. It takes only a very small number of electrons to carry a potential forward. The number required to do so in a conductor that is open at the end strictly depends on the capacitance of the conductor, as determined strictly by it' surface area and geometry. Electrons must carry forward the potential in electrolytes in a manner similar to the way a lightning leader is formed. The heavy nuclear ions would respond eventually with motion. Fast charge propagation via electrons is not surprizing when you think about the size of the de Broglie wavelength of a thermal Electron. It is huge, much larger than the largest atom. And the mass is very small. Free electrons, and conduction band electrons, must be very very good at EMF propagation. Thinking aloud about this a bit, it is possible for electrons to propagate charge without leaving their orbitals. This is by simply deforming their atoms to create dipoles. The electron orbital moves relative to its nucleus, in a local field gradient, but the enertia of the nucleus prevents motion so the wave potential is propagated. Ions in the solution can then eventually respond (but in parallel) to the local gradients in a speed that approximates spontaneous inertial recovery of the atomic dipoles, i.e. due to the atomic dipole nuclei finally responding with motion. It seems like each atomic dipole nucleus would overshoot, resulting in a resonant decay mode frequency characteristic of the mass of the nucleus. Wierd thought, EMP resonance instead of NMR. Forensics here we come. :^). Much slower effects, like H2O (nautrally a dipole) molecular rotation could also complete the job of EMF propagation. Any thoughts? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 16:25:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18122; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Cell EMF Propagation Speed Experiment Images X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Apologies for incorrectly typing data from my lab book in the post regarding the 10 m electrolysis cell. I doubt anyone needs the info, but at least the errors are hopefully corrected below: The electrolyte used was 200 ml of 1 M Li2SO4. Fluid flow velocity was 9'5" in 60 s or 4.78 cm/s. Fluid flow rate was 23.9 ml in 60 s or 0.40 ml/s. Pressure oscillated between 21 and 22 mmHg at the pump rotational frequency of 1.5 Hz. A drip degasser was included in the fluid circuit to ensure the current flow was one way. The steady state and flowing state battery voltage from the Pt-NiCr battery was .382 V. For this experiment flow was always from the NiCr electrode towards the Pt. electrode. The electrode leads were switched between the two sets of measurements. The following V vs uA measurements were made: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 9, 39.1, 38.9 38.8, 39.0 11, 49.6, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 uA with - on Pt and + on NiCr V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 13.1, 12.6, 12.5, 12.4 5, 23.3, 22.9, 23.0 22.9 7, 33.3, 33.5, 32.7, 33.3 9, 43.7, 44.5, 42.3, 44.4 11, 53.6, 55.3, 51.9, 55.2 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 16:51:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18320; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960410055455_72240.1256_EHB76-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Storms on gamma phase Pd X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This discussion of the gamma phase Pd lattice is mostly over my head, but I would like to point out that Ed Storms gave a talk about this subject at the Asti conference, which we published in the the latest issue of Infinite Energy. It is "The Nature of the Energy-Active State in Pd-D," p. 77 - 81. Ed says: "although a variety of phase structures are available to explain this phase, I propose that the new phase relates to the Beta phase as shown in figure 12. The new phase . . . is formed as single deuterium atoms withing the fcc structure of the Beta-Pd (Li)D are replaced by D2 dimers." Bill Page wrote: "The exact lattice structure of this form has not be determined (to my knowledge). It is also apparently unstable as ordinary (room) temperatures and pressures." Some say it is unstable, but some people, including Ikegami, tell me that it can be surprisingly stable for a while. The deuterium stays crammed into the lattice even after electrolysis is turned off, which is why you get heat after death. The hypothesis is that it degasses slowly until it reaches a critical point, and then the degassing speeds up and it soon becomes uniformly Beta phase Pd. I believe Beta phase Pd does the same thing before Alpha phase. Cravens tells me that you can identify which phase a sample is in by watching the degassing rate. If it is slow but it appears to be gradually building up, that means it is on the verge of falling from one to the other, as a particular set of lattice sites empty out. It reminds me a bit of the ancient Japanese protocals for entering or leaving a meeting with a Daimyo or the Emperor. Some spots have to be occupied first, then others, and then others, and the first ones can't move until the last ones go. (In computer terms it is LIFO not FIFO). - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 16:13:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA05110; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: conduction/polarization & Bockris X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This was posted yesterday, and the day before, but it bounced. This is try number 3. Bill Page wrote: > >Yes. I am quite sure that the book "Modern Electrochemistry" J. O'M. >Bockris and A,K.N. Reddy, volumes 1 and 2, Plenum Press, 1973, is >still available at most large university book stores and libraries >[I bought my paperback $27.50/volume edition at the MIT Co-op bookstore >in 1993.]. Almost all the chapters of volume 1 are relevant to your >questions. See especially Chapter 4 "Ion Transport in Solutions" and >Chapter 5 "Protons in Solution". > [snip] > >Cheers, >Bill Page. I just ordered the above. For others who might be interrested, "Modern Electrochemistry" in paperback is currently available directly from Plenum Press at 1-800-221-9369 for $34.60 per volume. I called the local bookstore and they told me it mas no longer in print and recommended another multi-volume set of Bockris works at $129.95 per volume. Thanks again Bill. Your post not only provided the info., but saved me some bucks. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 16:23:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA05124; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cell EMF Propagation Speed Experiment Images X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is bounced messgage try number 2. >Horace Heffner wrote: > >>Courtesy of my 15 year old son John, images of the oscilloscope traces from >>the super-stretch electrolytic cell EMF propagation speed experiments are >>now available on www at: >> >> >> > >Nice pics Horace and John! I guess this means that when you finally >get the "elephant" up off the ground, we be seeing some nice photos >of your setup and the calorimeter results, right? > >Cheers, >Bill Page. Hopefully so, but John put the photos on the linux system he and a few other kids have installed at his high school. The server is under working great and the pages under construction, but there may be political problems with it, the powers that be preferring NT and not liking kid installed and maintained stuff. So, the photos are only temporarily available. I may have to (choke, choke, cough!) pay to put up a web page with my service provider. 8^) Yes, I will make every effort to do that, but probably not this month. BTW, it's the "Blue Elephant". Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 16:25:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA05138; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cell EMF Propagation Speed Experiment Images X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is "bounced message" try number 2 for this post. I just wrote: "Thinking aloud about this a bit, it is possible for electrons to propagate charge without leaving their orbitals. This is by simply deforming their atoms to create dipoles. The electron orbital moves relative to its nucleus, in a local field gradient, but the enertia of the nucleus prevents motion so the wave potential is propagated. Ions in the solution can then eventually respond (but in parallel) to the local gradients in a speed that approximates spontaneous inertial recovery of the atomic dipoles, i.e. due to the atomic dipole nuclei finally responding with motion." There I go falling for that silly "waves can propagate an EMF" idea again! It really is hard to clear it out of the brain. Propagating an EMF reguires charges to move, period. Rotating H2O dipoles can do this, but momentarily distorting orbitals can not, they must recover and thus can only propagate a pulse. Water dipoles can sit oriented a particular way indefinitely. If the idea of distorting orbitals worked as a significant part of the answer, the water based electrolyte could be replaced with carbon tetrachloride (a fantastic insulator) and work just as well. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 17:13:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA08973; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 04:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 04:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This was mailed yesterday, but bounced. This is try number 2. [snip] > You take a cylindrical magnet and then cut it along its axes. You then >flip one of the sections and let the two stick together. The magnetic >force will be attractive so they will hold together on their own. >this magnet is then placed in a mecury filled container, axis pointing up. >A copper ring is constructed that will just fit over the magnet. This >ring is placed over the magnet and allowed to float on the mecury. Then >two electrodes are placed in the container at right angles to the plane of >the magnet cut. Then a current on the order of tens of amperes is passed >through the electrodes and the ring rotates. [snip] > >Lawrence E. Wharton If I visualize this correctly: I suspect that if you replace the copper ring with an insulated (but similarly dense) ring, it will still rotate. That is because the surface mercury itself should rotate around the magnet due to MHD type forces. If the negative pole is on the north side of the core, then four vortices (how appropriate) should be created, one on the north side and one on the south side of the magnet bar, one at each magnet boundary. For opposing vortices, their main axis is colinear through the magnet bar purpendicular to the axis of the bar, but they rotate in opposite directions. If the negative pole is opposite the N pole of the bar, there will be an upwelling as the electrons move through the field to the right of the N pole, and a downwelling as they move to the left of the N pole. As the transition into the returning field lines in the neighborhood of the S pole the fluid motion is reversed. There is a downwelling on the right (as seen from the N pole direction) and an upwelling on the left. This means, as seen from the N pole side, the N pole vortex rotates conterclockwise, and the S pole vortex clockwise. The (secondary) vortecies at the magnet boundaries rotate in a manner that opposes the surface motion of the N and S pole vertices. Their motion is weak because it is not directly driven by MHD forces, because the electrons in the vicinity are flowing much more purpendicular to the magnetic field lines. Their motion is mainly an indirect result of the motion of the primary vortices. The larger the container the assembly is placed in, you would expect the less the secondary vortex motion, and the less continuity in flow direction within them. The net rotation of the surface mercury is therefore clockwise when the - electrode is opposite the N pole. Reversing the current, so the + terminal is at the N pole side of the bar should reverse all the rotational directions. Did I get all that right? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 17:25:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA21398; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 06:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 06:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mark Anthony Collins To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Hello X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Who all on this list is working on cold fusion theories right now? I've got some of my own and I look forward to discussing some of them... "DOS Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million machines in use wordwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do not denote a higher life form." (New York Times, November 26, 1991) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 17:31:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA09285; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Hello X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 04/10/96 06:43 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Hello Sorry A.K.... I work on DOS/Windows platforms.....I cannot (therefore) communi- cate with you, as you are a different "life form". MDH (Hee-Hee-Hee!) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 10 22:54:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA21003; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neddie's excess energy hypothesis X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >In order to talk consistently about this, you really need a "language" >in which both particles and wavefunctions "really exist". Bohm's >interpretation is the only interpretation of quantum mechanics that I >am aware of that would allow you to do this. I think you will see, if >you follow Bohm's discussion of EBC, that the situation is quite different >than what you describe. Is there something wrong with what I describe? I am setting out a starting basis for interpretation, a hypothesis, a set of assumptions. Upon analysis, the assumptions may quickly lead to erroneous conclusions that invalidate them, but it does not seem they should be rejected on the basis they do not match the assumptions of other existing interpretations. I can see from various responses that I have not done a good job of expressing the ideas of the hypothesis. As you say, there is no "language" established. To be explicit, here is an underlying set of assumptions: (1) All matter exists in a wave form. There is no such thing as a dimensionless point particle, only wave packets of larger or smaller sizes. A particle is a waveform. (2) The qualities of matter, e.g. mass, inertia and charge, are distributed in the wavefunction according to PSI^2. (3) Wavefunctions interact with each other according to their relative velocity. The de Broglie wavelength, l=h/p, descibes real testable phenomena with a real characteristic wavelength, based on momentum. Momentum is a function of mass and velocity. However, velocity and mass are functions of relative motion only. There is no absolute velocity. Therefore, the interation of particles must be based on the relative velocity of the particles. (4) Measurement is the interaction of particles. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, a sound is still made. Schrodinger's cat is not simulatanously living and dead, just because the box is not opened. Tunnel diodes and photomultipliers work whether you watch them or not. Wavefunction collapse is a real phenomenon. The photon from a distant star that interferes with itself across a wide area finally ejects a single electron from the metal surface of the photomultiplyer tube. The electron that tunnels across a potential barrier acutally changes its center of mass and charge when it does so. But prior do doing so, some of its mass and charge was already there. It is the opportunity, probability, and net change in energy that permits or denies the finality of the act of wavefunction collapse. (5) Particles are capable of action at a distance because particles at exactly the same relative velocity have wavelength l=h/0. The probability of distant action is small due to the PSI^2 volume products being small at large distances. The probability of action at a distance improves as the distance is reduced. However, action at a distance can provide an explanation for ZPE, while conserving energy and entropy. These assumptions provide some explanation for various things, like why an electron stays in orbit around a nucleus without radiating. Its center of charge is already at the center of charge of the nucleus. There is no need to radiate, the electron center of charge is not in motion, in "orbit", relative to the nucleus. More to the point, the assumptions change the expected outcome of a three body interaction. >But that's a long story which I will have to >delay for later since I'm meeting Neddie of lunch to discuss his >latest attempt at learning more about solid state physics, group >theory etc. > >Cheers, >Bill Page. Hope those kernals didn't stick in your teeth. :^) Just a little group joke. :^) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 11 05:44:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA07758; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 05:28:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 05:28:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9604111145.AA13314@giasone.teseo.it> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re.to Horace Hoffner psi collapse X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: It is from many time that REALISTIC VIEW points have failed in quantum mechanical interpretations:this in particular from when=20 a well unequality,that one called Bell's inequality,has confirmed the whole validity of the traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics. No matter to recover old interpretations when many experimental=20 arrangements have fully confirmed the validity of the traditional quantum interpretation of a theory.The usual quantum mechanics is a theory that gives only successes,and it has not problems at any level of its application:all the tentative to give a realistic character to the quantum mechanics have failed from many time.The problem is that the quantum mechanics has,as all the theory,its definite field of validity:that one of the usual quantum mechanics is only and only the atomic level.It was in fact elaborated ONLY for this purpose.The usual quantum mechanics is unable to make more,to go on the sphere of its applicability:in order to consider the quantum reality at differrent levels of investigation in= addition to that one at atomic level,a generalization of the theory is required,just as the biquaternion quantum mechanics makes.The psi collapse is not a problem of the usual quantum mechanics,it is unable to treat this phenomenon,a generalization is infact need,the biquaternion quantum mechanics. Again an incorrect adfirmation,Horace,in your point 4.No,a measurement is not a simple interaction.If so it was,the usual Schrodinger equation should be able to describe psi collapse:A QUANTUM MEASUREMENT=20 IS THE TRANSITION OF A QUANTUM SYSTEM FROM THE PHYSICAL CONDITION IN WHICH ITS STATES OBEY TO THE SUPERPOSITION PRINCIPLE TO THE NEW PHYSICAL CONDITION IN WHICH ITS STATES ARE A MIXTURE.It is an hidden variable L =3D L(..........) to determine this transition in the more "realistic" way,showing us that,during a measurement, we transleate the noboolean quantum logic of our quantum physical reality into our boolean logic(that one,only,that we,boolean machines,are able to conceive)and of our boolean measurement apparatus:we select only particular aspects(the mixture of states)of a reality that instead,withouth of our observation,is more complex(superposition principle) and incomprehensible to us.The paradigm of the world is not energy-matter,as in the oldest= realism, but enrgy-matter-information:this is the lesson given us from quantum= mechanics. Unfortunately,you do not intend to read the book entitled Biquaternion Quantum Mecchanics!!!!. Sincerely,Elio Conte --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 11 06:29:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAB14037; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604111256.AA14996@gateway1.srs.gov> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Kirk L. Shanahan" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Vote X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi all, Vote was 3:stay, 1:abstain, 0:go. Guess I'll hang around...:-) -- Kirk Shanahan From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 11 07:37:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA14121; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mark Anthony Collins To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Technical Difficulties X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The last two messages I sent (which were the first two since I'm new to this list) were bounced back with an error on the address, but I double-checked the address, and it appears to be right... Let's see if this gets through... This is a test. If this were an actual email it would contain at least some kind of message that had some kind of meaning. This was only a test... "DOS Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million machines in use wordwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do not denote a higher life form." (New York Times, November 26, 1991) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 11 12:38:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA14171; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: VTX: Sonoluminescence fusion paper now online X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The paper "Sonoluminescence and the prospects for table-top micro-thermonuclear fusion", Physics Letters A 211 (1996) 69-74, by William C. Moss, Douglas B. Clarke, John W. White and David A. Young is available online at: The document is in pdf format, but very conveniently provides information and pointers to a site to download a free copy of the Adobe Acrobat reader required. The article discusses results of hydrodynamic simulations of bubble collapse. The conclusions of interest to CF'ers were that D2 cannot exhibit picosecond sonoluminescence because of its large sound speed, but the addition of D2O lowers the sound speed sufficiently to produce fusion on a small scale that would possibly be useful for research purposes. The indicated fusion rates are not sufficient for calorimetrically detectable energy production (my note). Inclusion of 50 percent T2O would increase neutron production 50 times. Raising the abient pressure to increase bubble mass may also improve fusion rates. Most importantly, a spiked driving pressure was found to be far superior to a sinusoidal one. The final conclusion: "At the very least, the spiked driving pressure applied to any sonoluminescing system may produce an experimental crucible that gives the general scientific community easy and inexpensive access to pressures, temperatures, and time scales that have been unattainable previously." At my request, Willie Moss kindly sent me a couple reprints. If some vortexian needs a hardcopy reprint from Physics Letters A, I will be glad to mail it. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 11 12:41:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA15351; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Yes Horace your analysis is quite correct: >I suspect that if you replace the copper ring with an insulated (but >similarly dense) ring, it will still rotate. That is because the surface >mercury itself should rotate around the magnet due to MHD type forces. If . . >Did I get all that right? I have been thinking of a refinement of the experiment to eliminate the MHD forces. I would have the current going only along the ring. Then the magnetic force would be perpindicular to the ring and would exert no torque about the magnet axis. Marinov's force equation has a component directed along the particle velocity that would still give a torque. It would be easy to dismiss his result if it were not for the fact that such a force has actually been observed and published in leading physics journals. It has been many years since I looked at this question and I don't recall the references. The experiments work like this: A cylindrical magnetic coil is made with the legnth much longer than the radius. An electron scattering experiment is set up near the middle of this coil. The electrons are aimed so that they almost graze the outside of the coil and the flight path is much less than the legnth of the coil. A curent is applied or not applied to the coil. There would be a magnetic field inside the coil but the magnetic field would be zero outside the coil even when the current is on. The scattering experiment is done with the current on and off and there is an observed difference in the scattering. Care is taken to insure that the electric and magnetic field are always zero along the electron flight path. So how could turning the current in the coil on and off change the electron trajectory when no change was made in the electric and magnetic field? The accepted answer is that the current generates no magnetic field outside the coil but the magnetic vector potential, A, is changed and it is A that appears in the Dirac equation. So it is allegedly a quantum mechanical effect. I never believed this explanation and like the idea of inventing a new force. Marinov's force is simple to test and we shall see if it is valid. If it exists then energy is not conserved. Not only is Marinov's force nonconservative but one can show that any E&M force other than the Lorentz force does not conserve energy. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 11 12:45:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA15899; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Glass coated platinum wire (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Anyone have an answer for this question? Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:49:42 +0200 > To: jlogajan@skypoint.com > From: amia@dx-net.fr (AMIA) > Subject: Glass coated platinum wire > Content-Length: 646 > > Dear John, > > Do you know some suppliers of glass coated platinum wire ? We need a > diameter of 0,01 mm and a thickness isulation of 0,002 mm. Could you help > me in my research ? > Thank you a lot for your collaboration > With kind regards, > > Jean-Marc LE DORZE > > ////////////////////////////////////// > ----- AMIA ----- > ///// 1, Quai Finkmatt ///// > ----- 67 000 STRASBOURG - FRANCE ----- > ///// ///// > ----- Tel : 33 88 52 04 52 ----- > ///// Fax : 33 88 52 06 00 ///// > ----- Fax : 33 88 23 14 28 ----- > ///// E-mail : amia@dx-net.fr ///// > -------------------------------------- -- - 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 hheffner@anc.ak.net Thu Apr 11 19:59:57 1996 Received: from anc.ak.net (root@anc.ak.net [204.17.241.19]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA24406 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [204.57.193.77] ([204.57.193.77]) by anc.ak.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA00968 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:33:19 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 18:58:05 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M Status: RO X-Status: This is try number 2 to get through: Lawrence E. Wharton wrote: > >I have been thinking of a refinement of the experiment to eliminate the MHD >forces. I would have the current going only along the ring. Then the >magnetic force would be perpindicular to the ring and would exert no torque >about the magnet axis. Marinov's force equation has a component directed >along the particle velocity that would still give a torque. It would be >easy to dismiss his result if it were not for the fact that such a force >has actually been observed and published in leading physics journals. It >has been many years since I looked at this question and I don't recall the >references. I can't help on the references because I haven't seen them. Maybe some other vortexian? However, I have the equipent to do this experiment with a little work. A 240 ma 7500 V DC power supply and some 1x1x.5" 35 MGO magnets, and some 1.5" copper pipe. Maybe some iron filings and tubing to make the magnet core circular, or just use the square magnets. There were some minature ball bearings around here somewhere ... > The experiments work like this: A cylindrical magnetic coil is made >with the legnth much longer than the radius. An electron scattering >experiment is set up near the middle of this coil. The electrons are aimed >so that they almost graze the outside of the coil and the flight path is >much less than the legnth of the coil. A curent is applied or not applied >to the coil. There would be a magnetic field inside the coil but the >magnetic field would be zero outside the coil even when the current is on. >The scattering experiment is done with the current on and off and there is >an observed difference in the scattering. Care is taken to insure that the >electric and magnetic field are always zero along the electron flight path. >So how could turning the current in the coil on and off change the >electron trajectory when no change was made in the electric and magnetic >field? The accepted answer is that the current generates no magnetic field >outside the coil but the magnetic vector potential, A, is changed and it is >A that appears in the Dirac equation. > So it is allegedly a quantum mechanical effect. I never believed this >explanation and like the idea of inventing a new force. Marinov's force is >simple to test and we shall see if it is valid. If it exists then energy >is not conserved. Not only is Marinov's force nonconservative but one can >show that any E&M force other than the Lorentz force does not conserve >energy. > >Lawrence E. Wharton It appears there are some big problems with this experimental design. The main problem is with the electron beam. Most of the electrons in the beam are not moving in parallel when the magnetic field is on, they are following a spiral path. Also, more electrons could be expected in the beam when the magnet current is on. The problem orginates before the electrons leave the gun. Electrons emitted from the cathode at slightly off angles hit the gun baffles in normal circumstances. When the transverse field is on some of these off-course electrons get through the baffles because they follow a spiral path. The beam would appear collimated, but it would acutally not be, due to the spiral path of some of the constituants. When the beam hits a target and scatters, the scattering angles would appear to increase, because the incident electrons would actually be coming from lots of different apparent incoming angles, even though still hitting a spot. Also, the spiral path of the electrons creates a magnetic vector in the direction of their motion, which affects beam geometry, and, bingo!, due to the existing field, therefore their velocity. Another problem is that the beam should not approach the walls of the electromagnet. In the vicinity of the individual wires the magnetic field begins to become circular around the individual wires, and bumpy further out. The beam should be kept within .5 r of the axis to keep the magnetic field reasonably uniform. Maybe it would be interresting to simply measure the longitudinal force on two parallel wires with a long path in opposite directions through a helical electromagnet? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 07:05:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA26738; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604120230.WAA20572@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neddie's excess energy hypothesis X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace, You wrote: >Is there something wrong with what I describe? I am setting out a starting >basis for interpretation, a hypothesis, a set of assumptions. Upon >analysis, the assumptions may quickly lead to erroneous conclusions that >invalidate them, but it does not seem they should be rejected on the basis >they do not match the assumptions of other existing interpretations. > ... I agree that it is not appropriate to reject your approach just because it is different - in fact, it is not very different than some of the approaches that were tried in the very early days of quantum theory - especially the ideas of de Broglie. Unfortunately this approach did not fit all of the strange experimental observations. One very good book that deals with all this is "The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics - The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historiacal Perspective" by Max Jammer, John Wiley & Sons, 1974. Chapter 2 "Early Semiclassical Interpretations" deals with some models that are in many ways similar to yours. Chapter 7 "Hidden- Variable Theories" gives a good outline of Bohm's approach. There is even a chapter on quantum logic of the kind mentioned here by Prof. Conte. I'll try to make an extended reply in the next few days - things have gotten very busy around here lately... ------- But one last question. I have recently sent four messages to vortex-l with various reponses ranging from error messages (bounces) to nothing back at all. But you have replied to one of these messages, so at least that one got through some how. Could you tell me if you also say the other three messages? I hope these problems with vortex-l are fixed soon. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 07:16:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA27039; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Glass coated platinum wire (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Try number 2 to get through: >Anyone have an answer for this question? > >Forwarded message: >> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:49:42 +0200 >> To: jlogajan@skypoint.com >> From: amia@dx-net.fr (AMIA) >> Subject: Glass coated platinum wire >> Content-Length: 646 >> >> Dear John, >> >> Do you know some suppliers of glass coated platinum wire ? We need a >> diameter of 0,01 mm and a thickness isulation of 0,002 mm. Could you help >> me in my research ? >> Thank you a lot for your collaboration >> With kind regards, >> >> Jean-Marc LE DORZE >> >> ////////////////////////////////////// >> ----- AMIA ----- >> ///// 1, Quai Finkmatt ///// >> ----- 67 000 STRASBOURG - FRANCE ----- >> ///// ///// >> ----- Tel : 33 88 52 04 52 ----- >> ///// Fax : 33 88 52 06 00 ///// >> ----- Fax : 33 88 23 14 28 ----- >> ///// E-mail : amia@dx-net.fr ///// >> -------------------------------------- > > >-- > - 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 - If no off-the-shel supplier is found, it may be worthwhile to contact: Goodfellow SARL 76 bd J-B Lebas F-59000 Lille France Tel: +33 20 85 17 51 Fax: +33 20 52 14 25 They do custom work, but it might be pricey. That .002 mm insulation sounds a bit fragile! Their catalog lists the following Pt wire from stock: PT005820 .025 mm, insulation thickness .005 mm, insulation polyester PT005830 .05 mm, insulation thickness .0075 mm, insulation polyester PT005835 .05 mm, insulation thickness .009 mm, insulation teflon Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 11 20:30:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA27108; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: VTX: Sonoluminescence fusion paper now online X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner writes: > The final conclusion: "At the very least, the spiked driving pressure > applied to any sonoluminescing system may produce an experimental crucible > that gives the general scientific community easy and inexpensive access to > pressures, temperatures, and time scales that have been unattainable > previously." Their simulations indicate temperatues of around 2200 eV. According to my calcs, that's roughly 8 million degrees C. Too bad it is only simulation. -- - 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@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 09:50:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA12350; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@ANC.AK.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: VTX: Sonoluminescence fusion paper now online X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: The paper "Sonoluminescence and the prospects for table-top micro-thermonuclear fusion", Physics Letters A 211 (1996) 69-74, by William C. Moss, Douglas B. Clarke, John W. White and David A. Young is available online at: The document is in pdf format, but very conveniently provides information and pointers to a site to download a free copy of the Adobe Acrobat reader required. The article discusses results of hydrodynamic simulations of bubble collapse. The conclusions of interest to CF'ers were that D2 cannot exhibit picosecond sonoluminescence because of its large sound speed, but the addition of D2O lowers the sound speed sufficiently to produce fusion on a small scale that would possibly be useful for research purposes. The indicated fusion rates are not sufficient for calorimetrically detectable energy production (my note). Inclusion of 50 percent T2O would increase neutron production 50 times. Raising the abient pressure to increase bubble mass may also improve fusion rates. Most importantly, a spiked driving pressure was found to be far superior to a sinusoidal one. The final conclusion: "At the very least, the spiked driving pressure applied to any sonoluminescing system may produce an experimental crucible that gives the general scientific community easy and inexpensive access to pressures, temperatures, and time scales that have been unattainable previously." At my request, Willie Moss kindly sent me a couple reprints. If some vortexian needs a hardcopy reprint from Physics Letters A, I will be glad to mail it. Some corrections and notes on the above: (1) Although T2O would help, what was actually said in the paper in the paper was that DT gas replacing the D2 gas would up the rate by a factor of 50. (2) The dominant loss mechanisms (plasma thermal conduction and radiant energy transport) were not included in the calculations. Willy Moss is currently doing these loss calculations using the most sophisticated models available to him. (3) The study was strictly from the perspective of classical hot fusion. The physics is traditional thermonuclear physics. It does not directly relate to the Griggs or Yusmar type hydrodynamic devices because neutron generation does not match the reported heat output from those devices. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:04:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA12392; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3FNPNGPHK9ANP0K@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Hydrogen in the way? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Since Hydrogen is a moderator for the speed of neutrons, has anyone considered whether Patterson has some unknown method for controlling the amount of free hydrogen that remains dissolved in the electrolyte? Perhaps a slight vacuum in the cell. This could be achieved by the pump, by a properly placed restriction in the cell. Just wondering. Something as simple as this might be the difference between Patterson and other experimenters achieving the same results? Joe Flynn Flynn Research, Inc. P.O. Box 11657 Kansas City, Mo. 64138 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:01:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA15118; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960412080835_100276.261_JHF95-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Wolfram Bahmann <100276.261@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Inquiry X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Does anybody ever have heard anything of RICHARD KLEM. He is reported to have built a self-sustaining vortex machine in the mid 70s !! Because of his success he got in trouble with the authorities etc. and he disappeared. Appreciating any hint or source information. Wolfram Bahmann Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. - EURO. SECR. Feyermuehler Str.12 D-53894 MECHERNICH Germany fax: Int+49/ 2443-8221 e-mail: 100276.261@compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/wbahmann From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 10:00:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA04430; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9604121132.AA17846@giasone.teseo.it> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re.to Horace Hoffner psi collapse X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) >Subject: Re.to Horace Hoffner psi collapse > > It is from many time that REALISTIC VIEW points have failed >in quantum mechanical interpretations:this in particular from when=20 >a well unequality,that one called Bell's inequality,has confirmed the >whole validity of the traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics. >No matter to recover old interpretations when many experimental=20 >arrangements have fully confirmed the validity of the traditional quantum >interpretation of a theory.The usual quantum mechanics is a theory >that gives only successes,and it has not problems at any level of its >application:all the tentative to give a realistic character to the quantum >mechanics have failed from many time.The problem is that the quantum >mechanics has,as all the theory,its definite field of validity:that one of >the usual quantum mechanics is only and only the atomic level.It was >in fact elaborated ONLY for this purpose.The usual quantum mechanics is >unable to make more,to go on the sphere of its applicability:in order to >consider the quantum reality at differrent levels of investigation in= addition >to that one at atomic level,a generalization of the theory is required,just >as the biquaternion quantum mechanics makes.The psi collapse is not >a problem of the usual quantum mechanics,it is unable to treat this >phenomenon,a generalization is infact need,the biquaternion quantum >mechanics. >Again an incorrect adfirmation,Horace,in your point 4.No,a measurement >is not a simple interaction.If so it was,the usual Schrodinger equation >should be able to describe psi collapse:A QUANTUM MEASUREMENT=20 >IS THE TRANSITION OF A QUANTUM SYSTEM FROM THE PHYSICAL >CONDITION IN WHICH ITS STATES OBEY TO THE SUPERPOSITION >PRINCIPLE TO THE NEW PHYSICAL CONDITION IN WHICH ITS STATES >ARE A MIXTURE.It is an hidden variable L =3D L(..........) to determine= this >transition in the more "realistic" way,showing us that,during a= measurement, >we transleate the noboolean quantum logic of our quantum physical reality >into our boolean logic(that one,only,that we,boolean machines,are able to >conceive)and of our boolean measurement apparatus:we select only particular >aspects(the mixture of states)of a reality that instead,withouth of our >observation,is more complex(superposition principle) and incomprehensible >to us.The paradigm of the world is not energy-matter,as in the oldest= realism, >but enrgy-matter-information:this is the lesson given us from quantum=20 mechanics. >Unfortunately,you do not intend to read the book entitled Biquaternion >Quantum Mecchanics!!!!. Sincerely,Elio Conte > --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 07:47:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA04501; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the way? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Since Hydrogen is a moderator for the speed of neutrons, has >anyone considered whether Patterson has some unknown method for >controlling the amount of free hydrogen that remains dissolved >in the electrolyte? Perhaps a slight vacuum in the cell. This >could be achieved by the pump, by a properly placed restriction >in the cell. Just wondering. Something as simple as this might >be the difference between Patterson and other experimenters >achieving the same results? > >Joe Flynn > >Flynn Research, Inc. >P.O. Box 11657 >Kansas City, Mo. 64138 There are no neutrons to moderate. That is the big mystery. Where does excess heat come from without the signatures of fusion? Even if neutrons were generated, the H nuclei (protons) do the "moderation", i.e. slowing down, by colliding with the neutrons. The protons have the nearly perfect mass for doing this, roughly equal to the neutron's mass. This is nearly perfect because a fast neutron colliding with the hydrogen nuclei tends to share it's momentum, thus velocity, equally on average with the proton because they are roughly the same mass. However, charged particles, the protons, unlike the neutrons, interact with every other charged particle in their vicinity, quickly giving up all their momentum to the random motion of their surroundings, thus converting it to heat. The protons in the H2O of the electrolyte are every bit as good as "dissolved" protons at doing the moderating, and there are many more of them. The amount of dissolved hydrogen would be inconsequential to the moderating capability of the electrolyte. Bubbles, on the other hand, being less dense in hydrogen than water, would reduce the moderating capability for a volume of water. The protons are very small. Neutrons tend to slip right through hydrogen atoms. If neutrons were generated in anything close to the numbers appropriate to the heat reported from CF cells, enough neutrons would escape moderation completely to kill the experimenters. There just aren't enough neutrons by several orders of magnitude. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 08:15:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA27154; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604121306.JAA27180@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neddie's excess energy hypothesis X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, >... >I'll have to get that book. I just received Bockris & Reddy, Vols 1 & 2, >so have a feeling I'll be busy for a while! That's great. I have used those volumes as references repeatedly in the last few years - too much stuff to digest all at once, but pretty easy to find specific things when you need a reference. > >> >>I'll try to make an extended reply in the next few days - things >>have gotten very busy around here lately... > >No hurry. I'm appreciative that you take time at all for a tinkerer like me. > I appreciate your honest effort to get to the bottom of some of these claims. I like your approach. >... >You had 4 messages come through dated 4/9/96. The quickest think to do >might be to send you each of them I received. Soon to follow ... > Thanks, seems they all were distributed in spite of the bounce messages that I received and the fact that I myself did *not* receive return copies of what I sent - must be some new "feature" of the LISTSERV software. Cheers, Bill Page. BTW, I haven't forgotten that I promised I would fax you some of the Kamada papers, its just that I am running from one thing to the next these days. Expect them soon. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:38:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA27430; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9604121318.AA30966@kemi.aau.dk> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A few weeks ago, I announced that my bibliography files are www accessible. At the time, they were under someone else's wings but they are now all under my very own. You can still do it by going to http://www.kemi.aau.dk, as I wrote then; but you can also access my files directly by going to http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~britz/fusion. In time, I will have several subjects besides fusion; there will be a jumping-off point at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~britz. This exists already now but you can only jump into fusion at the moment. I'd like to know whether there is a need for a bunch of shorter files instead of (or more likely as well as) the large main biblio file, which might be a bit big to just get for yourself. When I was archiving at the Dakota site, I broke it up into files of no more than 150 kb. I could do that here, calling them, as before, Pap.1, Pap.2, etc. or the like. If you badly want this, email me directly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 10:25:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA04976; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:04:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:04:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Vtx: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Vortexians, The following is a check on understanding of the problem and concepts and a proposed experiment to verify Stephan Marinov's longitudinal EM force. Anyone, please, correct any errors, or make suggestions. The hypothesis I suggested earlier was that a longitudinal force will result from an electron traveling in a (nearly) longitudinal magnetic flux due to the fact it travels in a sprial path. A spiral path is the same as a helical coil, and thus results in a longitudinal magnetic field, and therefore a longitudinal (to the average direction of motion) force. Call this proposed effect the spiral force. I don't know if the spiral force is actually the source of, one and the same as, Marinov's force. However, I do not see how it would be easy, or in solid state possible, to separate the effects of the two forces, on a practical basis, if they are different. It might be possible to create electron beams with controlled degrees of spiraling by changing the injection angle. Electrons flowing through copper could hardly be expected to follow a straight line. There must be a strong thermal component to their motion. In effect, they are running an obstacle course with moving obstacles. It is assumed that to the degree they are free to, and in the frequency with which they do not move strictly longitudinally with flux direction, electrons in a conductor will tend to follow a spiral path and thus generate the spiral force. It is not clear with what frequency of occurence and what degrees of freedom conduction band electrons are free to move in copper. From the basic assumptions, however, it appears the spiral force would be much more marked in a vacuum. Copper or other conductors do provide a much easier experimental medium though. All that said, I would like to propose an experiment to attempt to measure the spiral force in copper wire. The basic idea is to create a torus consisting of an outer coil wrapping which creates an inner toroidal field. Inside the torus, longitudinal to the field, is another coil of wire, the core coil. The core coil is purpendicular the first coil, and supended from it using thread or some other very flexible suspension. The supply leads would be twisted to cancel EM effects. The changed angle of the supporting threads would be used to determine the force. With n threads and core coil weight w, the force should be n*w*tan(theta). Hopefully there would be enough force to measure in this manner. The outer coil establishes the magnetic field, the core coil provides the longitudinal path. Making many turns in the core coil provides a longer path for each electron, thus amplifies the time the force is applied and thus increases the effect of the force on the electron's momentum. The change in electon momentum is almost instantly transferred to the conductor atoms via the electromotive force, and thermal interactions. More difficult but interresting options include floating the core coil on a liquid or on bearings, allowing it to rotate freely about the large axis, and through the small axis, of the torus. Metal brushes (not liquid) would have to be used to get the current to the core coil in that case, if careful measurments are to be made. A conducting liquid would create an MHD effect that would interferere with measurement, as before. It would be more difficult to measure the force with a rotating core coil, but you would have an unusual motor. In fact, to make the motor certain to work, simply spiral the core coil to absolutely guarantee and maximize the spiral effect. In that case, it is clear that the resulting spiral force could be made to accelerate or retard the core rotation depending on the mutual electric current directions of the core and outer coils. It would also be interresting to replace the core coil with a ring of permanent magnets. Look ma, no brushes. Now, the big question. Can such a motor be accelerated without generating a retarding back emf, and thus become over unity. After all, the lines of flux are longitudinal. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:59:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA05451; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: VORTEX_L software problem X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: As many Vortexians have found, vortex-L and vortcor-list (as well as all the other lists at eskimo.com) are still having serious problems with the new listproc software. When the system is heavily loaded, mail sent to vortex-L will be bounced with the following error message: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 14 Deeper in the header will be these lines: ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications ----- "|catmail -L VORTEX-L -f " (unrecoverable error) (expanded from: ) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 "|catmail -L VORTEX-L -f "... unknown mailer error 14 This "catmail" error-14 occurs when listproc has its request for unix processes rejected. It's SUPPOSED to try again until it suceeds, but instead it gives up and returns your mail. The eskimo.com staff is working on the system software. Unfortunately the "listprocs" guy has been out for a week with flu, but now he's back. Until he figures out a fix, there's not much that can be done. Just keep re-sending your messages, even if they bounce several times. Also, try to avoid 5PM-12PM west coast time, that's when the system gets bogged down and starts erroring. PS, I did unsubscribe Lee Catalfo awhile back, so those errors should be gone now. ....................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@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:52:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA02107; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Vtx: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Oops! I said: With n threads and core coil weight w, the force should be n*w*tan(theta). Hopefully there would be enough force to measure in this manner." That should be f = w*tan(theta)/n. Hopefully it would be possible to adust the current to match a preset angle and then compute f. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 10:26:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA20342; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: Cell Current Propagation Speed Experiment Results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace Heffner wrote: > >>... >>EM waves in wires are propagated via electrons in metal conduction bands. >>Since the proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron, it seems like a >>propagation mechanism involving the proton would be limited to C/1836 = >>1.63x10^5 m/s, unfortunately very close to, but outside, the resolution of >>this experiment. > >I don't believe it is correct to state that EM waves in wires are propagated >via electrons, although it is certainly true to claim that the electric >*current* is carried by electrons. It is possible to establish a potential >difference (voltage) between two ends of a wire or between two electrodes >in a solution at essentially the speed of light (as mentioned by >Michael J. Schaffer in a previous message), but the current flow (amperage) >will be delayed due to several effects. For a more complete picture of >what is going on, you should be measuring the time variation of both >the potential and the current. > >Cheers, >Bill Page. I have completed this experiment. The experiment was in effect already completed because the scope which measures the ouput voltage has appx. a 1 megohm impedence, thus the drop from 10 V to 8 V at the putput. This means the voltage vurve is simultaneously providing the shape of a current curve for an appx. 8 uA current peak. To check this out further, I included a 150.6 K ohm resistor between the cell output and ground. Thus the cell and the resistor would act like a voltage divider, plus the voltage measured at the resistor would determine the current through the resistor. Using the prior data to estimate cell resistance: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 9, 39.1, 38.9 38.8, 39.0 11, 49.6, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 Using a 10 V supply we get a current of 44.3 uA and a resistance Rc = V/I = 10/44,3x10^-6 = 226 k ohms. Because in the original tests the voltage dropped about 20 percent, it can be estimated that the scope itself has an impedence of roughly 904 k ohms. The combined impedence of the scope plus the 151 k ohm resistor is Re = R1*R2/(R1+R2) = 151*904/(151+904) = 129 k ohms. The combined circuit resistance is 192 k + 226 k = 418 k ohms. The voltage at the cell output to the resistor should be roughly (10 V)*(192 k)/(418 k) = 4.59 V. This voltage was measured at roughly 4.6 V by comparing the trace with the output of a 4.61 V series of 3 AA batteries. This means the peak current through the resistor is Ir = Vr/Rr = 4.6/150,600 = 30.5 uA. The peak current through the scope is 4.6/904,000 = 5 uA. The cell peak current was 35.5 uA. The scope output showed almost exactly the same timing as before. However, the output peak flattened out a bit due to the better matched impedence, and there was a small overshoot to the leading edge. The overshoot had a duration of roughly 50 microseconds, and a voltage of less than .2 V. The most startling result was that, when the fluid was flowing, the little overshoot oscillated (pulsed up and down like a human pulse rate) at a rate matching the pump pressure cycle as shown on the pressure guage. Also, the leading edge looked animated, as if it were flowing, with little bright spots. The very strangest part of this is the exact same results were obtained by switching leads. It appeared that *any* flow rate increase would momentarily drop the cell resistance, increase the current, by a very small fraction (2 percent), *no matter which way the leads were connected.* I still stick by my orginal statement. EM waves in conductors are carried by electrons, and the delay is a function of their mass. An EMF can only be carried by charge motion I=dQ/dT. True photon based propagation can occur in waveguides or on the surface, but these will not propagate a DC EMF or current. A photon can not get very far inside a copper wire. It must displace a charged particle to proapagate the EMF wave. It appears the EMF wave in a PPC travels at over 1x10^6 m/s. Thus charge deficits are quickly equalized via elctron motion. It appears, due to the Faradaic efficency, though, that much of the current is carried via ions, but I think maybe this should be discussed a bit. I took some pictures and will attempt to get them on the www shortly. Will post more later. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 09:39:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA07558; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@ANC.AK.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Vtx: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Wow, it sure is easy to fall into those mental traps! Look at this nonsense: > >The hypothesis I suggested earlier was that a longitudinal force will >result from an electron traveling in a (nearly) longitudinal magnetic flux >due to the fact it travels in a sprial path. A spiral path is the same as >a helical coil, and thus results in a longitudinal magnetic field, and >therefore a longitudinal (to the average direction of motion) force. Call >this proposed effect the spiral force. I don't know if the spiral force is >actually the source of, one and the same as, Marinov's force. However, I >do not see how it would be easy, or in solid state possible, to separate >the effects of the two forces, on a practical basis, if they are different. >It might be possible to create electron beams with controlled degrees of >spiraling by changing the injection angle. > [snip] > It would be >more difficult to measure the force with a rotating core coil, but you >would have an unusual motor. In fact, to make the motor certain to work, >simply spiral the core coil to absolutely guarantee and maximize the spiral >effect. In that case, it is clear that the resulting spiral force could be >made to accelerate or retard the core rotation depending on the mutual >electric current directions of the core and outer coils. It would also be >interresting to replace the core coil with a ring of permanent magnets. >Look ma, no brushes. > [snip] There can be no "spiral force" unless the spiral itself is in a magnetic field gradient. If in parallel lines of flux, all you get is a magnetic moment, no net force. The bad news, no cool motor based on the "spiral force". The good news, the proposed test should work very well to uncover Stephan Marinov's longitudinal EM force, if it exists. If the force is strong enough, it is also clearly possible to build a motor based upon it. Comments? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:48:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06472; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604130125.SAA15239@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: ALL messages bounce? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > > >Test. > >Will this one bounce. It just came through. Your posting of above date is 4-10-1996 8:20 PDST. Received along with an earlier post date mail of 04-08-1996 monday 04:00 PDST. Today is 04-12-1996 6:25 PDST. Using Drano this time? -AK- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:24:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06724; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316de9a5.20055039@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Glass coated platinum wire (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:20:50 -0700 (PDT), John Logajan wrote: >Anyone have an answer for this question? > >Forwarded message: >> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:49:42 +0200 >> To: jlogajan@skypoint.com >> From: amia@dx-net.fr (AMIA) >> Subject: Glass coated platinum wire >> Content-Length: 646 >> >> Dear John, >> >> Do you know some suppliers of glass coated platinum wire ? We need a >> diameter of 0,01 mm and a thickness isulation of 0,002 mm. Could you help >> me in my research ? [snip] I suppose they have already tried dipping red hot platinum wire in molten glass? (red hot, keeps the glass from hardening before most of it has drained off the wire, thus ensuring a thin layer). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 10:35:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06849; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316dea53.20228987@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold Fusion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:24:44 -0700 (PDT), Mark Anthony Collins wrote: >Anyone care to share and collaborate on what processes cause cold fusion? Mark, I have posted various theories in the past, thus am writing to you privately, so as not to annoy the rest of the list with old news. 1) Electron clusters substitute for negative muons (as in muon catalyzed fusion, see Prof. Steven Jones), allowing low temp. fusion. The energy of the reaction is dumped into the cluster, dissipating it, and creating many low energy electrons that then lose energy through ionisation reactions, resulting in heat. Because fusion caused by addition of a proton or a deuteron tends to result in relatively neutron-poor nuclei, the decay mode is frequently electron capture. Given that the fusion dumped its energy into the electron cluster, many electrons will penetrate the new nucleus at the time of formation, thus one might expect that electron capture would occur immediately, resulting in stable isotopes. Signature of this reaction scenario: Low power beta-radiation, and/or x-rays, that probably won't make it out of the reaction vessel. Consequently plenty of heat, but little or no measurable radiation. 2) Dr. Robert Bass, and others, have suggested that under certain conditions, ZPE vibrations of the lattice, could enhance the likelihood of resonant penetration of the Coulomb barrier, for protons, and or deuterons. Prof. Julian Schwinger (I believe) further postulated, that the resultant energy could be distributed across the lattice in the form of billions of phonons. Personally, I would prefer a somewhat more mundane solution. Therefore, I am currently looking at alpha decay, as an alternative method of getting the energy out of the excited nucleus. It turns out that alpha decay is usually absorbed by even a piece of paper, thus the alpha particles are not likely to make it out of the reaction vessel, and would thus explain the lack of measurable radiation. However, at the energies involved, the alpha particle would not be immediately ejected, except in the case of fusion of a hydrogen species with lithium, and thus would need to compete with other forms of decay, such as e.c. beta+, spontaneous fission, and sometimes neutron emission. Actually this last gives me an idea. If a reaction could be encouraged with an isotope with a sufficient energy surplus to allow neutron emission, then this could easily be measured, and would provide interesting evidence of the validity of this theory. I suspect that this is more likely when deuterium fuses, than protium, as the former usually produces an energy excess in the neighbourhood of 10 MeV per reaction, while the latter is usually in the neighbourhood of 5 MeV / reaction. One needs about 8 MeV for neutron emission on average. 3) Charles Cagle has a new variation on the theory of electromagnetism, such that one too *like charged* particles are at rest relative to one another, they *attract*, rather than *repelling*. This could IMO be the real explanation behind resonant penetration of the Coulomb barrier. This forms if you prefer, an alternative method of initiating a fusion reaction (but still leaves unresolved the absence of concomitant radiation). 4) The Russian Prof. Sapogin, has a theory based on the concept of wave packets for particles, that particles can vibrate against a "wall", under certain circumstances, and slowly evaporate as energy, as they do so. He submits that this may be the mechanism involved in the production of excess heat in the Potapov devices. 5) Others who like to think of particles as wave packets, are Ray Tomes, and W. Cassani and Prof. Elio Conte, both in Italy. I suppose one should also include Thomas Lockyer in this list. With regard to Prof. Conti, who proposes a whole extension to quantum theory, to cover the behaviour of an electron inside a proton, I have suggested a possible mechanism whereby electrons might acquire sufficient energy to penetrate a proton, thus making neutron production possible. The mechanism I proposed was that small regions within a metal lattice that are saturated with hydrogen ions, and might thus become superconducting, would carry a relatively large current, as current tends to follow the path of least resistance. When such a region "quenches", the resultant high voltage pulse could accelerate a few electrons sufficiently to penetrate protons (about 800 keV needed according to Prof. Conte). This mechanism may also succeed in accelerating a few protons in the other direction.... 6) Dr. Harold Puthoff et al. theorise that the universe is filled with background radiation with a cubic frequency distribution and very high energy density (ZPE). Some people suspect that it may be this energy that is being tapped in CF devices. Personally, I had a lot of trouble with this concept, until I found out that standing waves don't transfer any net energy. I then wrote to Dr. Puthoff, and he confirmed that his theories would all work equally well if the background energy were in the form of standing waves. This then in my mind explains quite nicely why we don't get any strange statistical effects. (I will elaborate on this later if you are interested). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:56:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA07030; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:05:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:05:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960412223146_468720034@emout10.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: miley X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Miley invited Rothwell, Hugo, and myself to see his latest demo this April 28th. I hope I can make it. Geroge Miley is a really nice person. Puthoff sent me his tape of his lecture at GM, again another great person. Two me these two men have progressed to a higher plane of consciousness. They are the most learned and busy people in the world, working on a project that will determine the future of humanity, and yet they still make time for the likes of me and Hugo. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:20:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18315; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316f0d12.11638442@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ion mobility X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:51:36 -0700 (PDT), k J. Sparber wrote: >Since the use of an alkali metal is favored in the electrolysis setup so that it >doesn't plate out on the cathode, but rather hydrolyzes, one wants low mobility >of these ions which points to the use of Cesium Sulphate Cs2SO4 or Selenate >Cs2SeO4. I think this would give more favorable results in the tests. > >FJS > > This may however lead to complications, as I believe at least one other experimenter has reported excess heat using Rb -> Sr, and possibly also Cs -> Ba. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:25:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18446; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316f0ca9.11533206@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: new Japanese results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 8 Apr 1996 04:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Mihai Jalobeanu (ITIM) wrote: >Re : New Japanese results. >One interesting aspect, not mentioned in the info re. the results >obtained at FIELD - the case with the lower C.O.P and with 150 L >water in the vessel there is a small diagram showing the position of >the vessel. The vessel having a volume of some 360 L, a part being >filled with the immersion pump and the Yusmar plus two massive >rubber cushions which keep the setup in place, is positioned >horizontally and the Yusmar is near the bottom of the vessel. >In my opinion this is due to the necessity to have the cyclone >part of the Yusmar completely under water; the recirculation >tube being replaced by a calibrated hole in the cover of the >Yusmar. A jet of water is sucked and enters the middle of the >vortex formed in the cavitation tube. This hydrodynamic is >very complex and is the clue of the o/u of the machine. >Peter Gluck > This would appear to lend some weight to my recently proposed theory on the Yusmar. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:29:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18606; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316f0e6c.11983811@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cell EMF Propagation Speed Experiment Images X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:47:48 -0700 (PDT), Bill Page wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: > >>... >>EM waves in wires are propagated via electrons in metal conduction bands. >>Since the proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron, it seems like a >>propagation mechanism involving the proton would be limited to C/1836 = >>1.63x10^5 m/s, unfortunately very close to, but outside, the resolution of >>this experiment. > >I don't believe it is correct to state that EM waves in wires are propagated >via electrons, although it is certainly true to claim that the electric >*current* is carried by electrons. It is possible to establish a potential >difference (voltage) between two ends of a wire or between two electrodes >in a solution at essentially the speed of light (as mentioned by >Michael J. Schaffer in a previous message), but the current flow (amperage) >will be delayed due to several effects. For a more complete picture of >what is going on, you should be measuring the time variation of both >the potential and the current. [snip] Surely, there will be no difference in delay between voltage and current. The current at the "receiving end" will start to flow, as soon as the voltage arrives. This does however, in no way imply that current consists of the identical particles that also start to flow at the "transmitting end". Perhaps one can think of the voltage as a "shock" wave (pun intended), that lends momentum to charged particles, as it passes. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:12:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA27912; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 22:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 22:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604130424.XAA19399@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: miley X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 08:05 PM 4/12/96 -0700, Frank Z wrote: >Miley invited Rothwell, Hugo, and myself to see his latest demo this April >28th. Hey, this could be good. An opportunity for a group of Vortexans to examine CETI technology up close in a laboratory setting and report what is found. You will be able to tell us what you see, won't you? Let's start a discussion on how you might go about really confirming the excess heat during your visit. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 13 00:55:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18903; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316f2157.16827152@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Conduction in H2O (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Page wrote: >Michael J. Schaffer wrote: >> >>The concentrations of Li+ and SO4-- are on the order of 1 M in the bulk >>solution away from the reaction regions near the electrodes. At neutral ph >>the concentrations of H+ and OH- are 10^-7, while at ph = -9 recommended by >>Patterson's patent the concentrations are [H+] = 10^-9 M and [OH-] = 10^-5. >>Although H+ and OH- are more mobile than Li+ and SO4--, the difference is >>not that great. Therefore, when the bulk solution is subject to an >>electric field, Li+ and SO4-- carry the overwhelming share of the electric >>current by shear weight of numbers. >> > >Consulting Table 4.13 of Modern Electrochemistry, Bockris & Reddy, >(page 366, volume 1 of the paperback edition) we see that the >"equivalent conductance at infinite dilution and 25 deg. C." of the H+ >ion is 349.82 cm^2/ohm almost 10 times greater than Li+ at only >38.69 cm^2/ohm. Similarily the OH- ions carry about 3 to 4 times the >current of most other anions. There are a lot of details to be >concerned about and it is definately a good idea to consult the >text in some detail on these issues, but basically: > > equivalent conductance - measures the conductivity of a ionic species > at a standardized concentration of 1 mole > of charge > >Now it is very important to realize that this equivalent conductivity >varies with concentration. In fact, it *increases* as the ionic >concentration decreases. It asymptomically reaches its highest value >at "infinite dilution". So increasing the concentration of Li+ ions >and SO4-- ions will only *decrease* the amount of current carried by >these species. > >Cheers, >Bill Page. > Bill, I get the impression from the above, that the equivalent conductance of a species, is a conductance / mole of ions. So that while this per /mole conductance may increase for lower concentrations, this doesn't necessarily imply that the conductance of the solution also increases. It would depend upon the product of number of moles present * equivalent conductance. If only a small change occurs in equivalent conductance, then increasing the number of moles present, will still weigh more heavily than the decreasing equivalent conductance when calculating the overall conductivity of the solution. > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:20:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18961; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ion mobility X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >On Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:51:36 -0700 (PDT), k J. Sparber wrote: > >>Since the use of an alkali metal is favored in the electrolysis setup so >>that it >>doesn't plate out on the cathode, but rather hydrolyzes, one wants low >>mobility >>of these ions which points to the use of Cesium Sulphate Cs2SO4 or Selenate >>Cs2SeO4. I think this would give more favorable results in the tests. >> >>FJS >> >> >This may however lead to complications, as I believe at least one >other experimenter has reported excess heat using Rb -> Sr, and >possibly also Cs -> Ba. > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk This sounds like a very good idea. Something else on the list of things to try. Maybe I am missing something, or are you just using a figure of speach? What is the "complication" from getting excess heat? This is the kind of problem we all would like to share! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:22:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18999; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cell EMF Propagation Speed Experiment Images X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Surely, there will be no difference in delay between voltage and >current. The current at the "receiving end" will start to flow, as >soon as the voltage arrives. This does however, in no way imply that >current consists of the identical particles that also start to flow at >the "transmitting end". Perhaps one can think of the voltage as a >"shock" wave (pun intended), that lends momentum to charged particles, >as it passes. > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Absolutely true. However, the important thing to note is that this "shock wave" must push the mass of the charges involved forward at each stage to propagate the wave. Those stages are less than an angstrom away from each other. Long wavelength photons don't go very far in copper, or water. Therefore, the propagation rate of the "shock wave" must be proportional to the mass of the charge propagating it at each stagewise step. True? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:06:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA08888; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: Cell Current Propagation Pictures Available X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: New pictures The oscilloscope traces for current have been added to the URL: Earlier I wrote: Begin quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I have completed this experiment. The experiment was in effect already completed because the scope which measures the ouput voltage has appx. a 1 megohm impedence, thus the drop from 10 V to 8 V at the putput. This means the voltage vurve is simultaneously providing the shape of a current curve for an appx. 8 uA current peak. To check this out further, I included a 150.6 K ohm resistor between the cell output and ground. Thus the cell and the resistor would act like a voltage divider, plus the voltage measured at the resistor would determine the current through the resistor. Using the prior data to estimate cell resistance: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 9, 39.1, 38.9 38.8, 39.0 11, 49.6, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 Using a 10 V supply we get a current of 44.3 uA and a resistance Rc = V/I = 10/44,3x10^-6 = 226 k ohms. Because in the original tests the voltage dropped about 20 percent, it can be estimated that the scope itself has an impedence of roughly 904 k ohms. The combined impedence of the scope plus the 151 k ohm resistor is Re = R1*R2/(R1+R2) = 151*904/(151+904) = 129 k ohms. The combined circuit resistance is 192 k + 226 k = 418 k ohms. The voltage at the cell output ^^^ Error to the resistor should be roughly (10 V)*(192 k)/(418 k) = 4.59 V. This voltage was measured at roughly 4.6 V by comparing the trace with the output of a 4.61 V series of 3 AA batteries. This means the peak current through the resistor is Ir = Vr/Rr = 4.6/150,600 = 30.5 uA. The peak current through the scope is 4.6/904,000 = 5 uA. The cell peak current was 35.5 uA. The scope output showed almost exactly the same timing as before. However, the output peak flattened out a bit due to the better matched impedence, and there was a small overshoot to the leading edge. The overshoot had a duration of roughly 50 microseconds, and a voltage of less than .2 V. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - End quote. There is a mistake in the above calculations. The calculated combined resistor/scope resistance of 129 k was accidently converted to 192 k in the next sentence referenced. It is very odd that this number agrees with the 4.6 V measured, and the 129 k number does not!. The combined circuit resistance is 129 k + 226 k = 355 k. We still have the current through the resisitor: Ir = Vr/Rr = 4.6/150,600 = 30.5 uA, and the current through the scope: 4.6/904,000 = 5 uA, and therefore the cell current 35.5 uA. But, we know the voltage drop through the cell must be Vc = 10 V - 4.6 V = 5.4 V. If the cell resistance is 226 K ohms then the cell current Ic = 5.4/226,000 = 23.8 uA, which does not match the 35.5 uA it should be. It appears the cell resistance was actually less than the 226 k measured via V/I at steady state. The apparent cell resistance is Rc = Vc/Ic = (5.4 V)/(35.5 uA) = 152 k ohms. The numbers I feel certain about are the 150.6 k ohms for the resistor, and the 4.6 V at the resistor, and the input 10 V peak to peak waveform. Even if the scope impedence is left out of the calculation, we get a combined circuit resistance of 151 k + 226 k = 377 k. Then the apparent cell resistance is Rc = Vc/Ic = (5.4 V)/(30.5 uA) = 177 k ohms, still very low compared to the previously measured steady state resistance of roughly 226 k ohms. Maybe the steady state resistance is much higher due to bubble formation? Any comments? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:01:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA09023; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <317045A8.9CE@amauta.rcp.net.pe> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Eduardo Kamisato To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: miley X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > > Miley invited Rothwell, Hugo, and myself to see his latest demo this April > 28th. I hope I can make it. Geroge Miley is a really nice person. Puthoff > sent me his tape of his lecture at GM, again another great person. Two me > these two men have progressed to a higher plane of consciousness. They are > the most learned and busy people in the world, working on a project that will > determine the future of humanity, and yet they still make time for the likes > of me and Hugo. > > Frank Z Is this demo part of the International Symposium on New Energy in Denver? Saludos Eduardo Kamisato Lima-Peru From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 09:01:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA21403; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604140721.CAA21178@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: weird cell resistance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:34 PM 4/13/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >Maybe the steady state resistance is much higher due to bubble >formation? Most of the time I apply voltage to a fresh cell, the apparent R starts out low and gradually creeps upwards 10 or 20% over several hours. I've also noted some surprising variations in apparent cell resistance due possibly to bubbles. Did you go back and repeat the DC resistance measurements? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 09:04:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA27285; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 06:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 06:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3IYGWQRZM9BX6SR@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Bubbles vs Cell Resistance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:34 PM 4/13/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >Maybe the steady state resistance is much higher due to bubble >formation? >Scott replied: >Most of the time I apply voltage to a fresh cell, the apparent R starts out >low and gradually creeps upwards 10 or 20% over several hours. >I've also noted some surprising variations in apparent cell resistance due >possibly to bubbles. I posted earlier regarding controlling dissolved hydrogen in the electrolyte. This would also apply to controlling the "size" of the bubbles formed and the cell resistance. I assume that the only access to the atmosphere is the degassing chamber. By restricting or closing the "vent" the atmospheric pressure over the electrolyte increases (by electrolysis gas pressure) and bubble size decreases. By controlling the vent you should be able to control bubble size and cell resistance due to this. This is the one main variable everyone is overlooking. Depending on the elevation of the test site or VENT SIZE the size of the bubbles will vary for the exact same input. Therefore cell resistance / input will vary by location. Also doing some quick calculations I think that even the electrolysis might be effected by elevation and vent size due to different pressure against the electrolyte and and the AMOUNT of production of Hydrogen and Oxygen would also vary. Amount and bubble size are not the same. Joe Flynn Flynn Research P.O. Box 11657 Kansas City Mo. 64138 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 14:31:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19591; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 08:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 08:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the way? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Joe Flynn writes: > Since Hydrogen is a moderator for the speed of neutrons, has > anyone considered whether Patterson has some unknown method for > controlling the amount of free hydrogen that remains dissolved > in the electrolyte? Perhaps a slight vacuum in the cell. This > could be achieved by the pump, by a properly placed restriction > in the cell. Just wondering. Something as simple as this might > be the difference between Patterson and other experimenters > achieving the same results? Since hydrogen is always present bound in the H2O of the water electrolyte, and since it is actually more densely populated in the water as water than in the H2 gas bubbles, neutrons are more likely to be hitting the H of H2O than the H of H2, given equal volume cases. But nobody is seeing neutrons anyhow, so I'm not sure what good a neutron moderator would do in any event. -- - 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@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 14:44:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19711; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 08:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 08:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Bubbles vs Cell Resistance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 07:34 PM 4/13/96 -0700, Horace wrote: > >>Maybe the steady state resistance is much higher due to bubble >>formation? > >>Scott replied: >>Most of the time I apply voltage to a fresh cell, the apparent >R starts out >>low and gradually creeps upwards 10 or 20% over several hours. > >>I've also noted some surprising variations in apparent cell >resistance due >>possibly to bubbles. > >I posted earlier regarding controlling dissolved hydrogen in >the electrolyte. This would also apply to controlling the >"size" of the bubbles formed and the cell resistance. I assume >that the only access to the atmosphere is the degassing >chamber. By restricting or closing the "vent" the atmospheric >pressure over the electrolyte increases (by electrolysis gas >pressure) and bubble size decreases. By controlling the vent >you should be able to control bubble size and cell resistance >due to this. > >This is the one main variable everyone is overlooking. >Depending on the elevation of the test site or VENT SIZE the >size of the bubbles will vary for the exact same input. >Therefore cell resistance / input will vary by location. Also >doing some quick calculations I think that even the >electrolysis might be effected by elevation and vent size due >to different pressure against the electrolyte and and the >AMOUNT of production of Hydrogen and Oxygen would also vary. >Amount and bubble size are not the same. > >Joe Flynn > >Flynn Research >P.O. Box 11657 >Kansas City Mo. 64138 Unfortunately, I did not repeat the cell DC V/I measurements prior to taking the current traces. It was not apparent at the time it was necessary. Hindsight is much better than forsight - just one of those time assymetries. 8^) Pressure is a very well controlled variable. The relative pressure in the degassing chamber is zero for all practical purposes. The flow rate is constant due to the synchronously driven peristaltic pump. Actually, it oscillates about 5 percent at 1.5 Hz, but the P vs T curve is constant. The pressure at the pump is 100 percent a function of flow resistance from the pump to the degasser. This is why I feel so strongly that every flowing electrolyte calorimetry experiment should have a pressure guage at the pump - it immediately diagnoses any kind of accidental flow restriction (and provides a cheap form of flow meter, in addition to providing the data on mechanical energy from the pump.) The fluid lines were all untouched, so should have been identical. If anything, sitting with the pressure off should make the tubing shrink, thus increasing cell resistance. Putting the pressure on should gradually relax the tubing and decrease cell resistance. If there was an effect like this it did not seem measureable, and is in a direction contrary to what appears to be a measurable overriding effect. The elevation of the degasser outlet outlet remaind constant throughout the experiment. Scott Little is on to something regarding gradual increase in electrolyte resistance. When I took the DC current measurements it took a long time. I did lots of fiddling around prior to running the complete set of numbers, which went pretty fast. The pump ran for quite a while because I wanted to be sure things were stabilized. Here is the data again for convenience: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The electrolyte used was 200 ml of 1 M Li2SO4. Fluid flow velocity was 9'5" in 60 s or 4.78 cm/s. Fluid flow rate was 23.9 ml in 60 s or 0.40 ml/s. Pressure oscillated between 21 and 22 mmHg at the pump rotational frequency of 1.5 Hz. A drip degasser was included in the fluid circuit to ensure the current flow was one way. The steady state and flowing state battery voltage from the Pt-NiCr battery was .382 V. For this experiment flow was always from the NiCr electrode towards the Pt. electrode. The electrode leads were switched between the two sets of measurements. The following V vs uA measurements were made: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 9, 39.1, 38.9 38.8, 39.0 11, 49.6, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 uA with - on Pt and + on NiCr V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 13.1, 12.6, 12.5, 12.4 5, 23.3, 22.9, 23.0 22.9 7, 33.3, 33.5, 32.7, 33.3 9, 43.7, 44.5, 42.3, 44.4 11, 53.6, 55.3, 51.9, 55.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The data was taken in exactly the order presented, going down the first column of a table then up the second, down the third, and up the forth. It took less than 30 seconds per number I would guess - about 20 minutes. Note that going from left to right in the data there is a slight average decrease in cell current. Before each measurement the electrode ends of the cell were picked up and flicked with a finger three time to clear bubbles sticking to the electrodes to attempt to make surface conditions . One variable I do not have good control on is Li2SO4 concentration. It would be good to be able to accurately compensate for evaporation and measure concentration directly. I had been thinking conductivity between two fixed geometry Pt leads would work, but based on this discussion, that probably will not work! It appears the experiment needs to be redesigned with attention given to time of electrolysis. This is getting awkward for me in that I have 25 100K6A1 BetaCURVE thermisters arriving tomorrow and so want to get serious about working on the Blue Elephant. I am short on Tygon due to making multiple heat exchangers, so have to use the tubing the 10 m cell is made of. I already took the two lines that went into the drip gegasser to put into the "real" degasser. I also purged the cell and pump yesterday. This is easy to undo temporarily, so I'll give it a shot today. This conductivity vs time information seems important at the moment. If cell resistance can increase significantly over a few hours, and it is a volume based effect, say due to microbubbles, then possibly the same thing can happen in regard to electrolyte specific heat, and that is a major variable. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 14:33:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA14595; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 11:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 11:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960414123141_513390096@mail04> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: visit X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I am planning to take Miley up on his offer and go see what he has to say. This will be my second visit to see the cell. Both Jed and I are convinced that the cell works. We are past that point. Miley, Bowles, Chuck Ross, and Hugo have done test or have data that confirms the cells operation. I am now very interested to the obstacles that may inhibit its comercialization. Are the problems of cracking beads solved? What will it take to solve that problem? Why haven't larger cell's been built. A 10KW cell would be usefull for heating in a number of applications. Can a 10KW cell be built? What would the cells cost once in limited mass production? What is the market at that price? During my meeting with a group of local businessmen this week, I tried to identify the markets that will open and at what price they will open. The first maket is of course a market that cannot be met by any other technology. Submarine heating applications for example. One of the meeting attendies does some limited work at a shipyard. I asked him to investigate the potential of underwater heating applications. As the price of the cell comes down other markets will open. Which are they and in what sequence will they open? Any ideas? Vlad is going to Russia on April 26 to visit his father Potapov. I have again asked the same question, what is the market for a high price slightly over unity electrical heating device? At what price will it compete with a ground source heat pump? I asked Vlad to find out about the new quantum heaters that run "part of the time under their own power" What does that mean? He will ask. He is in that process of obtaining an American patent and is having some problems getting it done. No patents on perpetuial motion machines will be issued. I guided Vlad to the CETI patent as an example, if CETI could do it he could to. I am in search of funds. I calculate that it will take ten million dollars to get any serious venture off of the ground. I'm asking some important people for the resources. They are not laughing. They are thinking about it and will get back to me. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 01:42:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA25218; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3JB7N1G0I99FICK@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Bubbles vs Cell Resistance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner replied on Sun, 14 Apr 1996 08:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Bubbles vs Cell Resistance >Pressure is a very well controlled variable. The relative pressure in the >degassing chamber is zero for all practical purposes. The flow rate is >constant due to the synchronously driven peristaltic pump. I'm sorry Horace, but unless you're operating in a controlled pressure chamber you are not controlling atmospheric pressure. Pressure is not ZERO! >The elevation of the degasser outlet outlet remaind constant throughout the >experiment. I'll bet your degasser outlet varies in elevation by 'Many Feet' compared to Scott's or Patterson's. In fact I'll take book on it. No it's not relative to your cell, but to atmospheric pressure which will effect bubble size, and probably resistance. I think the whole point flew by you. Take a cup of water with a pinch of salt (sounds more like cooking than science) use stainless steel electrodes hooked (scientist couple they don't hook, oh well) to a battery. Place this in a bell jar and vary the pressure, either compressed air or a vacumn pump will work. Tell me what happens to the bubbles in your solution? On this one Horace, don't be so quick to discount what I am saying, it is a variable which you are not controlling. Don't say that it is so minor that it dosen't matter, you don't know without tests. The controlling of the size of the vent could be an important factor. Joe Flynn Flynn Research P.O. Box 11657 Kansas City, Mo. 64138 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 01:46:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA25566; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604142103.RAA00533@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: Cell Current Propagation Pictures Available X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >... >The combined circuit resistance is 129 k + 226 k = 355 k. We still have >the current through the resisitor: Ir = Vr/Rr = 4.6/150,600 = 30.5 uA, and >the current through the scope: 4.6/904,000 = 5 uA, and therefore the cell >current 35.5 uA. But, we know the voltage drop through the cell must be Vc >= 10 V - 4.6 V = 5.4 V. If the cell resistance is 226 K ohms then the cell >current Ic = 5.4/226,000 = 23.8 uA, which does not match the 35.5 uA it >should be. It appears the cell resistance was actually less than the 226 k >measured via V/I at steady state. The apparent cell resistance is Rc = >Vc/Ic = (5.4 V)/(35.5 uA) = 152 k ohms. > >The numbers I feel certain about are the 150.6 k ohms for the resistor, and >the 4.6 V at the resistor, and the input 10 V peak to peak waveform. > >Even if the scope impedence is left out of the calculation, we get a >combined circuit resistance of 151 k + 226 k = 377 k. Then the apparent >cell resistance is Rc = Vc/Ic = (5.4 V)/(30.5 uA) = 177 k ohms, still very >low compared to the previously measured steady state resistance of roughly >226 k ohms. Maybe the steady state resistance is much higher due to bubble >formation? > >Any comments? This sounds perfectly alright to me. I is quite normal in an electrolysis cell that the AC impedance is significantly lower than the DC resistance. In fact, I probably would have predicted that there would be an even greater difference than what you measured. Perhaps for the impedance measurement it would advisable to use a higher frequency sine wave as the test signal to get a more accurate picture. Actually, these types of measurements are *exactly* the types of measurements used by electrochemists as very important diagnostic tools to help determine exactly what is going on in the cell. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >... >Surely, there will be no difference in delay between voltage and >current. The current at the "receiving end" will start to flow, as >soon as the voltage arrives. This does however, in no way imply that >current consists of the identical particles that also start to flow at >the "transmitting end". Perhaps one can think of the voltage as a >"shock" wave (pun intended), that lends momentum to charged particles, >as it passes. Yes there will be a difference. Perhaps Horace can show both the voltage and current traces in parallel (chopped?) on the same time scale. With a sinosoidal input there will be a phase difference between the voltage and the current. It should appear as if there are inductances and capacitances in the circuit. This is due to the charging effects at the electrode double-layers and the current effects in the electrolyte itself. Later Robin also wrote: > >On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Page wrote: >>... >>Now it is very important to realize that this equivalent conductivity >>varies with concentration. In fact, it *increases* as the ionic >>concentration decreases. It asymptomically reaches its highest value >>at "infinite dilution". So increasing the concentration of Li+ ions >>and SO4-- ions will only *decrease* the amount of current carried by >>these species. >> >>Cheers, >>Bill Page. >> >Bill, > >I get the impression from the above, that the equivalent conductance >of a species, is a conductance / mole of ions. So that while this per >/mole conductance may increase for lower concentrations, this doesn't >necessarily imply that the conductance of the solution also increases. >It would depend upon the product of number of moles present * >equivalent conductance. If only a small change occurs in equivalent >conductance, then increasing the number of moles present, will still >weigh more heavily than the decreasing equivalent conductance when >calculating the overall conductivity of the solution. > Yes, this is exactly correct. And you are right that the change in the equivalence conductance, while interesting in its own right, is nowhere near sufficient to offset the concentration of Li+ and SO4-- charge carriers. And so, in a way I think Michael J. Schaffer was right in his original post. The initial current must be carried by these ions and *not* the H+ (or H3O+) and OH- ions. BUT Horace was measuring the DC resistance. And as you pointed out earlier: >... >On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:08:43 -0800 (PST), Schaffer@gav.gat.com wrote: > >> >>Bill Page wrote: >>>Again, my understanding of the role of the SO4-- and Li+ ions is that >>>they are very little involved in the overall conductivity of the >>>electrolysis cell. Could we discuss specific references to experimental >>>results here? >> >>The concentrations of Li+ and SO4-- are on the order of 1 M in the bulk >>solution away from the reaction regions near the electrodes. At neutral ph >>the concentrations of H+ and OH- are 10^-7, while at ph = -9 recommended by >>Patterson's patent the concentrations are [H+] = 10^-9 M and [OH-] = 10^-5. >>Although H+ and OH- are more mobile than Li+ and SO4--, the difference is >>not that great. Therefore, when the bulk solution is subject to an >>electric field, Li+ and SO4-- carry the overwhelming share of the electric >>current by shear weight of numbers. >If this is so, and it is also true that all electrons delivered by the >cathode to the solution are accounted for by H+ ions being converted >into H atoms, then at some point, the charge carried by e.g. SO4-- >must be conveyed to to H+, or ? >So just which reactions do take place at the electrodes? (Dieter?) > Therefore, although the Li+ and SO4-- ions carry the intial current - the one measured as an impedance with an AC signal as input, this can not be what carries the ongoing DC current. Bockris & Reddy to the rescue! In "Modern Electrochemistry" volume 1, page 403, [ref: previous posts] they write: 4.5.3 The Significance of a Transport Number of Zero In the previous section, it has been shown that the addition of an excess of KCl [to an HCl electrolyte] makes the fraction of the migration (i.e., conduction) current carried by the H+ ions tend to zero. What happens if this mixture of HCl and KCl is placed between two electrodes and a potential difference applied across the cell? In response to the electric field developed in the electrolyte, a migration of ions occurs and there is a conduction current in the solution. Since this conduction current is almost completely by K+ and Cl- ions (tH+ -> 0), there is a tendency for the Cl- ions to accumulate near the positive electrode, and the K+ ions, near the negative electrode. If the excess negative charge near the positive electrode and *vice versa* were to build up, then the resulting field due to lack of electroneutrality (cf. Section 4.3.3) would tend to bring the conduction current to a halt. In has been argued (cf. Section 4.3.4) however that conduction (i.e. migration) currents are sustained in an electrolyte because of charge-transfer reactions (at the electrode- electrolyte interfaces), which remove the excess charge that tends to build up near the electrodes. In the case of the HCl + KCl electrolyte, the reaction at the positive electrode may be considered the deelectronation of the Cl- ions. Furthere, according to Faraday's law (cf. Section 4.3.5) [and Robin's logic above], 1 g-eq of Cl- ions must be de-electronated at the positive electrode for the passage of 1 F of charge in the external circuit. This means however that, at the other electrode, 1 g-eq of positive ions must be involved in a reaction. Thus, either the K+ or the H+ ions must react; but, by keeping the potential difference within certain limits, one can ensure that only the H+ ions react. In our situation, it is the SO4-- ions that are involved in the de-electronation and the liberation of O2 at the anode, and the Li+ ions that provide the initial migration current (in Bockris and Reddy's sense above), but just like the K+ in their example, the Li+ is not the species that reacts at the cathode. Bockris and Reddy continue: There is no difficulty in effecting the reaction of the layer if H+ near the negative electrode, but to keep the reaction going, there must be a flux of H+ ions from the bulk of the solution toward the negative electrode. By what process does this flux occur? It cannot be by migration because the prescence of the excess K+ [in our case Li+] ions makes the transport number of H+ tend to zero. It is here that diffusion comes into the picture; the removal of H+ ions by the charge-transfer reaction causes a depletion of these ions near the electrode, and the resulting concentration gradient provokes a diffusion of H+ ions toward the electrode. And Bockris and Reddy go on to discuss many more theoretical details about this diffusion. One of the things that arises, however, is that the diffusion rate for H+ in to electrolyte is still much higher than can be accounted for by a simple kinetic theory of diffusion. Ultimately, the conclusion is that quantum mechanical tunnelling must be involved in the "diffusion" of the H+ ions. I put the word "diffusion" in quotes above, because in actual fact, this movement of H+ ions is really, in my opinion, best considered as "proton conduction" by the electrolyte (a proton-semiconductor that has been appropriately doped with an excess of charge carriers (defects in the H2O molecular chains). And the concentration dependence of the equivalent conductances are most directly related to these doping effects (in addition the classical kinetic effects mentioned by Bockris and Reddy). Now, all of this is, I think, worth understanding in such detail because what we seem to require in "CF" is a kind of high H+ "pressure" at the cathode in ensure H loading into the metal. It seems that this sort of indirect proton conduction (H+ diffusion) may not be the best approach to achieve this. In my experiments with Al cathodes, I used a simple HCl electrolyte. In this case, H+ migration is effected directly by the H+ ion conduction. Of course the side effects are Cl2 evolution (nasty) and depletion of the H+ and Cl- concentration in the electrolyte overtime. And there are a few other problems, but that is another story. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 01:36:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA25775; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604142218.SAA23888@server0.accent.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: legault@mail.accent.net (Marc-AntoineLegault) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Micheal Huffman's steam machine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To all, Hi, my name is Marc-Antoine Legault. I am 16 years old and became very interested in the area of new energy. Back few months ago, my research on the Internet had brought me to the web page of Cold Fusion Technology. Since I did not know much about cold fusion, I subscribed to "Infinite energy magazine" in witch I saw a publication of Micheal Huffman's Steam Machine. I subscribe to vortext-L mailing list in witch Micheal Huffman had a discussion on his machine in the past. Since then, I've decided to make a science fair project based on the machine. Unfortunately, my sources of information are very scarce on this subject. My motivation of doing this project is the overunity efficiency of the machine that was observed by Micheal Huffman. I'm actualy searching information about the scientific background that is applicable on this type of machine, that could explain the phenomenon of overunity. As many of you know, phenomenon of cavitation are produced by the machine. Many other devices using cavitation have produce overunity phenomenon that are discused here in the vortext mailing list. I would very mutch appreciate any sources of information that could help me understand overunity phenomenon where cavitation has been present. Thank you for your attention, Marc-Antoine Legault legault@accent.net From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 01:29:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA26795; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604150030.RAA24049@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: visit X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > I asked Vlad to find out about the new quantum >heaters that run "part of the time under their own power" What does that mean? Yes, what does that mean indeed. In an earlier post, the claim was a self sustainig generator once it got started. I thought LANL presented a formal invitation to Potapov for a demonstration of that self sustaining pump, not as you now say, "part of the time". Has Potapov formally accepted the invitation from LANL? -AK- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 02:53:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA06277; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: New 10 m Cell Data X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Additional data was taken regarding the oscilloscope traces at URL: and the existing lab book data reviewed carefully. One error that was found was the pressure reading. It was reported prviously as 21 - 22 mmHg, but it appears I read the guage in error, and the pressure was actually 31-32 mmHg, oscillating. This is not significant to any prior results. The pressure in the following runs started out at 30 - 31 mmHg and fell to 28 - 29 mmHg in about 2 hours. The resistor was checked and found to be 150.7 K, but I could change that + or - .2 k just by holding it to warm it up, or blowing on it to cool it. 151 k ohms is a good number. The "battery voltage" of the cell dropped to .072 V from roughly .4 V. I believe this is due to the wire seals leaking and the electrolyte making contact with the steel caps inside the seal. I need to remake the seals with a plastic pressure cap if I can find one. Otherwise, maybe a barbed connector and some Automotive Goop will work. The importance of the "battery voltage" will be apparent upon analysis of the data to follow. The first test was done to get a picture of cell current vs time with a fixed supply of 10 V. This test was done with the Pt electrode positive, and the nichrome electrode negative. Electrolyte flow in all tests reported here were from the nichrome electrode toward the Pt electrode, regardless of the polarity used for any particular test. The I vs T data follows: Time Current in uA 0 s 47.1 Electrolyte flow turned off) 15 s 46.5 30 s 46.1 45 s 45.9 60 s 45.7 75 s 45.7 90 s 45.6 105 s 45.5 2 m 45.4 2 m 45.8 (after tapping electrodes) 3 m 45.5 (Electrolyte flow turned on) 6 m 45.9 8 m 45.9 10 m 45.8 15 m 45.7 20 m 45.7 30 m 45.6 2 h 45.4 1.5 h 45.5 The oscilloscope was hooked up with the wideband pre-amplifier to get the best trace possible. A 4.6 V calibration voltage from 3 AA batteries in series produced a height of 3.6 cm. A 10 v P-P signal was placed on the anode. The peak to peak voltage across the 151 k resistor showed a spread of 3.45 cm, giving a p-p voltage of 4.41 V. The scope was place in DC mode for the measurement and something very interresting was uncoverd. The output waveform peak voltage was 2.85 cm above zero and the bottom was .6 cm below zero. This gives a max plus voltage swing of 2.85 x 4.6/3.6 = 3.6 V, and a negative swing of .6 x 4.6/3.6 = .77 V, and a total p-p of 4.4 V. The current peak should be Ir = V/Rr = 4.4/150,700 = 29.2 uA. However, from steady state measurements below it was found to be 25.1 uA. Using the 3.6 V peak, we get Ir = 3.6/150,700 = 23.8 uA, a bit too low, but more realistic. A steady state measurement was then taken with the cell, the resistor, and an ammeter in series. The applied voltage was 10.05 V, the resultant current was 25.3 uA. The voltage across the ammeter was 25.3 mV. The voltage across the resistor was Vr = Ir x Rr = (150.7 k) x (25.3 uA) = 3.81 V. The voltage across the cell was therefore Vc = 10.05 - 3.81 - .03 = 6.21 V. The effective cell resistance at 6.21 V is therefore Rc = Vc / Ic = (6.21 V)/25.3 uA = 245 k. The following uA measurements and calculations of average current for flowing electrolyte conditions (Iavg) and corresponding V/I resistance k ohms (Ravg), and the V/I resistance assuming a -0.4V battery voltage correction (Ravg at V-0.4), were made: uA with resistor still in place, - NiCr, + Pt V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg Ravg at V-0.4 3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 714 619 5 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.1 10.1 495 455 7 15.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 437 413 9 22.0 22.1 22.0 22.1 22.1 407 389 10 25.0 25.1 24.9 25.1 25.1 398 382 11 27.9 28.1 27.9 28.1 28.1 391 377 uA with resistor removed, - NiCr, + Pt V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg Ravg at V-0.4 3 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 400 346 5 18.1 18.5 18.2 18.3 18.4 276 250 7 29.4 29.7 29.4 29.6 29.7 236 222 9 40.6 41.1 40.6 41.1 41.1 219 209 10 46.1 46.7 46.2 46.7 46.7 214 205 11 51.8 52.4 51.6 52.4 52.4 209 202 uA with resistor removed, - NiCr, + Pt V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg 3 16.7 14.1 14.0 13.9 14.0 214 5 26.2 25.2 24.9 24.9 25.1 201 7 36.2 36.7 35.9 35.9 36.5 191 9 47.1 48.0 45.8 47.9 48.0 187 10 52.5 53.8 51.3 53.7 53.8 186 11 58.1 59.8 56.7 59.4 59.6 185 For convenience here are the prior experimental results for camparison with the above two results: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow Iavg Iavg (new) 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 7.7 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 17.8 18.4 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 28.0 29.7 9, 39.1, 38.9 38.8, 39.0 39.0 41.1 11, 49.6, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 49.8 52.4 uA with - on Pt and + on NiCr V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow Iavg Iavg (new) 3, 13.1, 12.6, 12.5, 12.4 12.5 14.0 5, 23.3, 22.9, 23.0 22.9 22.9 25.1 7, 33.3, 33.5, 32.7, 33.3 33.4 36.5 9, 43.7, 44.5, 42.3, 44.4 44.5 48.0 11, 53.6, 55.3, 51.9, 55.2 55.3 59.6 That's the data. It does not appear H2 bubbles are significant at this point. More significant is maybe the surprizing 0.4 V negative swing on the output square wave. Somewhat disappointing are the uA measurement differences for the flowing electrolyte, Iavg vs Iavg (new), even though they look like they are different in a non-random way. Maybe due to electrolyte concentrating, or possibly electrolysis in the seals? There is still unaccounted for disagreement in current estimates from corresponding steady state 10 V input (25.3 uA or 25.1 uA) and square wave 10 V input (29.2 uA). Comments? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 02:43:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA06430; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:35:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:35:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Bubbles vs Cell Resistance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace Heffner replied on Sun, 14 Apr 1996 08:53:09 -0700 >(PDT) >Subject: Re: Bubbles vs Cell Resistance > >>Pressure is a very well controlled variable. The relative >pressure in the >>degassing chamber is zero for all practical purposes. The >flow rate is >>constant due to the synchronously driven peristaltic pump. > >I'm sorry Horace, but unless you're operating in a controlled >pressure chamber you are not controlling atmospheric pressure. >Pressure is not ZERO! > > >>The elevation of the degasser outlet outlet remaind constant >throughout the >>experiment. > >I'll bet your degasser outlet varies in elevation by 'Many >Feet' compared to >Scott's or Patterson's. In fact I'll take book on it. No it's >not relative to your cell, but to atmospheric pressure which >will effect bubble size, and probably resistance. > >I think the whole point flew by you. Take a cup of water with a >pinch of salt >(sounds more like cooking than science) use stainless steel >electrodes hooked (scientist couple they don't hook, oh well) >to a battery. Place this in a bell jar and vary the pressure, >either compressed air or a vacumn pump will work. Tell me what >happens to the bubbles in your solution? > >On this one Horace, don't be so quick to discount what I am >saying, it is a variable which you are not controlling. Don't >say that it is so minor that it >dosen't matter, you don't know without tests. The controlling >of the size of the vent could be an important factor. > >Joe Flynn > >Flynn Research >P.O. Box 11657 >Kansas City, Mo. 64138 This experiment is not a replication of anyone else's experiment, therefore there is no reason to control the variables you mention in relation to any experiments but those documented here. The difficulties and inconsistancies I am trying to work out with the help of this group are totally contained within these experiments. The experiments contain data that appears self inconsistant. I need to improve my experimental and/or analysis technique to get consistant answers. I would expect bubbles in a high pressure ennvironment to be slightly larger than those in a low pressure environment. That is because for a given volume they are heavier. To get detatched from an electrode, the bubble lift must exceed it's surface tension. More dense bubbles, being heavier, require more displacement to achieve the same net lift. The mass of the gass is very small in relation to the mass of the water displaced, so there should be only a very small effect of ambient air pressure on bubble size. The sum of the volumes of all the H2 bubbles would be inversly proportional to pressure though. The question here is what that total volume is in relation to the volume of electolyte. Based in the uA currents used in the referenced experiments, that volume must be insignificant. Using 25 uA as typical for these runs, we get 1.56x10^14 electrons per second, or 5.6x10^17 electrons per hour. Using 100 percent Faradaic efficiancy that's 9.33x10-07 moles of H or 4.66x10^-7 moles of H2. Unless I made some mistake in that calculation, bubbles are not terribly important. Such a tiny amount of matter could only be important to electrode surface effects. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 02:34:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA06586; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604150504.AAA25612@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I would like to see if there is a consensus among the students of electrochemistry on Vortex as to the following important question for CF experimenters: Do all of the electrons that "flow" thru the electrolysis cell end up one way or another dissociating water? In other words, can we reliably count upon two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2 to be released every time 4 electrons go thru the cell? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 17:02:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA18273; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, Scott Little wrote: > I would like to see if there is a consensus among the students of > electrochemistry on Vortex as to the following important question for CF > experimenters: > > Do all of the electrons that "flow" thru the electrolysis cell end up one > way or another dissociating water? In other words, can we reliably count > upon two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2 to be released every time 4 > electrons go thru the cell? Pedantically speaking, no. 1. During charging, when hydrogen enters the metal, you evolve oxygen at the anode, and produce metal hydride at the cathode. You know all this; when the metal is saturated with hydrogen, your question becomes a matter of pedantry: 2. There is the possibility (faint) of several side reactions at the cathode. E.g. some say you might get some deposition of Li, and have variously detected from 1 to nearly 10 at% Li in the top layers of Pd (don't know about Ni). This despite the fact that potentials are not supposed to be sufficiently negative for this to happen. It would be stretching the idea of underpotential deposition to an anomalous degree. The evidence does look convincing, though. This would be only a small fraction of the current. Then you also get (now we're really getting pedantic) some dissolution of Pt at the anode, and redeposition at the cathode - very tiny amounts, but nonzero. Ditto for other cations present as impurities in the electrolyte, some will get deposited on the cathode. Such as Zn, Pb, Cu. 3. A point of contention is of course recombination, i.e. the H2 and O2 that you generated recombine chemically back into water. This is likely to be the major cause of current efficiency going below 100%. The above effects would not noticably affect current efficiency, but this one could. If it happens, then the current is in effect used only to move ions around in the electrolyte, from the whole-system point of view. People ought to check that they get as much gas as they should - and when they do, they usually get it, presumably because those who check are by definition careful workers and know how to avoid recombination. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 17:03:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA17045; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tilleyrw@digital.net (Robert Tilley) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Micheal Huffman's steam machine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > (Text amounting to a request for information on the Huffman steam machine > snipped.) Michael and I have had some correspondance concerning his device, which can be read about on Bill Beaty's home page, and he was good enough to send me the plans for his original device. I think that these are what you might be hinting at in your request for information. I am sure that Michael would be glad to furnish you also with some plans and you can reach him at the address "knuke@aa.net", although I have not tested this address in a long time. Robert Tilley, tilleyrw@digital.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- | "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://ddi.digital.net/~tilleyrw -- *** --- *** | |-------------------------------------------------------------------| | Home to some of the most diverse links known to mortal web surfer | --------------------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 17:03:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA17968; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:52:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:52:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Bubbles vs Cell Resistance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >From Norman: >Horace, > >>> I would expect bubbles in a high pressure ennvironment to be slightly >larger than those in a low pressure environment. That is because for a >given volume they are heavier. To get detatched from an electrode, the >bubble lift must exceed it's surface tension. More dense bubbles, being >heavier, require more displacement to achieve the same net lift. << > >Deviating only slightly from the CF science, has this phenomenon any >relationship with the supposed measure of the quality of Champagne. I >understand that the better the quality the smaller the bubbles in the glass. >While the pressure in the glass is atmos. the size of the bubbles must be >associated with the surface tension/displacement ratio, which is supposed to be >a measure of "quality". Whether this triggers any thoughts re CF/OU is >problematical, but interesting!? > >Norman Two possibilities to consider: (1) The less sugar remaining, the dryer, and the more alcohol, i.e. the more completely the grape sugar was converted to alcohol. The less sugar, the less surface tension. Also, the more alcohol the less tension. 8^) (2) The better filtered the wine, the smaller the particulates for forming bubbles. The smaller the particulates, the smaller the initial bubble surface area, the slower their initial growth, the sooner the bubbles reach the surface in proportion to their evolved size. Now here is an interresting thought in relation to CF anomalous results. If the apparent excess heat were due to microbubbles forming in the electrolyte and thus reducing the specific heat, the best way to accomplish this would be to put a filter in the system that removed large particulates, but created or at least did not filter small particulates. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 17:03:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA17360; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tilleyrw@digital.net (Robert Tilley) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Micheal Huffman's steam machine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: P.S. Don't expect to find information anywhere that can help you confirm over-unity operation. That is a totally new area of experimentation and die hard physicists won't even admit that such is possible. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | "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://ddi.digital.net/~tilleyrw -- *** --- *** | |-------------------------------------------------------------------| | Home to some of the most diverse links known to mortal web surfer | --------------------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 17:07:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA18302; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604151337.GAA18395@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > >Do all of the electrons that "flow" thru the electrolysis cell end up >one way or another dissociating water? In other words, can we >reliably count upon two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2 to be >released every time 4 electrons go thru the cell? No. Its not that ideal. Checking an encyclodpedia of science and chemistry to be sure, a paragraph quoted from one may give some idea of what has to be considered. "In electrolysis, at very low current densities, the potentials of the electrodes approximate in magnitude their reversable values and deviate somewhere from these values because of an I*R drop in a solution and possible concentration polarization (the concentration at the electrode surface may differ from that in the bulk pf the solution). Also for high current densities, especially for the generation of gases such as hydrogen, oxygen, or chlorine, the voltage required exceeds the reversible voltage voltage; the excess voltage is know as overvoltage. or overpotential for a single electrode, and arises from energy barriers at the electrode. Overpotential, in general, increases logarithmically with an increase in current density." Ten 'additional reading references' are given in the encyclopedia. Electrolysis not as easy to quantify as it appears. -A.K.- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 16 01:23:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA09905; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Akira Kawasaki wrote: > You wrote: > > > >Do all of the electrons that "flow" thru the electrolysis cell end up > >one way or another dissociating water? In other words, can we > >reliably count upon two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2 to be > >released every time 4 electrons go thru the cell? > > No. Its not that ideal. Checking an encyclodpedia of science and > chemistry to be sure, a paragraph quoted from one may give some idea > of what has to be considered. > > "In electrolysis, at very low current densities, the potentials of > the electrodes approximate in magnitude their reversable values and > deviate somewhere from these values because of an I*R drop in a > solution and possible concentration polarization (the concentration at > the electrode surface may differ from that in the bulk pf the > solution). Also for high current densities, especially for the > generation of gases such as hydrogen, oxygen, or chlorine, the voltage > required exceeds the reversible voltage voltage; the excess voltage is > know as overvoltage. or overpotential for a single electrode, and > arises from energy barriers at the electrode. Overpotential, in > general, increases logarithmically with an increase in current > density." > > Ten 'additional reading references' are given in the encyclopedia. > Electrolysis not as easy to quantify as it appears. > > -A.K.- This is an entirely separate issue, nothing to do with Scott's question; the above concerns reversibility, and is an expression of the problem or the question of whether the electric power going into the electrochemical cell is all used to make the products. The answer is, it is not. But Scott wanted to know whether every lot of 4 electrons travelling (in effect) through the cell leaves behind it 2H2 + O2, and the answer is, very nearly yes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 16 15:22:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA25694; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604161905.MAA23224@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: miley X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 08:05 PM 4/12/96 -0700, Frank Z wrote: > >>Miley invited Rothwell, Hugo, and myself to see his latest demo this April >>28th. > >Hey, this could be good. An opportunity for a group of Vortexans to examine >CETI technology up close in a laboratory setting and report what is found. > >You will be able to tell us what you see, won't you? > >Let's start a discussion on how you might go about really confirming the >excess heat during your visit. > > > - Scott Little I don't know how much Miley will or is allowed to say. I presume he cannot talk about wrok done explicitll for CETI. However, I would like to learn: 1. How did Miley make his own beads that also yielded substantial excess heat? Were there any "special treatments"? Was the electrolyte pure Li2SO4, or were there additives? 2. How were Miley's experiments done? HOw was the calorimetry checked? How were temperatures measured and what checks were done to ascertain that there were no interfering signals? Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 17 01:18:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11480; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3MNJZ37369AOW49@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Patterson Cell, a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I conducted a simple experiment, and am now convinced that the Patterson Cell is probably a CLEVERLY DISGUISED H2 O2 combustion cell. With the correct ratio of coated and uncoated beads - no separators between cathode and anode - the beads loosely packed - Pulsating pump to agitate the beads - current regulated supply- the following can occur. With the correct ratio of coated and uncoated beads (ratio based on the amount of agitation it doesn't take much) probability states that the cell will short from anode to cathode with a given frequency. Uncoated beads prevent a continuous short. H2 and O2 are produced by electrolysis by the anode and cathode and is circulated by the pump and is partially trapped by the bed of beads. Each time a short occurs, if enough gas is collected (loaded) in the bead bed a very minor arc occurs and ignites the gas. (Anyone who does not believe arcing and combustion can take place in the electrolyte need only to talk to any company who does plating. I can also post a simple experiment to demonstrate this, if anyone wants to investigate.) The arc's are micro in nature and mainly hidden by the beads. With many micro combustions taking place and given the heat of combustion of Hydrogen 68.317 (From memory, may be slightly off) kcal / mole, the heat produced by the Patterson Cell can be accounted for. The product of this combustion is H2O and, although rare, under very special circumstances can produce Hydrogen peroxide, so no chemical ash. Why new and improved "plastic beads", they are more buoyant and will move around easier than glass beads, thus more combustions. The use of a filter also improves combustions by keeping coating debris out of the bed. I know Scott Little is a very diligent and cautious experimenter, perhaps he will verify this action. Careful adjustment of a properly constructed cell will produce so called "Excess Heat". BTW, an LM317 and a resistor on the output will convert your power supplies to current limiting supplies. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 17 01:30:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11445; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960416221201_192570089@mail02.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Fwd: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Electrolysis depends on current not on voltage. This electrolysis current can produce other reactants other than O2 and H2 for example in salt water may produce H Cl acid. Electrical current is measured in amps or colombs /second Chemical change is measured in moles. In a cell, colombs x valence = k moles One mole of electrons (this is from memory I have the figure in a book at work) is produced by a current of 26.8 amp/hrs. Voltage depends on the work funcion of the Nerst equation v = .058 ln (c1/c2) again from memory. Overvoltge is another matter this energy goes into heating not chemical change. Frank Z --------------------- Forwarded message: From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-to: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com (Multiple recipients of list) Date: 96-04-16 18:05:33 EDT At 05:28 4/16/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >Anyway, the efficiency is not 100 percent, so maybe some of the electrons >go through the cell without any H2 or O2 being generated. What do you mean by "efficiency"? An excess voltage is always required to accomplish practical electrolysis and this excess voltage results in V*i heating of the cell...i.e. wasted electrical energy that does not go into dissociating water. But what I'm after doesn't concern voltage or power at all. Here's another way to state my question: Is there any mechanism for current to flow "thru" the cell that does NOT cause two H atoms and one O atom to be freed for every two electrons that move "thru" the cell. Corollary: If there is such a mechanism approximately what fraction of the current in a typical electrolysis cell will flow due to that mechanism? Hopefully, the answer is that there is NOT a significant other way for current to flow thru the cell. This would allow the CF investigator to accurately predict the rate of gas evolution from his cell by measuring only the electrical current. Any deviations from the theoretical rate could then be attributed to recombination or absorbtion in the cathode. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 17 07:29:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA19034; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604171345.IAA11206@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell, a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 00:50 4/17/96 -0700, Flynn wrote: >I conducted a simple experiment, and am now convinced that the >Patterson Cell is probably a CLEVERLY DISGUISED H2 O2 >combustion cell. If that were the case, Joe, then measured heat from the cell would be precisely EQUAL to the input electrical energy since conservation of energy is at work in the electrolysis process (i.e. it takes 1 joule of electrical energy to produce enuf H and O to yield 1 joule when burned). Patterson cell researchers report typically 10 times more heat generated than electrical input. Burning of the H and O produced cannot explain that. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 17 10:40:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA16321; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960417151610_72240.1256_EHB157-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Miley visit X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Larry Wharton suggests that on the visit to Miley: "The most important things to bring with is an insulated jug like the Thermos jug you put your hot drinks in and a long thermometer. The jug should be filled with the hot output water and then capped. The jug should be sloshed around and be allowed to sit around an amount commensurate with the actual path of the electrolyte from cell output to cell input . . ." I am afraid this sort of test will be out of the question. Miley is concentrating on the nuclear aspects of the reaction. People who do studies of reaction products and other nuclear effects must strive to avoid contamination. They must take great care to avoid exposing the cell components and electrolyte to air or dirt. I would recommend that nobody be allowed to touch the cell or equipment. Therefore I do not expect we will have an opportunity to draw samples of electrolyte or to put thermistor probes into the fluid. In an experiment where you only look for excess heat, you can relax the standards and allow people to draw samples of electrolyte or use their own thermistor probes. The probes should be carefully cleaned and rinsed before inserting them into the electrolyte. Wharton writes: "If there is any chemical reaction going on in the cell it logically should be undone by this process." The excess heat cannot be the result of a chemical process. It is many orders of magnitude too large for that. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 17 22:21:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA13928; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: 10 m Cell Experiment Conclusions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The following are final observations and conclusions posted to attempt to bring this experimental effort to a close for now on my part. EXISTING DATA For a while the oscilloscope trace data will be at URL: . Some minor typographical errors in the data tables are corrected below: The first test was done to get a picture of cell current vs time with a fixed supply of 10 V. This test was done with the Pt electrode positive, and the nichrome electrode negative. Electrolyte flow in all tests reported here were from the nichrome electrode toward the Pt electrode, regardless of the polarity used for any particular test. The I vs T data follows: Time Current in uA 0 s 47.1 (Electrolyte flow turned off) 15 s 46.5 30 s 46.1 45 s 45.9 60 s 45.7 75 s 45.7 90 s 45.6 105 s 45.5 2 m 45.4 2 m 45.8 (after tapping electrodes) 3 m 45.5 (Electrolyte flow turned on) 6 m 45.9 8 m 45.9 10 m 45.8 15 m 45.7 20 m 45.7 30 m 45.6 1 h 45.4 1.5 h 45.5 The following uA measurements and calculations of average current for flowing electrolyte conditions (Iavg) and corresponding V/I resistance k ohms (Ravg), and the V/I resistance assuming a -0.4 V battery voltage correction (Ravg at V-0.4), were made: uA with resistor still in place, - NiCr, + Pt V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg Ravg at V-0.4 3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 714 619 5 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.1 10.1 495 455 7 15.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 437 413 9 22.0 22.1 22.0 22.1 22.1 407 389 10 25.0 25.1 24.9 25.1 25.1 398 382 11 27.9 28.1 27.9 28.1 28.1 391 377 uA with resistor removed, - NiCr, + Pt V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg Ravg at V-0.4 3 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 400 346 5 18.1 18.5 18.2 18.3 18.4 276 250 7 29.4 29.7 29.4 29.6 29.7 236 222 9 40.6 41.1 40.6 41.1 41.1 219 209 10 46.1 46.7 46.2 46.7 46.7 214 205 11 51.8 52.4 51.6 52.4 52.4 209 202 uA with resistor removed, - Pt, + NiCr V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg 3 16.7 14.1 14.0 13.9 14.0 214 5 26.2 25.2 24.9 24.9 25.1 201 7 36.2 36.7 35.9 35.9 36.5 191 9 47.1 48.0 45.8 47.9 48.0 187 10 52.5 53.8 51.3 53.7 53.8 186 11 58.1 59.8 56.7 59.4 59.6 185 For convenience here are the prior experimental results for camparison with the above two results: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow Iavg Iavg (new) 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 7.7 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 17.8 18.4 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 28.0 29.7 9, 39.1, 38.9 38.8, 39.0 39.0 41.1 11, 49.6, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 49.8 52.4 uA with - on Pt and + on NiCr V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow Iavg Iavg (new) 3, 13.1, 12.6, 12.5, 12.4 12.5 14.0 5, 23.3, 22.9, 23.0 22.9 22.9 25.1 7, 33.3, 33.5, 32.7, 33.3 33.4 36.5 9, 43.7, 44.5, 42.3, 44.4 44.5 48.0 11, 53.6, 55.3, 51.9, 55.2 55.3 59.6 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Even though a current probe was not available, an effort was made to look at current by running the cell output through a ferrite core before going to ground. A 5 turn loop of wire was wrapped around the core and connected to the oscilloscope ground and a 100 mHz rated probe. The resulting trace was very low voltage but yielded some information about the current. First, the trace consisted of spikes of unmeasurable width at a location on the time scale corresponding to the square wave rising and falling edges. Even though the spikes could not be resolved, it was very clear that there was a complex waveform in the spike. This was clear because there were bright spots in the waveform corresponding to what must be current peaks at various times. A good scope should be able to break that spike out into a kind of arrival time spectrum which might be related to electrolyte composition. SUGGESTED METHODS OF IMPROVING THE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE FOR FUTURE EXPERIMENTS (1) Don't use metal parts in electrode seals. Some related correlaries to Murphy's law: places that are supposed to be on the dry side of a seal aren't. If they were dry yesterday, they won't be dry today. (2) Based on the current vs time (at 10 V) curve above, the cell should be allowed to stabilize at least one minute after changing cell voltage before taking a current measurement. Failure to do so results in an up to 3 percent error. (3) The electrolyte should be cleaned of impurities by filtering with a carbon filter for and doing electrolysis (4) The electrodes used in the experiment were fed through a T connector. This means a partion of the electrode was in a stagnent location. This could be improved by insulating the electrode up to the point where it is immersed in flowing electrolyte. A possibility is to insert the electrode through a fine hole in the tubing and seal it with goop or epoxy. (5) Control the absolute pressure. This should not be dangerous because of the very small amount of H2 generated by the uA current of a 10 m cell. This can be done by using a hermetically sealed drip chamber and applying fluid pressure via maintaining water level in a piece of tubing branched from the system via a T connector. The elevation of the water level can be adjusted by moving the tube up or down so the pressure guage at the pump remains at a constant level. (6) Use a high bandwidth digital scope with voltage and current probes. DIRECT CONCLUSIONS FROM DATA (1) The most significant conclusion is that charge differential can be equalized in a 1 m Li2SO4 electrolytic cell at a velocity of more than 10^6 m/s in a field gradient as small as 1 V/m, and this can happen in an electrolyte flowing at over 4 cm/s in either direction. This is determined by looking at the rise time of the square wave at output of cell vs input of cell. (2) Cell current appears to be slightly improved by a flowing electrolyte. (3) The unexpected 0.4 V drop in the output voltage square wave appears to be the well understood faradaic rectification effect. ANALYSIS Since it is well known this analysis is by an untrained amateur, appropriate preceeding clauses like "as far as I know", or "in my limited experience", or "I think" are assumed and deleted in the interest of brevity, with most all of my posts. It is resonable to assume there are two very different electrolyte regimes in the electrolytic cell (a) The several micron thick electrode interface and (b) the solution. The electrode interface is an area of intense field gradients and electron transfer. It is significantly affected by electron tunneling. The electron flux is massive in *both directions*, but there is a net electron flux equal to the cell current. The interface has been a subject of much study and modelling. The nature and performace of the interface seems to be well known. The solution is a low field graient regime where charge is assumed to be carried strictly by ions and charge transport, as well as all other matter transport is almost entirely by diffusion. This is because the field gradient is primarily at the interface, and not in the solution. An H+ deficit in the nearby vicinity of the cathode results in a concentration gradient approaching the cathode which results in diffusion. It is assumed that charge can be transported in the solution regime by species not directly involved in the primary reactions evolving H2 and O2, namely by Li+ and SO4- radicals. Their role is to carry the current. Again this role is filled by diffusion. Based the fact that charge can clearly move through the solution at 10^6 m/s, much faster than heavy nuclear ions can propagate a wave via a local field gradient change, there appears to be an inconsistancy in the assumptions. I suggest the possibility that, to some degree, charge is transported through the solution regime via electrons. It is interresting that this could be true without changing any existing model for steady state electrolysis. This is because the electron charge transport would occur in the solution regime and terminate with great likelyhood when the electron reaches the ion gradient at the boundary of the interface regime. The net effect of the electron transport could look like an actual ion transport. It is just that a charged species is replaced (in net effet) by an uncharge species at the end of the electron propagation chain, or vice versa. For example, given a starting condition of an Li atom at the anode and Li+ at the cathode, and electron exchange could occur of the form: Li.............Li+ (initial condition, Li momentarily created by electonation) Li+...e-..->...Li+ (electron transiting) Li+............Li (electron transit complete. Li then quickly gives up e-) The net effect is equivalent to a charged species diffusing in one direction, and an uncharged species in the other. The electron propagation could be via holes or actual electrons. It is already suggested that the proton propagation rate is high and tunneling is being suggested as a possibility. Due to the electron's far greater ability to tunnel, it seems like electron tunneling in the solution regime should be considered a possibility. SIGNIFICANCE TO COLD FUSION INVESTIGATIONS (1) Due to the suggested electron conductance, there would be no change expected in the ratio of electrons through the cell to evolved H2 (or O2) because the suggested electron conduction would only affect the mechanics of charge transport in the solution regime. (2) There should be no difference in the chemistry, other than recombination rate, of a cell with electrolyte flowing from cathode to anode (normal cell) or in a purpendicular way, between the two electrodes (orthogonal cell). The flowing electrolyte, according to the above data, increases the current flow, as would be expected, due to the fact that the rate of diffusion at the boundary of the interface is enhanced via the flowing electrolyte. (3) The lack of difference in chemistry between the normal cell and orthogonal cell is extremely good for the development of CF, because the orthogonal cell can be easily scaled up to any required size, as per my prior posts. The one significant difference, that of recombination avoidance by the orthogonal cell, is beneficial. By placing a bubble barrier between the two electrodes, and maintaining separate elecrolyte steams and degassers, the H2 and O2 can be separated for use in fuel cells, etc. The benfit of flowing electrolyte increasing the diffusion rate, and purging the bubbles, is still present. (4) The rapid electron conduction rate is an indication that there is a very large domain of possibilities to explore in the high frequency range. Of special interest are nonlinear conditions at the interface where small (e.g. 120 mV) voltage change result in 10 times more current. Since the cell has a natural inductance and capacitance it may be possible to use the cell in this regime as a tank oscillator which can "hammer" the H+ ions into the lattice. The natural resonant frequency could be tuned by changing electrolyte concentrations and electrode geometries. An oscillating current electrode might be designed that would evolve O2 and adsorb or recombine nearly 100 percent of the hydrogen. (5) Further investigation and analysis of the rate of charge equalization in the solution regime of an electrolytic cell seems warranted. It appears most investigations have been carred out using cells with electrodes, and thus electode interfaces. This muddies the water with regard to transport in the fluid regime. Using electrodeless cells might assist in investigating electron charge transport, if existant. Charge differentials can be generated in tubing carrying electrolyte via induction, thus avoiding the need for elctrodes altogether. Resulting currents can still be examined via current probes, which do not require electrodes. Such configurations might possibly be used to generate pressure peaks, i.e hammering pulses, in a sonoluminescence based fusion devices. It may be possible to generate such pulses in electrodeless MHD pulse generators. Understanding the mechanism of current propagation would be essential for engineering such devices. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 17 23:20:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA13265; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Patterson Cell, a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 04/17/96 01:18 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Patterson Cell, a Hoax? Sorry Joe, your proposal has NO merit. You CAN'T get more out than you put in, ASIDE from the fact that the H2 and O2 production are so trivial, measurements have been made and internal recombination is MINIMAL.. - Also---this rational does not work well with explaining 15 hours of 20 ml per minute flow and a 13 degree C deltaT inlet to outlet---WITHOUT POWER BEING APPLIED. (Results from a "major" corporate lab presented at the "private" CETI party at Urbana, 3/28-29/96) MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 18 01:52:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA16690; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 05:28 4/16/96 -0700, Horace wrote: > >>Anyway, the efficiency is not 100 percent, so maybe some of the electrons >>go through the cell without any H2 or O2 being generated. > >What do you mean by "efficiency"? An excess voltage is always required to >accomplish practical electrolysis and this excess voltage results in V*i >heating of the cell...i.e. wasted electrical energy that does not go into >dissociating water. But what I'm after doesn't concern voltage or power at >all. > >Here's another way to state my question: Is there any mechanism for current >to flow "thru" the cell that does NOT cause two H atoms and one O atom to be >freed for every two electrons that move "thru" the cell. > >Corollary: If there is such a mechanism approximately what fraction of the >current in a typical electrolysis cell will flow due to that mechanism? > >Hopefully, the answer is that there is NOT a significant other way for >current to flow thru the cell. This would allow the CF investigator to >accurately predict the rate of gas evolution from his cell by measuring only >the electrical current. Any deviations from the theoretical rate could then >be attributed to recombination or absorbtion in the cathode. > > >Scott Little My apologies. I thought Faradaic efficiency meant the ratio of ions electronated to charges through the cell - the very thing you are looking to scope out. It is my understanding there is very close to 100 percent efficiency in that sense. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 18 22:05:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA22288; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Lawrence E. Wharton wrote: > >The precise form of this force is: > > F = q/2 v (v dot ((v dot grad) A))/v^2 Are you sure this is not: F = q/2 v (v dot (v dot (grad A))/v^2 I assume the v^2 is v dot v, or is it scalar velocity? > >with q the charge of a particle moving with velocity v and A the magnetic >vector potential and dot denotes the dot product of two vectors. You need >to know A and it can be solved from > > B = curl A > >with B the magnetic field vector. It would be useful to read the article >in Nature (about two weeks ago now). It is an advertisement, Nature would I have tried to locate a copy of Nature, but there does not seem to be one within 50 miles. I can probably get one in two weeks when I go to Anchorage. >never publish anything like this as a reviewed article. While it is hart >to believe this force exists there is one interesting application. Looking >at the Takashiti motor there appears to be no use for the stator magnets >except to smooth out the motor torque and there is no reason to have them >slanted. It appears very strange indeed under standard E&M. But on the >other hand the Marinov force would give a non conservertive force on the >rotor magnet that would exert a torque in the rotation direction. And yes >the stator magnets have to be slanted or otherwise this force would be >zero. > >Lawrence E. Wharton Earlier I wrote: "A better design might be to configure a series of magnets in a ring (like the core of a torus) with space between them and oriented N to S (attracting). Then wrap a coil around them just like a core coil, except tied together in the gaps so the wires protrude down into the gaps. In this way many segments of wire will be in lines of flux moving parallel to their direction. Hopefully the force will augment the voltage by the magnitude of the partial vector for magnetic flux in the direction of the wire." I would like to suggest a small modification to the above that should detect an unbalanced longitudinal force of any kind based on particle velocity and partial vectors of a static magnetic field. Configure a series of round magnets in a ring (like the core of a torus) with space between them and oriented N to S (attracting) with the strong flux between them directed purpendicular to the minor axies of the of the torus. Then wrap a coil around them on a 45 degree angle to make the surface of a torus, except leave enough room to bind together the wire bundles in the gaps so the wires protrude down into the gaps. In this way many segments of wire will be in lines of flux moving diagonally to their direction. Connect the ends of the coil together. If the coil is then made superconducting it should spontaneously have a runaway current condition. This is due to the fact very small fluctuations due to heat or ambuient EM fields should instantly be amplified by the longitudinal force, if it exists. If the force is directional, it will quickly cancel negative motion and enhance positive motion. If non-directional, then chaos would result momentarily until some local regime overwhelmed the others. If there is no runaway condition, then it is determined that there is no possible (non-Lorentz) force of the type described. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - I have received private email on the subject of the Marinov force from Dr. Vladimir Onoochin via "Andrey M.Panchuk" , who is interrested in discussing this subject. The correspondence is self explanatory so here it is: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - >Dear Dr. Heffner, > >My friend Robert Bishop from Virginia re-sent me some your messages on >Marinov's EM forces. >I was interested in this problem earlier so I know some aspects of it. >I would like to say the following: > >1. As Marinov's russian friends tell, he tries to prove the existence of >non-Lorentz conponent of EM force. > >2. Russian physicist Nikolaev from Tomsk sity confirmed experimentally >the existence of longitudinal pseudo-magnetic force. I call the latter >pseudo-magnetic because its nature isn't purely magnetic one, i.e. it >doesn't satisfy to the requirements for the magnetic force. > >3. Boyer in Phys.Rev D8, p1673 (1973) proposed independent explanation >of Aharonov-Bohm effect from classical electrodynamics point of view. >It is easily to see that Boyer's cocept leads to the existence of >non-Lorentz component of EM force (please, see the book of M.Peshkin & >A.Tonomura "AB effect", Springer-Verlag, 1989). >Unfortunately, later Boyer left his investigations. > >Based on Boyer's ideas, a year ago I proposed the experiment of which aim >is to show a possibility to detect the vector potential in the classical >electrodynamics. However, the EM force displaying in that experiment isn't >of longitudinal nature but Marinov's force can be derived from the vector >potential too. > >I hope you are interested in the problem I tell above. So it would be >diteresting to discuss it with you. > >With warm regard, >Vladimir Onoochin Dear Dr. Onoochin, Thankyou very much for the above information regarding Marinov's force. Please, just call me Horace. Regrettably, I am not a "Dr." and do not even hold a college degree. I have only completed a one quarter course in Newtonian Mechanics in 1962, and have no significant relevent job experience. I am just learning physics and electronics as an amateur. I am more amateur inventor than amateur scientist. Furthermore, I am retired, so have little to offer experimentally due to my very modest experiment budget. I would like to suggest to you that you might get a much better dialog with the entire vortex group. This group has many talents and capabilities, as your friend, Robert Bishop can attest, and works in a very synergetic way. You could subscribe to the group, but I suspect you would not want to read all the material that flows through it. As an alternative, I offer to forward your emails to me to the vortex group, and forward any replies or relevant postings back to you. Your friend, Robert Bishop, might do the same or already be doing the same. Do you mind if I post the reference material you sent to me (above) to vortex? Personally, I prefer not to collaborate privately. I value freedom of speech very much and do not like confidentiality, although on rare occasions there is a need for such. I make an effort to avoid those occasions. I especially value the synergism of the vortex group. It is an incredible phenomenon of modern times. I hope that my posts are in some way a contribution to vortex, and I have learned much from vortex. I am sorry to say there has been no response on vortex to my suggestions for new methods of testing for Marinov's force. It is possible there is simply not much interest in the vortex group in this subject. It is also possible that I misunderstand the nature of the force, the conditions in which it is manifested, so my suggested methods of testing are not relevent. My total knowledge of the force comes from Larry Wharton's post, which is unclear. It is possible people a laughing at my ignorance, but are too polite to respond. It is possible, due to malfunction, that not everyone is receiving the posts. I do not know. I do know that if a person post data from a currently running experiment that shows definite unmistakable energy production from Marinov's force there will be extreme interest! Many of the vortexians, like myself, are already fully occupied with ongoing experiments, so may be slow to interest in any new avenue of research. In case you are interrested, the following is my most recent post: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Larry Wharton has kindly provided the stimulating challenge of detecting Marinov's force. If I understand this proposed force correctly, it is a force exerted on a charged particle moving parallel to magnetic lines of flux and exerted in the axis of the direction of travel. . . . [already posted stuff snipped] Just some thoughts. Anybody interrested? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X-POP3-Rcpt: hheffner@anc To: hheffner@anc.ak.net X-Class: Fast Organization: Joint Stock Copmpany Stroyservise Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:18:43 +0400 (MSD) From: "Andrey M.Panchuk" Subject: St.Petersburg concept Lines: 44 Dear Horace, Thank you for your reply on my message. Please, just call me Volodya (it is a short name from Vladimir, full russian names are usually too long). I consider your study of Marinov force as very interesting. I explain why, however, first of all, I would like to say that for me it is too difficult to subscript to INTERNET. Unfortunately, local russian e-net hasn't direct gates to INTERNET so cannot read all the vortex group emails. So my friend Robertresend me the most interesting email of that group. Now about your experiments. Unfortunately, I have never spoke to Marinov personally and can only say based on his friends' from St.Petersburg opinion. Both Marinov and they try to prove that Lorentz force F = e(E + v*B) isn't sufficient to describe all electrodynamical phenomena. However, according to St.Petersburg group theory (which does not competely coincide with Marinov theory but close to the latter), an undetected yet force displays between two charges moving along one axis. In this case, the value of the magnetic field creating by first charge will equal to zero at a point where second charge is being. The same is correct for other charge too. However, additional (to electrical) force will act on both charges. I would like to note that it reminds Peter Graneau concept, however, that force is retardation nature (In Graneau's concept, such a force is instanteous). There will be held the conference in St.Petersburg this June and the papers of St.Petersburg group will be presented there. If you are interested in it you could come at the conference. I can give more information on it. I think because both you and that group are interested in the same problem the meeting between us can be worth anyway. I know they are looking for the people involved in such researches. If it is convenient to you it would be interesting to send to vortex our little discussion on Marinov's force. Sorry if some my words are unclear. It is because of my poor English. With warm regard, Volodya - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This seems to be a good opportunity for interrested votexians to discuss what is going on with the St. Petersburg group in regard to ou theory. The announcement of this meeting contained many ou energy topics that seemed out of the mainstream. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 18 22:09:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA23891; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3PFAH7ERM99GLBK@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:59:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Patterson Cell, a Hoax? At 00:50 4/17/96 -0700, Flynn wrote: >I conducted a simple experiment, and am now convinced that the >Patterson Cell is probably a CLEVERLY DISGUISED H2 O2 >combustion cell. >Scott's Reply: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:59:26 -0700 (PDT) >If that were the case, Joe, then measured heat from the cell would be >precisely EQUAL to the input electrical energy since conservation of energy >is at work in the electrolysis process (i.e. it takes 1 joule of electrical >energy to produce enuf H and O to yield 1 joule when burned). Scott, yes I agree. This is totally correct. >Patterson cell researchers report typically 10 times more heat generated >than electrical input. Burning of the H and O produced cannot explain that. If a cell behaved as I have described, I can predict that only a veryexperienced person with the right equipment could analyze true input power. There would be high current spikes and odd frequencies riding the input lines. The arc would produce enough heat to add additional H and O to a combustion site, so we can't discount the production of additional H and O due to the current spikes possibly not being measured. Also since frequencies that wouldn't be expected and the nature of the cell would introduce varying phase angles that would also make true input difficult to measure. The nature of the power supply coupled with these variables could further contribute to improper input measurements. The nature of these variables often, are of the kind that, result in gross low measurement of complex electronic circuits true input power. If I am correct then the published input measurements of the Patterson Cell are certainly subject to question. BTW another point that supports what I have seen and suspect is the high voltage / low current used for electrolysis. Usually the opposite is true for electrolysis cells low votage / higher current. The higher potential provides electrical pressure to "punch through" the surface electrolyte coating on a bead. The lower current prevents contact welding of the beads. The greater the current and voltage vary, and especially with low current the greater the margin of error for simple test equipment. I can easily predict a margin of error greater than 10 times. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 18 22:09:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA23559; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3PEJDJQK89BYAPX@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >*** Reply to note of 04/17/96 01:18 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >in, ASIDE from the fact that the H2 and O2 production are so trivial, The Dictionary of Chemical Engineering devotes an entire section to the efficency of electrolysis and the use of hydroden as a source of energy. The efficiency is very high so the production is only as trivial as the input. >measurements have been made and internal recombination is MINIMAL.. I don't recall anyone setting up a cell in the manner as I have described and have measured recombination via combustion. > (Results from a "major" corporate lab presented >at the "private" CETI party at Urbana, 3/28-29/96) MDH An unidentified source is the same as no source to me. Can you disclose the source and their tests methods. It seems the only information is what CETI desires to release ("private party"). At this point I think it is wishful thinking, but I do believe anomolies do exist, and if this wishful thinking keeps experimenters "moving forward with their own ideas" I think it's great. I just don't hold much hope for the Patterson Cell operating as has been described here, without an additional twist. I do agree that the output for recombination thru combustion cannot exceed the input producing the gas. I do question the input measurements. A cell operated in the manner as I have described would produce fast current spikes nano seconds, and a complex variety of frequencies. A true input measurement could exceed an improper input measurement by more than ten fold. Even if what I believe to be true until an actual experiment proves me wrong. There are many people here on Vortex who are very intelligent and perhaps my interpretation of the cell construction may spur them into utilizing micro arcing and combustion to provide high 'point source' temps to obtain a solution for a secondary reaction. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 18 23:24:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05581; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Try number 2: >The higher potential provides electrical pressure to "punch >through" the surface electrolyte coating on a bead. The lower >current prevents contact welding of the beads. The greater the >current and voltage vary, and especially with low current the >greater the margin of error for simple test equipment. I can >easily predict a margin of error greater than 10 times. > >Joe Flynn There are some problems with this theory. The primary problem is that there is a step down transformer in the power supply. That transformer places a limit of a few watts to the power that can pass through it. The impedence of that transformer at high frequencies enormously limits the amount of HF current that can pass through it. The second problem is the low voltage diode in the power supply. If pulses of sufficient voltage to drive a significant current through the impedence of the transformer were occuring, the diode would be fried, and probably an electrolytic capacitor as well. If there is a capacitor, it will damp out most of the A/C that doesn't get throught the transformer. Then there is the problem of the source of the HF A/C. To get power from outside the system the source of power must preceed the DC power supply, i.e. must be in the power mains. How does it get there by actions of the cell? Transients from the cell might be superimposed on the external waveform, but the power for the superimposed waveform would have to come form the cell, thus from the DC power supply, unless the cell were ou. Finally, even if a HF source at 10 x the power were present, a DMM set on A/C amps would readily detect it, or get fried. There needs to be a lot more explanation before this theory is palatable, to me anyway. PS - You may have noticed I put your idea of controlling ambient pressure in the suggested improvements list for the 10 m electrolytic cell experiment for future reference. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 19 05:04:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA17472; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604191152.GAA15252@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:56 PM 4/18/96 -0700, Flynn wrote: >There would be high current spikes >and odd frequencies riding the input lines. I've never seen any such behavior in my cells...but then I don't see any apparent excess heat either. >BTW another >point that supports what I have seen and suspect is the high >voltage / low current used for electrolysis. Usually the >opposite is true for electrolysis cells low votage / higher >current. I'm no sure what your're talking about here. Typical PPC electrical parameters are 3-4 volts and .05-.2 amps. Is that high voltage/low current? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 19 17:45:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA27792; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604191540.RAA15118@sdnfire.dc.dk> Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: i3683@dc.dk To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Some conclusions regarding the Hum. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: We here see that different persons perceive the Hum differently. When listening to the recorded signal from Lennart's microphone, some hearers say that the recorded signal is exactly the Hum that they otherwise hear. Other hearers say that the recorded signal is different from the ordinary Hum, even though the hearers live in the same town, or the same house, and therefore must be affected by the same signals. So though some persons will say that the recorded signal from Lennart's microphone is not identical to the ordinary Hum, we do believe that they are affected by the recorded signal, but perceiving it individually. When the signal from Lennarts microphone is measured each day, the amplitude remains relatively constant, and does not reflect the variation in the signal that is perceived by hearers. We think that the variation perceived by hearers is mainly due to a variation in the sensitivity of the hearers, and not in a variation of the main signal. Matters are somewhat complicated because we believe that more than one signal is involved in the Hum experience. While the signal detected by Lennart's microphone is relatively constant within a large geographical area, the perception of the signal isnt. A hearer hears the signal differently from house to house, or even from room to room. As the main signal does not vary in this way, we suspect a secondary signal, which varies from house to house. It has been suggested that some component of the house, maybe the television antenna, picks up the secondary signal, and retransmits it, and creates an area inside the house where the main signal then can be heard. The secondary signal is only inferred by now. Now measurement exists that shows it. But hearers that perceive a difference from house to house might be able to point to some specific component which is absent in the houses where the signal isnt heard, such as perhaps a TV antenna? Hearers that suddenly hear a difference in signal strength should notice if some change has been made to the house. Somebody told about a military pilots helmet that shielded against the hum. I hope more hearers try out such a helmet. Perhaps we can have more details about the helmet. Was it a metal helmet? Perhaps this helmet shielded against the secondary signal, and thereby made the hearer unsensitive to the primary signal. Regards, Anders From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 19 19:41:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA19413; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604200026.RAA24951@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: There has been a lot missing on Vortex-L about this Marinov force, so I am not fully informed. However, I see some problems with what little I've seen: Lawrence E. Wharton wrote: >...Writing out the indicies >where Fi is the ith component of F and the same for vi and Ai we have > >Fi = q/2 vi ( vj (vk (grad)k ) Aj))/(v dot v) > >where the sums over j and k are sumed from 1 to 3. The problem is that vector potential A is never uniquely defined. One is always free to add any curl-free gauge function to any A that anyone proposes. This is the vector analog of the freedom to choose the point of zero potential energy for a scalar potential. Therefore, the force Fi is not determined. Therefore, it can not be a physical force. >...Take two bar magnets as strong as possible and place them >together in parallel with the N and S poles together. Do the magnets have to have precisely equal and opposite magnetization? If so, it can never be done in a real experiment. How unequal can they be allowed to be? >...Note that A is generally >perpindicular to B, the magnetic field... No, A can be any direction, again by the freedom to choose a gauge function. >...The energy of the discharge may be increased by adding more capacitors - >SCR sections in parallel. The point will soon be reached where the >discharge will melt the coil. To avoid this put the magnets and coil in >distilled water. No. The capacitor discharge will be over and the coil melted long before such a slow process as thermal conduction can get any appreciable fraction of heat out of the coil and into the water. The water bath is usless for cooling a short pulse system. So, What's going on out there??? Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 19 20:43:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA01891; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604200319.WAA19487@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:55 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Larry wrote: >I would suggest a variant of Marinov's >experiment. Take two bar magnets as strong as possible and place them >together in parallel with the N and S poles together. Thus the magnets >will stick together on their own. I sure wish we could easily exchange drawings on this forum. My first impression of Larry's suggested arrangement is: -------- ------- | | | | N | N | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | S | S | | | | -------- ------- This looks like "place them together in parallel with the N and S poles together" doesn't it? Of course, they would fly apart if you placed them as I have shown.... - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 19 20:49:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA01962; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604200333.WAA20352@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:27 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Schaffer wrote: >>...Note that A is generally >>perpindicular to B, the magnetic field... > > No, A can be any direction, again by the freedom to choose a gauge function. Mike, are you sure that the gauge function allows the DIRECTION of A to be arbitrary? Seems to me (naively, I admit) that the defining relationship between B and A (B = DEL cross A) ensures that B and A are orthogonal...no? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 01:10:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05194; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604190456.XAA12406@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: cell voltage vs pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dieter this one's primarily for you: I have been thinking about Flynn's suggestion that the gas pressure head on an electrolysis cell would increase the required electrolysis voltage. I have come to the tentative conclusion that, until you get up into pressures where the ideal gas law doesn't hold, head pressure will have no effect on cell voltage. I reached this conclusion by considering the work required to put a certain volume of gas into the head space at a certain pressure. This work is simply p*v. For a given amount of gas that obeys the ideal gas law the p*v product is a constant (p*v = n*R*T) assuming constant temperature. Am I missing something here? If not, it seems that one could practically achieve some pretty high pressures by using electrolysis to deliver gas into a closed volume. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 03:10:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA01817; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604200311.WAA18892@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell voltage vs pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:48 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Mitchell wrote: > 2) if there are no bubbles, then ignoring contact potentials, >line voltage drops, Sounds correct to me. Interestingly, this effect would act to REDUCE the voltage required at higher cell pressures. I wonder, however, if this would be a very large effect...? My original line of thinking centered around the WORK required to "put" the gas into the cell's headspace. Intuitively, it seemed to me that MORE input power would be required to deliver the same mass of gas into a high pressure head space than into a low pressure head space. I'm still not convinced that my earlier posted conclusion is correct...i.e. that the work required to put the gas into the head space is independent of the pressure. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 20:22:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA17419; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: visit X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Znidarsic wrote: >I am planning to take Miley up on his offer and go see what he has to say. > This will be my second visit to see the cell. Both Jed and I are convinced >that the cell works. We are past that point. Miley, Bowles, Chuck Ross, and >Hugo have done test or have data that confirms the cells operation. I am now >very interested to the obstacles that may inhibit its comercialization. Are >the problems of cracking beads solved? The cracking ersatz bead problem is solved, but there is this little problem of over unity ... What will it take to solve that >problem? Why haven't larger cell's been built. A 10KW cell would be usefull >for heating in a number of applications. Can a 10KW cell be built? I showed in a prior post this month exactly how that could be done - provided the fluid flow can be vertical while the electrodes are opposite each other horizontally, without adversely affecting cell effectiveness. Since this geometry is an inherent quality of Patterson's third embodyment of his invention, it is not completely unreasonable to assume this geometry can work. However, you do not have to produce a working model to get a patent. The idea may not work. There has been quite a bit of discussion and experimenting here of late to try to figure out just exactly what effect, if any, fluid motion does have on the cell chemistry, because this is the single most important fact in relation to scaling up. The other most important fact in regard to economics is bead life. you need a working cell to figure that out. What >would the cells cost once in limited mass production? What is the market at >that price? Scaled up and mass produced, cells would have a price that is almost entirely a function of bead cost. During my meeting with a group of local businessmen this week, > I tried to identify the markets that will open and at what price they will >open. Gene Mallove wrote an entire book on that very subject. I think if you call him you can order it from him. The first maket is of course a market that cannot be met by any other >technology. Submarine heating applications for example. One of the meeting >attendies does some limited work at a shipyard. I asked him to investigate >the potential of underwater heating applications. >As the price of the cell comes down other markets will open. Which are they >and in what sequence will they open? Any ideas? Home heating has to be the biggest market for low temperature heat generation. When small generating units can be made they would be very good battery chargers for electric cars. > >Vlad is going to Russia on April 26 to visit his father Potapov. I have >again asked the same question, what is the market for a high price slightly >over unity electrical heating device? At what price will it compete with a >ground source heat pump? I asked Vlad to find out about the new quantum >heaters that run "part of the time under their own power" What does that >mean? He will ask. He is in that process of obtaining an American patent >and is having some problems getting it done. No patents on perpetuial motion >machines will be issued. I guided Vlad to the CETI patent as an example, if >CETI could do it he could to. > >I am in search of funds. I calculate that it will take ten million dollars It is better to get your hands on one working cell than to do a liftime's worth of calculations. If you have a replicatable cell, it is then easy to make small modifications to it to engineer your way into new regimes. >to get any serious venture off of the ground. I'm asking some important >people for the resources. They are not laughing. They are thinking about it >and will get back to me. > >Frank Znidarsic Ceti is only asking one million, true? Two million ought to do it very nicely. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 18:20:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA20407; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960415074954_100060.173_JHB116-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Bubbles vs Cell Resistance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, >> I would expect bubbles in a high pressure ennvironment to be slightly larger than those in a low pressure environment. That is because for a given volume they are heavier. To get detatched from an electrode, the bubble lift must exceed it's surface tension. More dense bubbles, being heavier, require more displacement to achieve the same net lift. << Deviating only slightly from the CF science, has this phenomenon any relationship with the supposed measure of the quality of Champagne. I understand that the better the quality the smaller the bubbles in the glass. While the pressure in the glass is atmos. the size of the bubbles must be associated with the surface tension/displacement ratio, which is supposed to be a measure of "quality". Whether this triggers any thoughts re CF/OU is problematical, but interesting!? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 18:50:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA24408; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3L00V9WFY99FS0V@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: The Horace CF Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, I'm not sure what you are trying to replicate, I sure apologize if I mistook it for a Patterson Cell, but whatever it is you certainly don't need any help from any group. I certainly can't tell what variables you consider important nor can I tell what method you subscribe to for conducting an experiment. But don't under estimate the intelligence existing on the side lines here. So I'll leave you with this; The point is not so much differences in altitude changing the size of the bubble and cell resistance, but rather to provoke some thought into variables not being considered. What if the Patterson Cell (Horace Cell if you wish) does not vent at all. Possibly this is what he (Patterson not Horace) means by the term "loading": Consider if the degassing tube is a structure like a Torricellian barometer (don't get confused here and think I'm suggesting barometric pressure is a factor, an air trap in a water supply could also be an example) and it is an entirely closed system, cell , pump and degassing tube. Electrolysis would produce gas that would fill the tube until the pressure of the gas in the electrolyte and the tube are equal. Would gas production stop? Would Current increase, decrease or cease? Humor me and plug the vent tube on the "Horace Cell" see if it makes a difference in your measurements, If it dosen't then I will concede the vent is not a variable worthy of consideration. Now I think I'll crack a bottle of Normans fine wine and indulge using the scientific method of answering the wine question. Joe Flynn Flynn Research Inc. P.O. Box 11657 Kansas City, Mo. 64138 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 18:04:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29692; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960415213816_470681810@emout09.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I will be in Champain Ill on the 28 of April. We are coming early to get the through weekend rate. Miley's secretary is setting us up in the Hampton Inn. I would be interested in meeting with any of the attendies a day early if you are there. Scott it will be nice to finally meet you in person. The meeting with the Homberg and Westinghouse in on track to 2:00 PM on wednsday the 24th. Jed will be coming and leaving on monday. See you there. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 20:30:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29706; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Larry Wharton has kindly provided the stimulating challenge of detecting Marinov's force. If I understand this proposed force correctly, it is a force exerted on a charged particle moving parallel to magnetic lines of flux and exerted in the axis of the direction of travel. I take this to mean, for example, an electron moving along a field line from N to S would experience acceleration, while an electron moving S to N would experience deceleration. (If I have the S to N directions are reversed, or the force is directionless, it will make no difference to the conclusions.) Please, please, correct these assumptions if they are wrong. Earlier I proposed a motor as a test. This test would be lacking the ability to detect a force that would be very weak, and have klunky stuff like bearings and brushes. A solid state test would be much nicer. If the force can accelerate a charge in a vacuum, it should accelerate a charge in a wire, especially a charge in a superconducting wire. This would provide extra energy to the moving electron, thus provide extra voltage, or voltage augmentation. Along those lines I would like to suggest a coil geometry to take advantage of such an effect. Wrap a coil of wire to become the center of a torus, with the polarity set so electrons circulate in the coil in a clockwise manner as viewed from the top. This makes the top of the coil the N pole and the bottom the S pole, with the magnetic lines of flux going counter-clockwise about the wires as seen from the electron source end of the wire. If you chop the coil in half and look in the direction of electron travel the magnetic lines of flux will be counter-clockwise. Now, assuming the Marinov force is applied to an electron moving N to S, you now use the first coil as a core to wrap another coil around transversely, purpendicular to the core coil, in a counter-clockwise way, so the electrons flowing in the outer coil flow in the direction required for the Marinov force to be additive. (If the force is in the opposite direction from my assumption, simply reverse the current direction in the outer coil.) When this is done, it has the very nice consequence that the electrons in the outer coil generate magnetic flux in the inner core coil in the same direction as the electron motion in the core coil. Therefore electons in each coil generate magnetic fields that augment the voltage in the other coil. If the Marinov force exists at all, such a coil configuration made of a superconductor could have a run away voltage and therefore be explosive. Extracting energy would require control mechanisms and separate inductive linkages to prevent the runaway by extracting the useful energy in a cyclical way. Made of ordinary wire, such a configuration would be expected to have a different impedence in one direction than in another, if the Marinov force is directional. It should be be over unity, as well. A good test of the existence of the Marinov force might be provided by the use of a DPDT switch where the interface is between the two coils, so their electron flows, relative to each other, can be switched while the impedence is being measured. Even if the force is non-directional, i.e. always in the direction of forward motion, the two coils should have different impedences when together, vs separate. Similar tests can also be done using permanent magnets. A coil of wire placed by the side of a magnet, with it's axis purpendicular to the poles of the magnet, will have a large portion of the coil nearly parallel to the lines of force. Such a coil should exhibit voltage augmentaion. A better design might be to configure a series of magnets in a ring (like the core of a torus) with space between them and oriented N to S (attracting). Then wrap a coil around them just like a core coil, except tied together in the gaps so the wires protrude down into the gaps. In this way many segments of wire will be in lines of flux moving parallel to their direction. Hopefully the force will augment the voltage by the magnitude of the partial vector for magnetic flux in the direction of the wire. Obviously, an energy source is created by feeding the augmented voltage back into the supply via a converter or motor/generator pair. Maybe a simple transformer and voltage regulator would work as well. Just some thoughts. Anybody interrested? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 18:36:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29722; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604160250.VAA01976@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 16:53 4/15/96 -0700, Dieter wrote: >Pedantically speaking, no. >1. During charging, when hydrogen enters the metal..... of course >2. There is the possibility (faint) of several side reactions at the cathode. But doesn't the most obvious of these just end up producing the same result as a direct splitting of the H2O? For example, if a Li atom deposited on the cathode wouldn't it promptly react with an H2O to produce LiOH plus a free H? Similarly if some SO4 got deposited on the anode, it would react with H2O to make H2SO4 and O (I think)...and then the LiOH and the H2SO4 would eventually meet up and react back to Li2SO4 and H2O. >3. A point of contention is of course recombination... of course. Dieter: Practically speaking, assuming a saturated cathode and no recombination, are there reactions that I haven't imagined that can significantly alter the relationship between cell current and gas outflow rate that one can calculate by assuming that one H2O molecule is dissociated every time 2 electrons pass thru the cell? Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 19:23:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29786; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3L8VIA9VM99G1J2@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: The Horace Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This has bounced so many times I think it's elastic in nature. Horace, I'm not sure what you are trying to replicate, I sure apologize if I mistook it for a Patterson Cell. I certainly can't tell what variables you consider important nor can I tell what method you subscribe to for conducting an experiment. But don't under estimate the intelligence existing on the side lines outside the CLIQUE. So I'll leave you with this; The point is not so much differences in altitude changing the size of the bubble and cell resistance, but rather to provoke some thought into variables not being considered. What if the Patterson Cell (Horace Cell if you wish) does not vent at all. Possibly this is what he (Patterson not Horace) means by the term "loading": Consider if the degassing tube is a structure like a Torricellian barometer (don't get confused here and think I'm suggesting barometric pressure is a major factor, an air trap in a water supply could also be an example) and it is an entirely closed system, cell , pump and degassing tube. Electrolysis would produce gas that would fill the tube until the pressure of the gas in the electrolyte and the tube are equal. (This could also be a way to produce those "much smaller bubbles you referenced in a recent post) Would gas production stop? Would Current increase, decrease or cease? Humor me and plug the vent tube on the "Horace Cell" see if it makes a difference in your measurements, If it dosen't then I will concede the vent is not a variable worthy of consideration. Now I think I'll crack a bottle of Normans fine wine and indulge, using the scientific method of answering the wine question. Joe Flynn Flynn Research Inc. P.O. Box 11657 Kansas City, Mo. 64138 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 20:14:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29843; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31720945.16228634@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ion mobility X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:49:16 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: >>On Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:51:36 -0700 (PDT), k J. Sparber wrote: >> >>>Since the use of an alkali metal is favored in the electrolysis setup so >>>that it >>>doesn't plate out on the cathode, but rather hydrolyzes, one wants low >>>mobility >>>of these ions which points to the use of Cesium Sulphate Cs2SO4 or Selenate >>>Cs2SeO4. I think this would give more favorable results in the tests. >>> >>>FJS >>> >>> >>This may however lead to complications, as I believe at least one >>other experimenter has reported excess heat using Rb -> Sr, and >>possibly also Cs -> Ba. >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Robin van Spaandonk > > >This sounds like a very good idea. Something else on the list of things to >try. > >Maybe I am missing something, or are you just using a figure of speach? >What is the "complication" from getting excess heat? This is the kind of >problem we all would like to share! Granted :). However what I meant was that one might end up "muddying the waters" so to speak, by getting excess heat from two totally separate sources. Though I don't yet understand the mechanism properly, I suspect that fusion is indeed the source of excess heat. And it is fusion of a proton or a deuteron with a heavier nucleus. Usually this is one of the nuclei of the metal lattice, however alkali metal ions in solution can also be targets. Heavier alkali ions make good targets because of the high positive charge (no this isn't a typo). The only reason Li makes a good target, is because it immediately fissions after fusion, so that the fusion process is almost irreversible. For some reason I have yet to find out, the product of these reactions is always alpha particles and little or nothing else. Consequently, little or no radiation is detected externally. This is about as far as I can stretch a more or less conventional fusion explanation. BTW the ZPE mediation comes in when positive nuclei attract instead of repelling. You can get strange results, when you let wave packets interact, instead of "hard little balls". Because low energy particles are more spread-out as Horace puts it, they interact better at low energies (i.e. act less like particles) than at high energies. This is why CF is a room temperature phenomenon. The De Broglie wavelength of a proton at room temperature is about 1 angstrom. This is on the same order of size as the lattice spacing. I suspect that hydrogen can fuse with almost any positive ion, however on a large scale, the most energy will be liberated, from those combinations, where the half life of an alternative form of decay, is much shorter than that of decay back into the initial components. Fusion with Li is such an example. The implication here is of course, that these fusions happen all the time where a proton and other nuclei are in close proximity, however they usually just fall apart again. A further requirement would be that the atoms be as heavily ionised as possible, for as long as possible. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 20:06:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13102; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 05:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 05:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: Cell Current Propagation Pictures Available X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Try number 5: Bill Page wrote: > >Yes there will be a difference. Perhaps Horace can show both the >voltage and current traces in parallel (chopped?) on the same time >scale. With a sinosoidal input there will be a phase difference between >the voltage and the current. It should appear as if there are inductances >and capacitances in the circuit. This is due to the charging effects >at the electrode double-layers and the current effects in the electrolyte >itself. Now that you point it out, I am a victim of my own unclear thinking. I was thinking the resistor is a completely linear non LC device, so measure the voltage and you measure the current. I was lulled into this by doing the steady state measurements first, and then thinking the square wave input with a relatively long cycle time of 1 ms is the same experiment, just repeated faster. But it isn't. That fast rise time has a wide spectrum of frequencies, i.e. it is a Fourier sum of many frequencies. The LC portion of the circuit, the cell, preceeds and is in series with the resistor, so the current and voltage need not be in phase. Unfortunately, the cost of the probes already exceeds the purchase cost of the scope ($100), and I do not have a current probe. I think it is time for me to put the propagation velocity experiments to rest for a number of months until I can get the right equipment. I hope to purchase a good digital scope in the fall for other projects shelved temporarily for the same reason. I think the experiment has at least been established that charge deficits in a cell can be equalized at 1x10^6 m/s. The data has not yet been analysed in terms of steady state current vs electrolyte flow rate, which seems to have significant effects, just looking at the data superficially. [snip] > >I put the word "diffusion" in quotes above, because in actual fact, >this movement of H+ ions is really, in my opinion, best considered >as "proton conduction" by the electrolyte (a proton-semiconductor >that has been appropriately doped with an excess of charge carriers >(defects in the H2O molecular chains). And the concentration >dependence of the equivalent conductances are most directly related to >these doping effects (in addition the classical kinetic effects >mentioned by Bockris and Reddy). > >Now, all of this is, I think, worth understanding in such detail >because what we seem to require in "CF" is a kind of high H+ >"pressure" at the cathode in ensure H loading into the metal. It >seems that this sort of indirect proton conduction (H+ diffusion) >may not be the best approach to achieve this. Maybe a good idea is to fuse a ceramic proton conductor to a metal electrode (if that is poossible), and feed the proton conductor in gas phase. > >In my experiments with Al cathodes, I used a simple HCl electrolyte. >In this case, H+ migration is effected directly by the H+ ion >conduction. Of course the side effects are Cl2 evolution (nasty) >and depletion of the H+ and Cl- concentration in the electrolyte >overtime. And there are a few other problems, but that is another >story. Why not use H2SO4? > >Cheers, >Bill Page. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 18:28:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13227; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 05:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 05:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Try number 4: >I would like to see if there is a consensus among the students of >electrochemistry on Vortex as to the following important question for CF >experimenters: > >Do all of the electrons that "flow" thru the electrolysis cell end up one >way or another dissociating water? In other words, can we reliably count >upon two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2 to be released every time 4 >electrons go thru the cell? > > > - Scott Little Actually, in the typical description of electrolysis, the electron does not go through the cell, it goes through the wire. The electron stripped from negative ions at one electrode surface are given to positive ions at the other electrode surface, thus doing double duty. If Faradaic efficiency is 100 percent, you should get one H2 and one O2 for every 2 electrons through the wire, true? Anyway, the efficiency is not 100 percent, so maybe some of the electrons go through the cell without any H2 or O2 being generated. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 19:56:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA17869; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 05:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 05:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ion mobility X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: [snip] >BTW the ZPE mediation comes in when positive nuclei attract instead of >repelling. You can get strange results, when you let wave packets >interact, instead of "hard little balls". Because low energy particles >are more spread-out as Horace puts it, they interact better at low >energies (i.e. act less like particles) than at high energies. This is >why CF is a room temperature phenomenon. The De Broglie wavelength of >a proton at room temperature is about 1 angstrom. This is on the same >order of size as the lattice spacing. I suspect that hydrogen can fuse >with almost any positive ion, however on a large scale, the most >energy will be liberated, from those combinations, where the half life >of an alternative form of decay, is much shorter than that of decay >back into the initial components. Fusion with Li is such an example. >The implication here is of course, that these fusions happen all the >time where a proton and other nuclei are in close proximity, however >they usually just fall apart again. A further requirement would be >that the atoms be as heavily ionised as possible, for as long as >possible. > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Robin, I think very much along the same lines. However, it seems like there must be a third ingredient to make the fusion "stick". I think that ingredient is the interaction, the impinging, of a fast electron. When this happens, the interaction is no longer "spread-out". The ZPE co-centered low energy particles (deuterons) suddenly have apparent energy relative to the electron. Their apparent wavelenght is short, but still co-centered. The electron gains energy due to falling into the coulomb well of the protons, further narrowing the apparent (to the electron) wavelengths and increasing the apparent momentum of the protons. Meanwhile, the electron begins to provide sheilding. With, in net effect, one - charge, two + charges, there is no net repulsive force. At this point two energy generating things could possibly happen (1) fusion, or (2) high energy bremsstraehlung photon emission by the electron of sufficient energy that it is not able to climb back out of the coulomb well. It appears (2) would be more likely than (1). Now if (2) happens, a temporarily bound electron/deuteron pair can depart the remaining deuteron without any loss of momentum, due to no net charge. The electron eventually regains enough energy from the ZPE sea to climb back out of the coulomb well to ground state orbital. The emitted high energy photon could then create one or more high energy electrons to continue a chain of such reactions. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 21:14:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA11493; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 08:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 08:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604161451.HAA01837@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, I wrote: On Tues 16 Apr 1996 Wrote: Thank you. I defer to Scott Little to pick, choose and use among the information that he is seeking for the question he posed in an earlier post. -AK- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 05:12:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA25389; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604161520.KAA25806@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 05:28 4/16/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >Anyway, the efficiency is not 100 percent, so maybe some of the electrons >go through the cell without any H2 or O2 being generated. What do you mean by "efficiency"? An excess voltage is always required to accomplish practical electrolysis and this excess voltage results in V*i heating of the cell...i.e. wasted electrical energy that does not go into dissociating water. But what I'm after doesn't concern voltage or power at all. Here's another way to state my question: Is there any mechanism for current to flow "thru" the cell that does NOT cause two H atoms and one O atom to be freed for every two electrons that move "thru" the cell. Corollary: If there is such a mechanism approximately what fraction of the current in a typical electrolysis cell will flow due to that mechanism? Hopefully, the answer is that there is NOT a significant other way for current to flow thru the cell. This would allow the CF investigator to accurately predict the rate of gas evolution from his cell by measuring only the electrical current. Any deviations from the theoretical rate could then be attributed to recombination or absorbtion in the cathode. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 05:23:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA25531; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Larry Wharton has kindly provided the stimulating challenge of detecting >Marinov's force. If I understand this proposed force correctly, it is a >force exerted on a charged particle moving parallel to magnetic lines of >flux and exerted in the axis of the direction of travel. The precise form of this force is: F = q/2 v (v dot ((v dot grad) A))/v^2 with q the charge of a particle moving with velocity v and A the magnetic vector potential and dot denotes the dot product of two vectors. You need to know A and it can be solved from B = curl A with B the magnetic field vector. It would be useful to read the article in Nature (about two weeks ago now). It is an advertisement, Nature would never publish anything like this as a reviewed article. While it is hart to believe this force exists there is one interesting application. Looking at the Takashiti motor there appears to be no use for the stator magnets except to smooth out the motor torque and there is no reason to have them slanted. It appears very strange indeed under standard E&M. But on the other hand the Marinov force would give a non conservertive force on the rotor magnet that would exert a torque in the rotation direction. And yes the stator magnets have to be slanted or otherwise this force would be zero. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 21:37:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11299; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604162348.TAA09171@server0.accent.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: legault@mail.accent.net (Marc-AntoineLegault) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Thanks for informations about Mike Huffman X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi, I want to thank all of you that post me some information about Micheal Huffman's steam machine. I found the vortext-l mailing list very interesting for the people who exchange informations about Cold Fusion and new energy technology. I appreciate very much your open mind on new horizon of science. Thank you again, Marc-Antoine Legault Legault@mail.accent.net From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 23:52:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11445; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960416221201_192570089@mail02.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Fwd: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Electrolysis depends on current not on voltage. This electrolysis current can produce other reactants other than O2 and H2 for example in salt water may produce H Cl acid. Electrical current is measured in amps or colombs /second Chemical change is measured in moles. In a cell, colombs x valence = k moles One mole of electrons (this is from memory I have the figure in a book at work) is produced by a current of 26.8 amp/hrs. Voltage depends on the work funcion of the Nerst equation v = .058 ln (c1/c2) again from memory. Overvoltge is another matter this energy goes into heating not chemical change. Frank Z --------------------- Forwarded message: From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-to: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com (Multiple recipients of list) Date: 96-04-16 18:05:33 EDT At 05:28 4/16/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >Anyway, the efficiency is not 100 percent, so maybe some of the electrons >go through the cell without any H2 or O2 being generated. What do you mean by "efficiency"? An excess voltage is always required to accomplish practical electrolysis and this excess voltage results in V*i heating of the cell...i.e. wasted electrical energy that does not go into dissociating water. But what I'm after doesn't concern voltage or power at all. Here's another way to state my question: Is there any mechanism for current to flow "thru" the cell that does NOT cause two H atoms and one O atom to be freed for every two electrons that move "thru" the cell. Corollary: If there is such a mechanism approximately what fraction of the current in a typical electrolysis cell will flow due to that mechanism? Hopefully, the answer is that there is NOT a significant other way for current to flow thru the cell. This would allow the CF investigator to accurately predict the rate of gas evolution from his cell by measuring only the electrical current. Any deviations from the theoretical rate could then be attributed to recombination or absorbtion in the cathode. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 21:57:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11480; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3MNJZ37369AOW49@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Patterson Cell, a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I conducted a simple experiment, and am now convinced that the Patterson Cell is probably a CLEVERLY DISGUISED H2 O2 combustion cell. With the correct ratio of coated and uncoated beads - no separators between cathode and anode - the beads loosely packed - Pulsating pump to agitate the beads - current regulated supply- the following can occur. With the correct ratio of coated and uncoated beads (ratio based on the amount of agitation it doesn't take much) probability states that the cell will short from anode to cathode with a given frequency. Uncoated beads prevent a continuous short. H2 and O2 are produced by electrolysis by the anode and cathode and is circulated by the pump and is partially trapped by the bed of beads. Each time a short occurs, if enough gas is collected (loaded) in the bead bed a very minor arc occurs and ignites the gas. (Anyone who does not believe arcing and combustion can take place in the electrolyte need only to talk to any company who does plating. I can also post a simple experiment to demonstrate this, if anyone wants to investigate.) The arc's are micro in nature and mainly hidden by the beads. With many micro combustions taking place and given the heat of combustion of Hydrogen 68.317 (From memory, may be slightly off) kcal / mole, the heat produced by the Patterson Cell can be accounted for. The product of this combustion is H2O and, although rare, under very special circumstances can produce Hydrogen peroxide, so no chemical ash. Why new and improved "plastic beads", they are more buoyant and will move around easier than glass beads, thus more combustions. The use of a filter also improves combustions by keeping coating debris out of the bed. I know Scott Little is a very diligent and cautious experimenter, perhaps he will verify this action. Careful adjustment of a properly constructed cell will produce so called "Excess Heat". BTW, an LM317 and a resistor on the output will convert your power supplies to current limiting supplies. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 21:30:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11527; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Potapov Japanese data X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I've put up the translations and gifs of the data Akira Kawasaki got from the Japanese companies experimenting with the Potapov device. They are on my web page, url below. -- - 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@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 00:30:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA16660; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: miley X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 08:05 PM 4/12/96 -0700, Frank Z wrote: >Miley invited Rothwell, Hugo, and myself to see his latest demo this April >28th. > The most important things to bring with is an insulated jug like the Thermos jug you put your hot drinks in and a long thermometer. The jug should be filled with the hot output water and then capped. The jug should be sloshed around and be allowed to sit around an amount comenserate with the actual path of the electrolyte from cell output to cell input. Then take the temperature. If there is any chemical reaction going on in the cell it logically should be undone by this process. This is because you have duplicated all that is done to the electrolyte in its normal path that could possibly undo the alleged chemical reaction. One part of this test has already been done by Frank Z, Jed R and others. The cell outflow has been put in a flask, sloshed around and the temperature taken. This has refuted the possibility of positional errors in the cell outflow but enough time was not allowed to permit relaxation of chemical perturbations. Because more time is required an insulated container is needed. To compensate for the effects of the specific heat of the insulated container the process can be repeated several times. Then the temperature of the insulated container interior would take on the final temperature of the electrolyte and no heat would be exchanged. The final temperature of the water in the insulated container should be about equal to the cell inflow temperature plus an amount consistant with the electrolysis power and the pressure drop across the cell times the flow rate (the only two possible forms of input power). Of course the temperature drop in the insulated container should be very dramatic. Lets assume that the cell is operating at 100 to 1, then 99% of the apparent excess heat should be lost just by letting the hot water sit around in an insulated container for a few minutes. There can be no doubt about the outcome of this experiment. The temperature change (almost 100% loss of the excess heat) needed to support the hypothesis that a chemical reaction is responsible for the heat excess is just too large. It can not be missed. This is a great opportunity to measure for the first time the energy output of the cell. The energy is the kinetic energy (heat) plus the potential energy. After sitting and sloshing around an appropriate amount in the insulated container it can be argued with confidence that the potential energy of the electrolyte has relaxed to the cell inflow value and that the energy excess is equal to the heat excess. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 01:08:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA19034; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604171345.IAA11206@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell, a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 00:50 4/17/96 -0700, Flynn wrote: >I conducted a simple experiment, and am now convinced that the >Patterson Cell is probably a CLEVERLY DISGUISED H2 O2 >combustion cell. If that were the case, Joe, then measured heat from the cell would be precisely EQUAL to the input electrical energy since conservation of energy is at work in the electrolysis process (i.e. it takes 1 joule of electrical energy to produce enuf H and O to yield 1 joule when burned). Patterson cell researchers report typically 10 times more heat generated than electrical input. Burning of the H and O produced cannot explain that. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 05:28:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA13928; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: 10 m Cell Experiment Conclusions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The following are final observations and conclusions posted to attempt to bring this experimental effort to a close for now on my part. EXISTING DATA For a while the oscilloscope trace data will be at URL: . Some minor typographical errors in the data tables are corrected below: The first test was done to get a picture of cell current vs time with a fixed supply of 10 V. This test was done with the Pt electrode positive, and the nichrome electrode negative. Electrolyte flow in all tests reported here were from the nichrome electrode toward the Pt electrode, regardless of the polarity used for any particular test. The I vs T data follows: Time Current in uA 0 s 47.1 (Electrolyte flow turned off) 15 s 46.5 30 s 46.1 45 s 45.9 60 s 45.7 75 s 45.7 90 s 45.6 105 s 45.5 2 m 45.4 2 m 45.8 (after tapping electrodes) 3 m 45.5 (Electrolyte flow turned on) 6 m 45.9 8 m 45.9 10 m 45.8 15 m 45.7 20 m 45.7 30 m 45.6 1 h 45.4 1.5 h 45.5 The following uA measurements and calculations of average current for flowing electrolyte conditions (Iavg) and corresponding V/I resistance k ohms (Ravg), and the V/I resistance assuming a -0.4 V battery voltage correction (Ravg at V-0.4), were made: uA with resistor still in place, - NiCr, + Pt V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg Ravg at V-0.4 3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 714 619 5 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.1 10.1 495 455 7 15.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 437 413 9 22.0 22.1 22.0 22.1 22.1 407 389 10 25.0 25.1 24.9 25.1 25.1 398 382 11 27.9 28.1 27.9 28.1 28.1 391 377 uA with resistor removed, - NiCr, + Pt V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg Ravg at V-0.4 3 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 400 346 5 18.1 18.5 18.2 18.3 18.4 276 250 7 29.4 29.7 29.4 29.6 29.7 236 222 9 40.6 41.1 40.6 41.1 41.1 219 209 10 46.1 46.7 46.2 46.7 46.7 214 205 11 51.8 52.4 51.6 52.4 52.4 209 202 uA with resistor removed, - Pt, + NiCr V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg 3 16.7 14.1 14.0 13.9 14.0 214 5 26.2 25.2 24.9 24.9 25.1 201 7 36.2 36.7 35.9 35.9 36.5 191 9 47.1 48.0 45.8 47.9 48.0 187 10 52.5 53.8 51.3 53.7 53.8 186 11 58.1 59.8 56.7 59.4 59.6 185 For convenience here are the prior experimental results for camparison with the above two results: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow Iavg Iavg (new) 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 7.7 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 17.8 18.4 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 28.0 29.7 9, 39.1, 38.9 38.8, 39.0 39.0 41.1 11, 49.6, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 49.8 52.4 uA with - on Pt and + on NiCr V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow Iavg Iavg (new) 3, 13.1, 12.6, 12.5, 12.4 12.5 14.0 5, 23.3, 22.9, 23.0 22.9 22.9 25.1 7, 33.3, 33.5, 32.7, 33.3 33.4 36.5 9, 43.7, 44.5, 42.3, 44.4 44.5 48.0 11, 53.6, 55.3, 51.9, 55.2 55.3 59.6 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Even though a current probe was not available, an effort was made to look at current by running the cell output through a ferrite core before going to ground. A 5 turn loop of wire was wrapped around the core and connected to the oscilloscope ground and a 100 mHz rated probe. The resulting trace was very low voltage but yielded some information about the current. First, the trace consisted of spikes of unmeasurable width at a location on the time scale corresponding to the square wave rising and falling edges. Even though the spikes could not be resolved, it was very clear that there was a complex waveform in the spike. This was clear because there were bright spots in the waveform corresponding to what must be current peaks at various times. A good scope should be able to break that spike out into a kind of arrival time spectrum which might be related to electrolyte composition. SUGGESTED METHODS OF IMPROVING THE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE FOR FUTURE EXPERIMENTS (1) Don't use metal parts in electrode seals. Some related correlaries to Murphy's law: places that are supposed to be on the dry side of a seal aren't. If they were dry yesterday, they won't be dry today. (2) Based on the current vs time (at 10 V) curve above, the cell should be allowed to stabilize at least one minute after changing cell voltage before taking a current measurement. Failure to do so results in an up to 3 percent error. (3) The electrolyte should be cleaned of impurities by filtering with a carbon filter for and doing electrolysis (4) The electrodes used in the experiment were fed through a T connector. This means a partion of the electrode was in a stagnent location. This could be improved by insulating the electrode up to the point where it is immersed in flowing electrolyte. A possibility is to insert the electrode through a fine hole in the tubing and seal it with goop or epoxy. (5) Control the absolute pressure. This should not be dangerous because of the very small amount of H2 generated by the uA current of a 10 m cell. This can be done by using a hermetically sealed drip chamber and applying fluid pressure via maintaining water level in a piece of tubing branched from the system via a T connector. The elevation of the water level can be adjusted by moving the tube up or down so the pressure guage at the pump remains at a constant level. (6) Use a high bandwidth digital scope with voltage and current probes. DIRECT CONCLUSIONS FROM DATA (1) The most significant conclusion is that charge differential can be equalized in a 1 m Li2SO4 electrolytic cell at a velocity of more than 10^6 m/s in a field gradient as small as 1 V/m, and this can happen in an electrolyte flowing at over 4 cm/s in either direction. This is determined by looking at the rise time of the square wave at output of cell vs input of cell. (2) Cell current appears to be slightly improved by a flowing electrolyte. (3) The unexpected 0.4 V drop in the output voltage square wave appears to be the well understood faradaic rectification effect. ANALYSIS Since it is well known this analysis is by an untrained amateur, appropriate preceeding clauses like "as far as I know", or "in my limited experience", or "I think" are assumed and deleted in the interest of brevity, with most all of my posts. It is resonable to assume there are two very different electrolyte regimes in the electrolytic cell (a) The several micron thick electrode interface and (b) the solution. The electrode interface is an area of intense field gradients and electron transfer. It is significantly affected by electron tunneling. The electron flux is massive in *both directions*, but there is a net electron flux equal to the cell current. The interface has been a subject of much study and modelling. The nature and performace of the interface seems to be well known. The solution is a low field graient regime where charge is assumed to be carried strictly by ions and charge transport, as well as all other matter transport is almost entirely by diffusion. This is because the field gradient is primarily at the interface, and not in the solution. An H+ deficit in the nearby vicinity of the cathode results in a concentration gradient approaching the cathode which results in diffusion. It is assumed that charge can be transported in the solution regime by species not directly involved in the primary reactions evolving H2 and O2, namely by Li+ and SO4- radicals. Their role is to carry the current. Again this role is filled by diffusion. Based the fact that charge can clearly move through the solution at 10^6 m/s, much faster than heavy nuclear ions can propagate a wave via a local field gradient change, there appears to be an inconsistancy in the assumptions. I suggest the possibility that, to some degree, charge is transported through the solution regime via electrons. It is interresting that this could be true without changing any existing model for steady state electrolysis. This is because the electron charge transport would occur in the solution regime and terminate with great likelyhood when the electron reaches the ion gradient at the boundary of the interface regime. The net effect of the electron transport could look like an actual ion transport. It is just that a charged species is replaced (in net effet) by an uncharge species at the end of the electron propagation chain, or vice versa. For example, given a starting condition of an Li atom at the anode and Li+ at the cathode, and electron exchange could occur of the form: Li.............Li+ (initial condition, Li momentarily created by electonation) Li+...e-..->...Li+ (electron transiting) Li+............Li (electron transit complete. Li then quickly gives up e-) The net effect is equivalent to a charged species diffusing in one direction, and an uncharged species in the other. The electron propagation could be via holes or actual electrons. It is already suggested that the proton propagation rate is high and tunneling is being suggested as a possibility. Due to the electron's far greater ability to tunnel, it seems like electron tunneling in the solution regime should be considered a possibility. SIGNIFICANCE TO COLD FUSION INVESTIGATIONS (1) Due to the suggested electron conductance, there would be no change expected in the ratio of electrons through the cell to evolved H2 (or O2) because the suggested electron conduction would only affect the mechanics of charge transport in the solution regime. (2) There should be no difference in the chemistry, other than recombination rate, of a cell with electrolyte flowing from cathode to anode (normal cell) or in a purpendicular way, between the two electrodes (orthogonal cell). The flowing electrolyte, according to the above data, increases the current flow, as would be expected, due to the fact that the rate of diffusion at the boundary of the interface is enhanced via the flowing electrolyte. (3) The lack of difference in chemistry between the normal cell and orthogonal cell is extremely good for the development of CF, because the orthogonal cell can be easily scaled up to any required size, as per my prior posts. The one significant difference, that of recombination avoidance by the orthogonal cell, is beneficial. By placing a bubble barrier between the two electrodes, and maintaining separate elecrolyte steams and degassers, the H2 and O2 can be separated for use in fuel cells, etc. The benfit of flowing electrolyte increasing the diffusion rate, and purging the bubbles, is still present. (4) The rapid electron conduction rate is an indication that there is a very large domain of possibilities to explore in the high frequency range. Of special interest are nonlinear conditions at the interface where small (e.g. 120 mV) voltage change result in 10 times more current. Since the cell has a natural inductance and capacitance it may be possible to use the cell in this regime as a tank oscillator which can "hammer" the H+ ions into the lattice. The natural resonant frequency could be tuned by changing electrolyte concentrations and electrode geometries. An oscillating current electrode might be designed that would evolve O2 and adsorb or recombine nearly 100 percent of the hydrogen. (5) Further investigation and analysis of the rate of charge equalization in the solution regime of an electrolytic cell seems warranted. It appears most investigations have been carred out using cells with electrodes, and thus electode interfaces. This muddies the water with regard to transport in the fluid regime. Using electrodeless cells might assist in investigating electron charge transport, if existant. Charge differentials can be generated in tubing carrying electrolyte via induction, thus avoiding the need for elctrodes altogether. Resulting currents can still be examined via current probes, which do not require electrodes. Such configurations might possibly be used to generate pressure peaks, i.e hammering pulses, in a sonoluminescence based fusion devices. It may be possible to generate such pulses in electrodeless MHD pulse generators. Understanding the mechanism of current propagation would be essential for engineering such devices. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 16:12:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA16690; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 05:28 4/16/96 -0700, Horace wrote: > >>Anyway, the efficiency is not 100 percent, so maybe some of the electrons >>go through the cell without any H2 or O2 being generated. > >What do you mean by "efficiency"? An excess voltage is always required to >accomplish practical electrolysis and this excess voltage results in V*i >heating of the cell...i.e. wasted electrical energy that does not go into >dissociating water. But what I'm after doesn't concern voltage or power at >all. > >Here's another way to state my question: Is there any mechanism for current >to flow "thru" the cell that does NOT cause two H atoms and one O atom to be >freed for every two electrons that move "thru" the cell. > >Corollary: If there is such a mechanism approximately what fraction of the >current in a typical electrolysis cell will flow due to that mechanism? > >Hopefully, the answer is that there is NOT a significant other way for >current to flow thru the cell. This would allow the CF investigator to >accurately predict the rate of gas evolution from his cell by measuring only >the electrical current. Any deviations from the theoretical rate could then >be attributed to recombination or absorbtion in the cathode. > > >Scott Little My apologies. I thought Faradaic efficiency meant the ratio of ions electronated to charges through the cell - the very thing you are looking to scope out. It is my understanding there is very close to 100 percent efficiency in that sense. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 05:34:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA00971; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960419092746.4e1f3300@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell voltage vs pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:12 PM 4/18/96 -0700, you wrote: >Dieter this one's primarily for you: > >I have been thinking about Flynn's suggestion that the gas pressure head on >an electrolysis cell would increase the required electrolysis voltage. I >have come to the tentative conclusion that, until you get up into pressures >where the ideal gas law doesn't hold, head pressure will have no effect on >cell voltage. > It may effect the electric field intensity. See below. >I reached this conclusion by considering the work required to put a certain >volume of gas into the head space at a certain pressure. This work is >simply p*v. For a given amount of gas that obeys the ideal gas law the p*v >product is a constant (p*v = n*R*T) assuming constant temperature. > >Am I missing something here? > >If not, it seems that one could practically achieve some pretty high >pressures by using electrolysis to deliver gas into a closed volume. > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > > Scott, There is evidence that head pressure could effect the electric field as follows: 1) the ambient may control bubble formation. is that not true? 2) if there are no bubbles, then ignoring contact potentials, line voltage drops, internal power supply impedances ....., then the electric field could be modelled (at times shorter than the dielectric relaxation time of the liquid) as E = V / L where L is the distance between electrodes for infinitely large parallel opposed plates. 3) if there is a bubble, the electrical current may go to zero in which case I*R voltage drop also goes to zero. Thus, much of the voltage appears across the space encompassing the bubble. 4) the electric field intensities AND their distribution appear to be different in the two cases. 5) since pressure can effect bubbles (eg. cola being opened), then it is possible that the head pressure may have an effect on the cell electric field intensity and distribution. Do you agree with this even though the voltage may not change [since it is fixed by the source]? Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 12:38:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA25735; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31763cea.5676608@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Newman motor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I would like to propose to Mr. Newman, and all members of this list that we as a group ask Scott Little to do an independent test of the Newman motor. Such a test, preferably to be carried out under conditions agreed upon by both parties, but if this is not possible, then two tests to be carried out, one according to the requirements of each party. During any/all tests, Scott should be free to make any measurements he feels appropriate. He should then report to this group on his findings. Such a test(s), if positive, would lend more credence to the Newman motors, and likely convince other laboratories, of the merits of making similar tests. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 00:07:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05986; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Bounced messages with no return notice? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Try number 6: I recieved a message from Prof Elio Conte saying that he has not received votex messages for several days. He has attempted to contact Bill Beaty with no success. This sounds like an email problem between Italy and the Seattle area. However, this brings up another possibility. I noticed that is towards the end of the subsciber list in a prior email. Also, traffic has seemed very light lately from vortex. I am wondering if there is maybe a systematic loss of email from vortex without anyone being aware of it. This could happen if there is some kind of failure in the list processor where a "bounced message" email is *not* returned to the originator when a failure to transmit occurs. If this is happening often, those toward the front of the list would get almost every message, including returns of their own messages, so would think everything is OK. However, if the suggested type of failure does occur, recipients in the subscriber list beyond where the error occurred would not get the email, and no one would know about it. One way to see what is going on might be to check the archive and see if there are messages there that were never received, but I hear there is a problem with the current month archive. I tried to get access to it and got a message that appeared to indicate the server was not available at that time. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 18:00:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA06303; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 00:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 00:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 07:27 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Schaffer wrote: > >>>...Note that A is generally >>>perpindicular to B, the magnetic field... >> >> No, A can be any direction, again by the freedom to choose a gauge function. > >Mike, are you sure that the gauge function allows the DIRECTION of A to be >arbitrary? Seems to me (naively, I admit) that the defining relationship >between B and A (B = DEL cross A) ensures that B and A are orthogonal...no? > > - Scott Little I don't know what is getting through and what isn't. I'll repeat just the following from a prior post in the hope this will get through. If this idea is used to test for the Marinov force, it does not matter what orientation of B or A is required to generate the Marinov force, only that the resulting force is longitudinal. Hopefully the following description is ok without a drawing. Begin quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I would like to suggest a small modification to the above that should detect an unbalanced longitudinal force of any kind based on particle velocity and partial vectors of a static magnetic field. Configure a series of round magnets in a ring (like the core of a torus) with space between them and oriented N to S (attracting) with the strong flux between them directed purpendicular to the minor axies of the of the torus. Then wrap a coil around them on a 45 degree angle to make the surface of a torus, except leave enough room to bind together the wire bundles in the gaps so the wires protrude down into the gaps. In this way many segments of wire will be in lines of flux moving diagonally to their direction. Connect the ends of the coil together. If the coil is then made superconducting it should spontaneously have a runaway current condition. This is due to the fact very small fluctuations due to heat or ambuient EM fields should instantly be amplified by the longitudinal force, if it exists. If the force is directional, it will quickly cancel negative motion and enhance positive motion. If non-directional, then chaos would result momentarily until some local regime overwhelmed the others. If there is no runaway condition, then it is determined that there is no possible (non-Lorentz) force of the type described. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Maybe a good name for the above coil geometry would be a pinched spiral toroid (PST) coil. A really key part of the idea is obviously the superconducting part. That way, no energy gain can be lost in heat noise. If there is *any* such force, the resulting excess energy will quickly manifest itself through lots of electron circuits through the coil. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 10:32:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA20206; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960420084239_100060.173_JHB91-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell voltage vs pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott, >> 2) if there are no bubbles, then ignoring contact potentials, >line voltage drops, Sounds correct to me. Interestingly, this effect would act to REDUCE the voltage required at higher cell pressures. I wonder, however, if this would be a very large effect...? << Quoting Horace's post of: Date: 15-Apr-96 08:14:18 MsgID: 237-103661 ToID: 100060,173 From: Horace Heffner >INTERNET:hheffner@anc.ak.net Subj: Re: Bubbles vs Cell Resistance He said that increasing pressure INCREASED the bubble size, therefore higher pressure would surely INCREASE the voltage required due to the larger bubbles, not REDUCE it for a given current - yes? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 12:45:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA20240; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960420084242_100060.173_JHB91-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott said: >> My first impression of Larry's suggested arrangement is: -------- ------- | | | | N | N | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | S | S | | | | -------- ------- This looks like "place them together in parallel with the N and S poles together" doesn't it? Of course, they would fly apart if you placed them as I have shown.... << Yes, but I read the instruction as if the magnets were placed so that they "stuck together". This makes either a larger magnet or a self-cancelling pair. ____________ _____________ __________________ |____________|_____________| or N|__________________|S N S N S S|__________________|N Norman. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 17:05:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA09322; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 05:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 05:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Scott said: > >>> My first >impression of Larry's suggested arrangement is: > > -------- ------- > | | | > | N | N | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | S | S | > | | | > -------- ------- > >This looks like "place them together in parallel with the N and S poles >together" doesn't it? > >Of course, they would fly apart if you placed them as I have shown.... << > >Yes, but I read the instruction as if the magnets were placed so that they >"stuck together". This makes either a larger magnet or a self-cancelling pair. > > ____________ _____________ __________________ > |____________|_____________| or N|__________________|S > N S N S S|__________________|N > > >Norman. Well, here's another guess: -------- ------- | | ooo | | | | ooo | | | | ooo | | | | | | | | | | |S N| |S N| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | xxx | | | | xxx | | | | xxx | | -------- ------- Top view: ---------------------- | | ----------|----------------------|----------- | --------|----------------------|--------- | | | ------|----------------------|------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | x | | | | | | | | | | | ------|----------------------|--------- | | |-------|----------------------|----------- ----------|----------------------|----------x | | ----------------------- Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 11:23:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA12372; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 05:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 05:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here is a simplified (2 wire) drawing of one segment of the pinched spiral toroid (SPT) coil: ------------- -------- \ -------- | | \------------ | | | | \ | | | | \-------------> | | | | | | | | |S N| |S N| | | | | | | | | | | ---| |--> | | / | | | | ------------ | | | | / | | -------- / -------- ------------ Superconducting wire wrapped around torus at 45 degrees and pinched into gap Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 06:38:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA15154; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 06:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 06:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604201322.IAA29027@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman motor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 10:59 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Robin wrote: >I would like to propose to Mr. Newman, and all members of this list >that we as a group ask Scott Little to do an independent test of the >Newman motor. Such a test, preferably to be carried out under >conditions agreed upon by both parties. We (EarthTech) are willing to perform these tests according to concensus of the group and to publish a detailed report of our findings. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 15:41:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA07038; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 09:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 09:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > it seems that one could practically achieve some pretty high > pressures by using electrolysis to deliver gas into a closed volume. I did such an experiment several years ago. I bored out a small hole in a piece of brass, tapped some threads and installed a modified sparkplug as "electrode." I installed the electrode under "water" (the electrolyte was potassium carbonate and water) so as to minimize any trapped gas. At right angles to the first hole, I also bored and tapped a hole for a hydraulic pressure gauge which could measure to 5000 PSI. I don't recall the exact details, but my powersupply was current limited to 250ma and max voltage was 25 V. I believe the actual voltage drop was less than 10 V for the entire run. Starting from zero pressure, I recall it reaching 5000 PSI in about 40 minutes. I shut it off and set it aside. It very slowly leaked its pressure out over the course of several months. I don't recall the voltage going up during pressurization, but I wasn't really monitoring that, I was just interested in seeing if the pressure would continue to build, which it did in an apparent time linear fashion. Total conversion of "water" volume to gas hits a pressure limit, of course. I believe there is approximately a 2040:1 ratio between liquid water and its dissociated gasses' densities at STP. So I theoretically could have seen up to about 30,000 PSI. -- - 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 hheffner@anc.ak.net Sat Apr 20 11:03:07 1996 Received: from anc.ak.net (root@anc.ak.net [204.17.241.19]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18122 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [204.17.242.74] ([204.17.242.74]) by anc.ak.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA28229 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:41:25 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 10:02:45 -0800 To: Multiple recipients of list From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Volodya Status: RO X-Status: It has occurred to me that there can be no longitudinal force on a charged particle due to movement through an orthogonal magnetic field. This result is due to a simple experiment which has been done many times. That experiment is placing a non-superconducting ring between the poles of a C magnet orthogonally to the magnetic field, while the super-conductor is warm. It is then cooled and removed from the field which induces a current in the ring, making it a magnet. If the subject force existed, it would either create a runaway current in the ring, or suppress the current. The current induced in the ring generates a magnetic field orthogonal to it's own motion, which would generate either a reinforcing or retarding longitudinal force upon charges in the current. In either case, an effect never observed should occur. Either there should be a runaway current (reinforcing force) or the superconduction should be immediately suppressed (retarding force). This does not happen. Therefore, if a longitudinal EM force exists, it is due to motion parallel to magnetic lines of flux. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 02:01:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA21210; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: It has occurred to me that there can be no longitudinal force on a charged particle due to movement through an orthogonal magnetic field. This result is due to a simple experiment which has been done many times. That experiment is placing a non-superconducting ring between the poles of a C magnet orthogonally to the magnetic field, while the super-conductor is warm. It is then cooled and removed from the field which induces a current in the ring, making it a magnet. If the subject force existed, it would either create a runaway current in the ring, or suppress the current. The current induced in the ring generates a magnetic field orthogonal to it's own motion, which would generate either a reinforcing or retarding longitudinal force upon charges in the current. In either case, an effect never observed should occur. Either there should be a runaway current (reinforcing force) or the superconduction should be immediately suppressed (retarding force). This does not happen. Therefore, if a longitudinal EM force exists, it is due to motion parallel to magnetic lines of flux. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 05:33:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA29945; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: There can be no longitudinal force on a charged particle due to movement through an orthogonal magnetic field. This conclusion is due to a simple experiment which has been done many times. That experiment is the placing of a non-superconducting ring between the poles of a C magnet orthogonally to the magnetic field, while the super-conductor is warm. It is then cooled and removed from the field which induces a current in the ring, making it a magnet. If the subject force existed, it would either create a runaway current in the ring, or suppress the current. The current induced in the ring generates a magnetic field orthogonal to it's own motion, which would generate either a reinforcing or retarding longitudinal force upon charges in the current. In either case, an effect which has never observed should occur. Either there should be a runaway current (reinforcing force) or the superconduction should be immediately suppressed (retarding force). This does not happen. Therefore, if a longitudinal EM force exists, it is due to motion parallel to magnetic lines of flux. Below is depicted a possible configuration for testing for a parallel magnetic field induced longitudinal force. A group of permanent magnets are arranged in a circle with their adjacent poles attracting. This is done to restrict the lines of flux to a nearly toroidal configuration. A coil of wire is formed (dimpled) over the top of the magnets and dips down into the gaps between the magnets so that much of the conductive path around the coil is parallel to the lines of flux. Call this a dimpled coil confiuragtion. Here is a simplified drawing of a dimpled coil configuration: TOP VIEW: -------- | | | | |S N| | | | | -----------0--------------x------->------ | | | | | | | | | |S N| | | | | S | | | N N | | | S -------- | | | | | | | | | ------------------NS-----<-------------- Note - "dimples" over magnets repeated around ring. SIDE VIEW: ------>------- | -------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | x----------- |S N| -------------o | | | | | | | | | | | | -------- x - denotes wire into page, o - denotes wire out of page If the coil is superconducting, there should quickly and spontaneously be a runaway current in the coil in the direction in which the force is operative. this is due to thermal electron motion and local background EM fields. If the force is directionless a runaway should still occur as one local regime overwhelms all others in its runaway current growth. In a non-superconducting dimpled coil, there should be a slightly higher resistance in one direction than the other if the force is directional, i.e. dependent on the sign of B with respect to v, when they are parallel. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 03:07:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA04365; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604201927.MAA02531@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 07:27 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Schaffer wrote: > >>>...Note that A is generally >>>perpindicular to B, the magnetic field... >> >> No, A can be any direction, again by the freedom to choose a gauge function. Scott Little replied: >Mike, are you sure that the gauge function allows the DIRECTION of A to be >arbitrary? Seems to me (naively, I admit) that the defining relationship >between B and A (B = DEL cross A) ensures that B and A are orthogonal...no? > The relation B = del cross A = curl A must be integrated to calculate A. Inversion of the differential operator del cross A is not unique, because any vector field (the gauge field) that is of the form of grad phi, where phi is an arbitrary continuous, differentiable scalar function, can be added to A, and the result of del cross (A + grad phi) will still be the same B. Since phi is arbrtrary, the direction of grad phi is clearly not constrained to have any particular orientation with respect to B. All this is a consequence of Helmholtz's theorem about vector fields. Helmholtz's theorem is mathematics. It is the result of strict logic. It's application to B and A as above rests on the experimental datum that, to date, no one has discovered evidence for existence of a monopole magnetic charge, or conversely, that all experimental tests yield div B = 0 to a very high degree of certainty. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 21:15:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA10680; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 13:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 13:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604202007.PAA16794@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:47 AM 4/20/96 -0700, Logajan wrote: >Starting from zero pressure, I recall it reaching 5000 PSI in about >40 minutes. Very nice, John...there might be a practical device in that. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 13:42:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA15306; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 13:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 13:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604202017.PAA17329@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell voltage vs pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:47 AM 4/20/96 -0700, Norman wrote: >Quoting Horace's post: >He said that increasing pressure INCREASED the bubble size, therefore higher >pressure would surely INCREASE the voltage required due to the larger bubbles, >not REDUCE it for a given current - yes? Wow. I missed that. How do you suppose higher pressure cause LARGER bubbles? Maybe it's some kind of bubble formation phenomena. Surely, for a given amount of gas, the bubble would be smaller at higher pressures. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 14:21:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA21635; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960420210518_100433.1541_BHG67-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Another try at the Yusmar X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex Following the brief coverage of CF on UK Independent Radio for Science Week, I had a few people approach me via the producers. One was a Mr Dave Davies, who happens to live only about 20 miles away. He is very anxious to work at the Yusmar, and says that he is notorious for sticking with a problem for as long as it takes. He has of course been warned that no positive result can be expected, but he still very much wants to try. Dave is semi-retired, and has a company which supplies swimming pools. As can be imagined, pools here need heaters to extend the period of use (summer!). Curiously enough, Yusmar heating would be ideal for a swimming pool, since those who can afford big pools are often away from mains gas supply. Dave is different from, for example, the usual Vortexian. He did the full shipwright apprentice at the Navy dockyards in Chatham. I noticed how he had a very good familiarity with the practicalities of water and its funny little ways, and that he asked a lot of very perceptive questions about the device. Frankly, I would think that someone with time to spare, determination, good engineering skills and familiarity with water systems is an ideal person to work on the Yusmar. He now has the basic unit, the video of my Moldova trip, the relevant issues of IE and other documents. He says he's going to spend the coming week studying all this stuff and laying plans. He *does* appreciate the problems. I will report on his progress, and will pass on any comments to him. He did seem a bit nervous that he was not a highly-qualified person, but I said that his background and attitude (together with the fact that he can work without the 'clock ticking' behind him) gave him as much chance or more than any of the rest of us. He outlined his initial ideas (which amounted to a pretty sane kind of static calorimetry), and I said that he should not worry too much about precision instrumentation - that if he started to see something that looked good, I would move in and see if it really was good or not. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 15:19:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA02214; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604202203.RAA21880@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Another try at the Yusmar X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 02:20 PM 4/20/96 -0700, Chris wrote: >One was a Mr Dave Davies, who happens to live only about 20 miles away. He is >very anxious to work at the Yusmar, and says that he is notorious for sticking >with a problem for as long as it takes. Chris, does his Yusmar have any recirc tube yet? If not, he'll have to drill one in order to...well, in order to match the best hearsay we have about how one should properly operate a Yusmar. How big a hole should be make? Should he obtain a submersible pump and immerse the entire Yusmar? If not, he should surely use a closed loop...that is one of the things that Potapov criticized about my Yusmar experiments. I'm glad he's got a lot of time. He's got a lot of parameters to vary. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 16:07:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA10644; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell voltage vs pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 01:47 AM 4/20/96 -0700, Norman wrote: > >>Quoting Horace's post: > >>He said that increasing pressure INCREASED the bubble size, therefore higher >>pressure would surely INCREASE the voltage required due to the larger bubbles, >>not REDUCE it for a given current - yes? > >Wow. I missed that. How do you suppose higher pressure cause LARGER >bubbles? Maybe it's some kind of bubble formation phenomena. Surely, for a >given amount of gas, the bubble would be smaller at higher pressures. > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) What you say is true if the bubbles form at a low pressure and are observed at a high pressure. Bubble size at formation is a function of surface tension vs lift. When the volume of the bubble has enough lift to break surface tension the bubble breaks free. In a high pressure environmet the surface tension should be slightly greater and the mass of the gass greater, so it takes more volume to get the lift to break free. In a flowing environment there should be almost no difference in bubble size because the main effect is surface tension vs drag. This is all personal opinion and personal experience, not from any reference. So, go figure ... Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 16:07:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA10756; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: 10 meter Cell Experiment Conclusions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Since vortex seems to be working very well again I will try to post the following conclusions again for those who did not receive them. The following are final observations and conclusions posted to attempt to bring this experimental effort to a close for now on my part. EXISTING DATA For a while the oscilloscope trace data will be at URL: . Some minor typographical errors in the data tables are corrected below: The first test was done to get a picture of cell current vs time with a fixed supply of 10 V. This test was done with the Pt electrode positive, and the nichrome electrode negative. Electrolyte flow in all tests reported here were from the nichrome electrode toward the Pt electrode, regardless of the polarity used for any particular test. The I vs T data follows: Time Current in uA 0 s 47.1 (Electrolyte flow turned off) 15 s 46.5 30 s 46.1 45 s 45.9 60 s 45.7 75 s 45.7 90 s 45.6 105 s 45.5 2 m 45.4 2 m 45.8 (after tapping electrodes) 3 m 45.5 (Electrolyte flow turned on) 6 m 45.9 8 m 45.9 10 m 45.8 15 m 45.7 20 m 45.7 30 m 45.6 1 h 45.4 1.5 h 45.5 The following uA measurements and calculations of average current for flowing electrolyte conditions (Iavg) and corresponding V/I resistance k ohms (Ravg), and the V/I resistance assuming a -0.4 V battery voltage correction (Ravg at V-0.4), were made: uA with resistor still in place, - NiCr, + Pt V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg Ravg at V-0.4 3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 714 619 5 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.1 10.1 495 455 7 15.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 437 413 9 22.0 22.1 22.0 22.1 22.1 407 389 10 25.0 25.1 24.9 25.1 25.1 398 382 11 27.9 28.1 27.9 28.1 28.1 391 377 uA with resistor removed, - NiCr, + Pt V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg Ravg at V-0.4 3 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 400 346 5 18.1 18.5 18.2 18.3 18.4 276 250 7 29.4 29.7 29.4 29.6 29.7 236 222 9 40.6 41.1 40.6 41.1 41.1 219 209 10 46.1 46.7 46.2 46.7 46.7 214 205 11 51.8 52.4 51.6 52.4 52.4 209 202 uA with resistor removed, - Pt, + NiCr V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg 3 16.7 14.1 14.0 13.9 14.0 214 5 26.2 25.2 24.9 24.9 25.1 201 7 36.2 36.7 35.9 35.9 36.5 191 9 47.1 48.0 45.8 47.9 48.0 187 10 52.5 53.8 51.3 53.7 53.8 186 11 58.1 59.8 56.7 59.4 59.6 185 For convenience here are the prior experimental results for camparison with the above two results: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow Iavg Iavg (new) 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 7.7 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 17.8 18.4 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 28.0 29.7 9, 39.1, 38.9 38.8, 39.0 39.0 41.1 11, 49.6, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 49.8 52.4 uA with - on Pt and + on NiCr V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow Iavg Iavg (new) 3, 13.1, 12.6, 12.5, 12.4 12.5 14.0 5, 23.3, 22.9, 23.0 22.9 22.9 25.1 7, 33.3, 33.5, 32.7, 33.3 33.4 36.5 9, 43.7, 44.5, 42.3, 44.4 44.5 48.0 11, 53.6, 55.3, 51.9, 55.2 55.3 59.6 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Even though a current probe was not available, an effort was made to look at current by running the cell output through a ferrite core before going to ground. A 5 turn loop of wire was wrapped around the core and connected to the oscilloscope ground and a 100 mHz rated probe. The resulting trace was very low voltage but yielded some information about the current. First, the trace consisted of spikes of unmeasurable width at a location on the time scale corresponding to the square wave rising and falling edges. Even though the spikes could not be resolved, it was very clear that there was a complex waveform in the spike. This was clear because there were bright spots in the waveform corresponding to what must be current peaks at various times. A good scope should be able to break that spike out into a kind of arrival time spectrum which might be related to electrolyte composition. SUGGESTED METHODS OF IMPROVING THE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE FOR FUTURE EXPERIMENTS (1) Don't use metal parts in electrode seals. Some related correlaries to Murphy's law: places that are supposed to be on the dry side of a seal aren't. If they were dry yesterday, they won't be dry today. (2) Based on the current vs time (at 10 V) curve above, the cell should be allowed to stabilize at least one minute after changing cell voltage before taking a current measurement. Failure to do so results in an up to 3 percent error. (3) The electrolyte should be cleaned of impurities by filtering with a carbon filter for and doing electrolysis (4) The electrodes used in the experiment were fed through a T connector. This means a partion of the electrode was in a stagnent location. This could be improved by insulating the electrode up to the point where it is immersed in flowing electrolyte. A possibility is to insert the electrode through a fine hole in the tubing and seal it with goop or epoxy. (5) Control the absolute pressure. This should not be dangerous because of the very small amount of H2 generated by the uA current of a 10 m cell. This can be done by using a hermetically sealed drip chamber and applying fluid pressure via maintaining water level in a piece of tubing branched from the system via a T connector. The elevation of the water level can be adjusted by moving the tube up or down so the pressure guage at the pump remains at a constant level. (6) Use a high bandwidth digital scope with voltage and current probes. DIRECT CONCLUSIONS FROM DATA (1) The most significant conclusion is that charge differential can be equalized in a 1 m Li2SO4 electrolytic cell at a velocity of more than 10^6 m/s in a field gradient as small as 1 V/m, and this can happen in an electrolyte flowing at over 4 cm/s in either direction. This is determined by looking at the rise time of the square wave at output of cell vs input of cell. (2) Cell current appears to be slightly improved by a flowing electrolyte. (3) The unexpected 0.4 V drop in the output voltage square wave appears to be the well understood faradaic rectification effect. ANALYSIS Since it is well known this analysis is by an untrained amateur, appropriate preceeding clauses like "as far as I know", or "in my limited experience", or "I think" are assumed and deleted in the interest of brevity, with most all of my posts. It is resonable to assume there are two very different electrolyte regimes in the electrolytic cell (a) The several micron thick electrode interface and (b) the solution. The electrode interface is an area of intense field gradients and electron transfer. It is significantly affected by electron tunneling. The electron flux is massive in *both directions*, but there is a net electron flux equal to the cell current. The interface has been a subject of much study and modelling. The nature and performace of the interface seems to be well known. The solution is a low field graient regime where charge is assumed to be carried strictly by ions and charge transport, as well as all other matter transport is almost entirely by diffusion. This is because the field gradient is primarily at the interface, and not in the solution. An H+ deficit in the nearby vicinity of the cathode results in a concentration gradient approaching the cathode which results in diffusion. It is assumed that charge can be transported in the solution regime by species not directly involved in the primary reactions evolving H2 and O2, namely by Li+ and SO4- radicals. Their role is to carry the current. Again this role is filled by diffusion. Based the fact that charge can clearly move through the solution at 10^6 m/s, much faster than heavy nuclear ions can propagate a wave via a local field gradient change, there appears to be an inconsistancy in the assumptions. I suggest the possibility that, to some degree, charge is transported through the solution regime via electrons. It is interresting that this could be true without changing any existing model for steady state electrolysis. This is because the electron charge transport would occur in the solution regime and terminate with great likelyhood when the electron reaches the ion gradient at the boundary of the interface regime. The net effect of the electron transport could look like an actual ion transport. It is just that a charged species is replaced (in net effet) by an uncharge species at the end of the electron propagation chain, or vice versa. For example, given a starting condition of an Li atom at the anode and Li+ at the cathode, and electron exchange could occur of the form: Li.............Li+ (initial condition, Li momentarily created by electonation) Li+...e-..->...Li+ (electron transiting) Li+............Li (electron transit complete. Li then quickly gives up e-) The net effect is equivalent to a charged species diffusing in one direction, and an uncharged species in the other. The electron propagation could be via holes or actual electrons. It is already suggested that the proton propagation rate is high and tunneling is being suggested as a possibility. Due to the electron's far greater ability to tunnel, it seems like electron tunneling in the solution regime should be considered a possibility. SIGNIFICANCE TO COLD FUSION INVESTIGATIONS (1) Due to the suggested electron conductance, there would be no change expected in the ratio of electrons through the cell to evolved H2 (or O2) because the suggested electron conduction would only affect the mechanics of charge transport in the solution regime. (2) There should be no difference in the chemistry, other than recombination rate, of a cell with electrolyte flowing from cathode to anode (normal cell) or in a purpendicular way, between the two electrodes (orthogonal cell). The flowing electrolyte, according to the above data, increases the current flow, as would be expected, due to the fact that the rate of diffusion at the boundary of the interface is enhanced via the flowing electrolyte. (3) The lack of difference in chemistry between the normal cell and orthogonal cell is extremely good for the development of CF, because the orthogonal cell can be easily scaled up to any required size, as per my prior posts. The one significant difference, that of recombination avoidance by the orthogonal cell, is beneficial. By placing a bubble barrier between the two electrodes, and maintaining separate elecrolyte steams and degassers, the H2 and O2 can be separated for use in fuel cells, etc. The benfit of flowing electrolyte increasing the diffusion rate, and purging the bubbles, is still present. (4) The rapid electron conduction rate is an indication that there is a very large domain of possibilities to explore in the high frequency range. Of special interest are nonlinear conditions at the interface where small (e.g. 120 mV) voltage change result in 10 times more current. Since the cell has a natural inductance and capacitance it may be possible to use the cell in this regime as a tank oscillator which can "hammer" the H+ ions into the lattice. The natural resonant frequency could be tuned by changing electrolyte concentrations and electrode geometries. An oscillating current electrode might be designed that would evolve O2 and adsorb or recombine nearly 100 percent of the hydrogen. (5) Further investigation and analysis of the rate of charge equalization in the solution regime of an electrolytic cell seems warranted. It appears most investigations have been carred out using cells with electrodes, and thus electode interfaces. This muddies the water with regard to transport in the fluid regime. Using electrodeless cells might assist in investigating electron charge transport, if existant. Charge differentials can be generated in tubing carrying electrolyte via induction, thus avoiding the need for elctrodes altogether. Resulting currents can still be examined via current probes, which do not require electrodes. Such configurations might possibly be used to generate pressure peaks, i.e hammering pulses, in a sonoluminescence based fusion devices. It may be possible to generate such pulses in electrodeless MHD pulse generators. Understanding the mechanism of current propagation would be essential for engineering such devices. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 06:24:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA20649; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 20:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 20:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Results regarding B parallel longitudinal force. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: There can be no longitudinal force on a charged particle due to movement through an orthogonal magnetic field. This conclusion is due to a simple experiment which has been done many times. That experiment is the placing of a non-superconducting ring between the poles of a C magnet orthogonally to the magnetic field, while the super-conductor is warm. It is then cooled and removed from the field which induces a current in the ring, making it a magnet. If the subject force existed, it would either create a runaway current in the ring, or suppress the current. The current induced in the ring generates a magnetic field orthogonal to it's own motion, which would generate either a reinforcing or retarding longitudinal force upon charges in the current. In either case, an effect which has never observed should occur. Either there should be a runaway current (reinforcing force) or the superconduction should be immediately suppressed (retarding force). This does not happen. Therefore, if a longitudinal EM force exists, it is due to motion parallel to magnetic lines of flux. Below is depicted a possible configuration for testing for a parallel magnetic field induced longitudinal force. A group of permanent magnets are arranged in a circle with their adjacent poles attracting. This is done to restrict the lines of flux to a nearly toroidal configuration. A coil of wire is formed (dimpled) over the top of the magnets and dips down into the gaps between the magnets so that much of the conductive path around the coil is parallel to the lines of flux. Call this a dimpled coil confiuragtion (DCC). Here is a simplified drawing of a dimpled coil configuration: TOP VIEW: -------- | | | | |S N| | | | | -----------0--------------x------->------ | | | | | | | | | |S N| | | | | S | | | N N | | | S -------- | | | | | | | | | ------------------NS-----<-------------- Note - "dimples" over magnets repeated around ring. SIDE VIEW: ------>------- | -------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | x----------- |S N| -------------o | | | | | | | | | | | | -------- x - denotes wire into page, o - denotes wire out of page If the coil is superconducting, there should quickly and spontaneously be a runaway current in the coil in the direction in which the force is operative. this is due to thermal electron motion and local background EM fields. If the force is directionless a runaway should still occur as one local regime overwhelms all others in its runaway current growth. In a non-superconducting dimpled coil, there should be a slightly higher resistance in one direction than the other if the force is directional, i.e. dependent on the sign of B with respect to v, when they are parallel. A DCC was fabricated to see if the suggested nonsymmetric effect on the inpedence of such a coil would be readily detectable at low voltages and currents. This was done using four 1" x 1" x 0.5" 35 MGO magnets, where B runs through the 0.5" thickness similar to the drawing above. Four 0.5" thick 1" wide and 1" deep slots were milled into a 10" x 6" x 2" foam block to hold the magnets in place. The slots were positioned so the centers of the magnets (i.e the magnetic field B) were aligned tangent to a 2 1/2" cicle. A 1/4" wide groove was milled centered on the 2 1/2" circle connecting the magnets. The magnets were wrapped with electricians tape to prevent chips from flying in the case of an accidental attraction and to prevent the insulation of the fine wire coil from being cut. The magnets were inserted into the slots oriented so they were attracting, i.e. with opposing poles unalike, as in the drawing above. A 50 turn coil of what appeared to be labelled no. 40 wire (it was measured to be .0032" thick including insulation) was wrapped on a 4" thermos cap. The cap had to be destroyed to get the wire off. The coil resistance was measured at 59.9 ohms. The wire coil was then layed over the magnets and pressed down into the circular groove between the magnets. The slack was shared equally in wire arches above each of the magnets. The wire in the grooves was them held in place by compressing very soft plastic foam "packing worms" into the grooves above the wire. Wire leads from the coil were then taken to 1 1/2" plastic machine screws screwed into the each side of the foam block. There at the macjhine screw and nut, they were soldered to some no. 22 bell wire, which was then run to an additional plastic machine screw for support to prevent motion in the vicinity of the fine wire joint. The two bell wire leads were then taken to a DPDT switch wired for fast lead reversal. The wire resistance was measured again. It was 60.0 in either direction. I had closed a window a few minutes earlier so thought the difference in resistance might be from a temperature increase. I blew warm air over the DCC and the resistance jumped to 60.2 ohms. Another 10" x 6" x 2" foam block was machined to accept the wire arches above the magnets and taped on top of the first block to prevent accidental tool attractions etc., and to stabliize the temperature. The resistance remained 60.1 ohms in both directions, thus the results are negative. A 1 kHz square wave was fed into the coil and the output square wave was unchanged from an input wave except for an appx. 1 volt 1.25 MHz decaying oscillation at the leading edges visible for roughly 8 us. A DC power supply was connected and varied from 3 to 25 V while monitoring both voltage and current for directional differences while toggling the DPDT switch to reverse current flow direction. No assymetries were found. The output voltage was monitored by oscilloscope also. A waveform could be seen due to self induction from the coil field reversal, but no asymmetry was apparent. The results of this test were negative as measured to better than 1 part in 300. If such a force exists, it appears that it will only be found using superconducting coils or some completely different form of test using near light speed electrons. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 03:35:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA25559; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 20:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 20:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604210337.WAA07168@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: A and B X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mike, you seem to understand Maxwell's eqns and the vector and scalar potentials pretty well. I don't...but I am trying to learn. I have considerable difficulty with abstract mathematics and I always need to put things into visualizable form before I fully understand them. I'm going to propose a visualization for this (A + grad phi) situation and would appreciate it if you would help me perfect it. Consider an infinitely long solenoid of radius r, energized with DC current (flowing in the theta direction). A B-field exists in the center of the solenoid pointing in the z direction. Outside the solenoid exists, in simplest form, an A field that "circulates" in the theta direction around the solenoid. Each "line" of A makes a perfect circle around the solenoid and closes on itself. It is easy to see, in this case, how the curl of A equals the B inside the solenoid, especially with the help of Stokes theorem which I find helps me understand the meaning of the curl operator greatly. Now, I take it from your recent posts (thank you) that we can add another vector field to this A, namely "grad phi" and it won't change the B. One example I have thought up comes from a phi that is constant in the r and theta directions but increases steadily along the length of the solenoid. Then grad phi is simply a constant vector in the z direction of magnitude equal to dPHI/dz...right? When that vector field is added to the simplest A field described earlier..what do we get?...a helical A field? Please try to correct this visualization...or, if it is hopeless, suggest another. Thanks Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 21:29:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01309; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 21:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 21:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604210345.WAA07581@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: longitudinal force. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, congratulations on a number of ingenious experiments and experiment proposals for investigating this force. Can anyone on this forum present a brief synopsis of the theoretical basis for a longitudinal force? It's been called Marinov's longitudinal EM force recently...but I've also heard a lot about Ampere's longitudinal force in the past... I am aware of work done by Peter Graneau in which he proposes that Ampere's longitudinal force is responsible for various effects. Is this force predicted by Maxwell's equations? Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 14:16:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA07444; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 21:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 21:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3S9FYKMR696YVCJ@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:13:33 Horace Heffner wrote: >The primary problem is that there is a step down transformer in the power supply. >That transformer places a limit of a few watts to the power that can pass through it. A few watts is ambiguous. for instance a transformer with a secondary rated at 6 volts @ 300 ma would be capable of suppling 1.8 watts. Assume the output is half wave rectified by one diode as you have suggested. If the output is shorted you have a .7 volt drop across the diode for the duration of the short. During this time frame the voltage would be .7 volts and the current would be 1.8w / .7 = 2.57 amps.( in actual practice the current can be even higher because the reactance of the core changes with load.) If the shorted output time is a few milli-seconds or nano-seconds and with a small % duty cycle- most transformers can handle this without any damage. Remember that a transformers rating is a specific voltage at a rated current. If the same transformer were lightly loaded the output voltage would be much higher for the same reason, this is why product lines such as 7800 or 7900 series voltage regulators exist. >The impedence of that transformer at high frequencies enormously limits the >amount of HF current that can pass through it. The inductance of the power supply transformer cannot be calculated the same as a choke coil, the problem is much more complex. HF spikes "walk" across supply transformers, this is a common problem with power supplies, and is the reason additional filtering is required when HF is present. >The second problem is the low voltage diode in the power supply. I don't know what is meant by a low voltage diode. Silicon diodes have a forward drop of about .7 volts and germanium diodes have a forward drop of about .5 volts. More than likely you are using a 1N4000 series diode, which is the most common. These diodes have a PIV of 50 volts at 1 amp ,1N4001, up to 1000 PIV at 1 amp. Their physical size is only about .125" dia x .1875" length. Diodes can handle many times their rated current with short duration pulses. The key spec on a diode is its junction temperature, as long as this is not exceeded they are pretty tough. >If pulses of sufficient voltage to drive a significant current through the >impedence of the transformer were occuring, the diode would be fried, >and probably an electrolytic capacitor as well. During the time the transformer is loaded the impedence will be low. >If there is a capacitor, it will damp out most of the A/C that doesn't get throught the transformer. The electrolytic cap is used to smooth the rectified 60 hz AC and will pass HF without a problem, even if a small cap ie: .001 uf is used to bypass HF to ground in the case I have described it will bypass the supply and pass the HF back to the cell. >Then there is the problem of the source of the HF A/C. I don't think you understood the operation of the cell as I described it. The source of the HF DC Spikes of many TimeVarying frequencys is the cell. This is the reason measurements are difficult, even with a high dollar scope. Time varying spikes are difficult to measure. You would have to observe the supply over many different sweep ranges to observe them all, much less measure them. >Finally, even if a HF source at 10 x the power were present, >a DMM set on A/C amps would readily detect it. The Sample rate of most DMM is much to slow and would probably miss most of the spikes. A DMM is pretty useless for measuring a complex waveform or time varying frequencys. The Cell I descibed would be pretty random with waveforms. It's not likely that the action I am describing would fry the meter. >PS - You may have noticed I put your idea of controlling ambient pressure >in the suggested improvements list for the 10 m electrolytic cell >experiment for future reference. Horace, be extremely careful when experimenting with a closed cell. With simple experiments I perfomed, using 10 volts @ 10 ma I built up enough pressure to push electrolyte thru a very good neoprene seal. I could relate to you a horror story where a Glass enclosed cell exploded during an experiment I was performing about 30 years ago. I'm real lucky I wasn't blinded by the flying glass!!!!! P.S. If you are interested I will post a description of an electrolysis cell that creates an observable spiral around the positive electrode using a stationary magnet. This may have to do with the spiral effects you have been describing, I don't know, but it's neat to look at. Joe Flynn Flynn Research Inc. P.O. Box 11657 Kansas City, Mo. 64138 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 13:16:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09918; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3S9MFGWDK96YVCJ@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On 09:56 PM 4/18/96 -0700, Little wrote: >Flynn wrote: >There would be high current spikes >and odd frequencies riding the input lines. Little replied: >I've never seen any such behavior in my cells...but then I don't see any >apparent excess heat either. This behavior would occur in a cell configuration re: recombination thru combustion as described in an earlier post. You would see "excess heat" in regard to what you are currently seeing but not in regard to input. And as stated operating in this manner would require careful measurement of "input". Flynn wrote: >BTW another >point that supports what I have seen and suspect is the high >voltage / low current used for electrolysis. Usually the >opposite is true for electrolysis cells low voltage / higher >current. Little replied: >I'm no sure what you're talking about here. Typical PPC electrical >parameters are 3-4 volts and .05-.2 amps. Is that high voltage/low current? Scott, I was using numbers supplied in a posting on cell loading. The calculations predicted a voltage between 40 to 60 volts to create a specific current flow due to the cell resistance. I thought this was your posting? I'll look, I have archived the file. I did notice in a later post the voltages and currents which you are operating your cell. I withdraw the statement regarding "punch through" even though it doesn't change the basic idea I posted. You might try my configuration, with no results so far, there's nothing to lose. Even though the use of "high or low" with regard to anything is subjective. The baseline in most cases would be 1 volt at 1 amp since this is the basic unit of measurement for quantifying amps and volts. In regards to electrolysis, especially with gas production and plating the method is usually a constant current source power supply where the cell develops its "natural" voltage drop based on the current. The earlier post of AK as follows: On Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Akira Kawasaki wrote: >the excess voltage is >know as over voltage. or over potential for a single electrode, and >arises from energy barriers at the electrode. Over potential, in >general, increases logarithmically with an increase in current >density." The over voltage AK refers to in this post is the same action that causes "burning" of the plated metals in a plating cell. The constant current supply is adjusted according to the metal associated with the cell and each metal has a recommended current, the voltage drop is determined 'by the cell' at a specific current. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 08:26:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA12309; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3179b5c7.17768676@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Bounced messages with no return notice? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:59:54 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: >Try number 6: > >I recieved a message from Prof Elio Conte saying that he has not received >votex messages for several days. He has attempted to contact Bill Beaty > with no success. This sounds like an email problem >between Italy and the Seattle area. [snip] Count Australia in as well :-(. Though usually I find that after a few days most of the delayed email arrives anyway, so I just bide my time. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 09:17:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA18683; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 23:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 23:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3SC0FW9CI99H6F4@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Mystery Pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Date: 19-APR-1996 23:40:48.95 NEWMAIL From: IN%"vortex-l@eskimo.com" Scott Little wrote: > I'm still not convinced >that my earlier posted conclusion is correct...i.e. that the work required >to put the gas into the head space is independent of the pressure. Scott your confusing me. If the voltage and current remain the same regardless of pressure then gas production must be the same, pressure would continue to rise Where's the energy coming from to produce the pressure? Another conclusion would be if voltage and current remain the same, the pressure is not increasing, and conduction is present without gas production?? And another conclusion, current and voltage remain the same, pressure does not increase, produced gas is immediately recombined, but how? With a ratio of 2040:1- gas to gas in electrolyte from someones earlier post, recombination due to pressure is not likely to occur very quickly. The source of the stored energy in the compressed gas WITHOUT a change in the input power would be a real mystery to me. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 08:21:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA22122; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 23:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 23:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960421061337_100060.173_JHB39-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@CompuServe.COM> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell voltage vs pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott, >> >Quoting Horace's post: >He said that increasing pressure INCREASED the bubble size, therefore higher >pressure would surely INCREASE the voltage required due to the larger bubbles, >not REDUCE it for a given current - yes? Wow. I missed that. How do you suppose higher pressure cause LARGER bubbles? Maybe it's some kind of bubble formation phenomena. Surely, for a given amount of gas, the bubble would be smaller at higher pressures. << The idea is that at increased pressure the density of the gas in the bubble is higher, so that for the bubble to overcome the surface tension holding it to the electrode surface, by flotation, the displacement has to be greater, therefore the volume of the bubble has to be larger to give the upthrust required to pull the bubble off the surface. Seems reasonable to me. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 09:45:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA22144; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 23:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 23:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3SC95RH7C99H6F4@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Mystery Pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Date: 19-APR-1996 23:40:48.95 NEWMAIL From: IN%"vortex-l@eskimo.com" Scott Little wrote: > I'm still not convinced >that my earlier posted conclusion is correct...i.e. that the work required >to put the gas into the head space is independent of the pressure. Scott your confusing me. If the voltage and current remain the same regardless of pressure then gas production must be the same, pressure would continue to rise. Where's the energy coming from to produce the pressure? Another conclusion would be if voltage and current remain the same, the pressure is not increasing, and conduction is present without gas production?? And another conclusion, current and voltage remain the same, pressure does not increase, produced gas is immediately recombined, but how? With a ratio of 2040:1- gas to gas in electrolyte from someones earlier post, recombination due to pressure is not likely to occur very quickly. The source of the stored energy in the compressed gas WITHOUT a change in the input power would be a real mystery to me. Joe Flynn BTW during my experiments, leading to the conclusion I posted earlier, I built a pretty good head pressure without seeing any significant change in input??? Am I missing some variable? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 01:27:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA26329; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 00:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 00:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >If you are interested I will post a description of an >electrolysis cell that creates an >observable spiral around the positive electrode using a >stationary magnet. This may >have to do with the spiral effects you have been describing, I >don't know, but >it's neat to look at. > >Joe Flynn > Let's here it! Sounds cool. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 10:20:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA29227; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 00:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 00:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Mystery Pressure & Logajan's Gadget X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >The source of the stored energy in the compressed gas WITHOUT a >change in the input power would be a real mystery to me. > >Joe Flynn This is a very good point, and one that certainly went by me. It is the CF mindset. You get used to the idea that H adsorbtion into the lattice results in astronomical pressures using a couple volts and less than half an amp. But the *volume of gas* in the Pd or Al is really very small. But then the volume must be small in John Logajan's gadget too. John Logajan, do you still have that spark plug gadget handy somewhere? Maybe it would be possible to check out the energy balance? BTW, it absolutely amazes me that you did not get an explosive recombination of the H2 and O2 at that high pressure of 5,000 PSI. One good cosmic ray should have done it. Maybe you were getting most of the H2 adsorbed. Or maybe the H2 leaked by the fittings but the O2 held? Might have been a good idea to put the whole thing under water while the electrolysis was going on to avoid shrapnel and look for H2 bubbles, and maybe do some static calorimetry too - or did you do that? How did you get a seal that would hold that gas pressure for a month? Fancy washer? Did you use one of those (Champion I think) Pt plated electrode plugs? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 10:08:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA22474; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 05:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 05:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Cell Pressure and John Logajan's memory X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Disregard mystery pressure! It's late my heads foggy. The >pressure would be equal to the input over time! It wouldn't >require more work to continually increase pressure. Within the >cell, the DIFFERENCE in the pressure of the gas against the >electrolyte and the pressure of the produced gas would always >remain the same so the input power should not increase with >pressure. Bubble size should continue to shrink though. If the >amount of space the bubbles occupy has a bearing on cell >resistance the voltage or current should change though. > >Joe Flynn At a higher pressure, each bubble has more mass and thus takes more current to produce. For given mass of H2 and O2 produced, i.e. a given mass of H2O released should take a corresponding number of joules or watt*seconds to release if running at a good efficiency, but very definitely a fixed number of ampere seconds. So, in John Logajan's experiment, it is entirely possible the voltage and current remained approximately the same throughout the experiment, but the pressure increase varied with ln(t). Each chunk of mass produces less pressure differential at higher pressures. Maybe John Logajan remembers the pressure increase rate slowing down with time? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 12:48:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA25718; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 06:03:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 06:03:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604211300.GAA28167@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: NEWS (for the fouth time) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is the fourth time to get on the vtx (April 21, 1996 6:00 AM) April 18, 1996 Thursday 8:55 am PDST To fellow vortexers and friends, I am excerpting most of the sections and adding notes to the short message received from Peter Glueck after my correspondence. This is on his visa application to come to the U.S. >It is my pleasure to inform you that I got a 10 years visa for the >US. The visit is planned to start 1-10 June, depending on flights etc. This is on the question of Potapov's response to the formal invitation by LANL. Peter adds the May Russian conference attendance also. >Yuri has accepted the invitation, he will participate at the 4-th >Russian Cold Fusion Conference at the end of May, at Sochi, Crimeea. >There are no major problems in sight and I hope everything will go >OK. This is on 'Gene's (Eugene Mallove) uncertainty of the Potapov device after his summer '95 experience with the Yusmars. >Gene will arrive to the truth in this problem after this >experiment. He is too clever to persist in error so long time. This is response to Frank Fzirdnisc's remark of a part-time self sustaining 'Quantum Generator Pump' >Sorry but I do not understand how can be the Quantum Generator self- >sustaining part of time; it is an generator and has to deliver energy >when it is necessary, not when it wants(?). Has Frank being explicit? This is in response to Scott Little's efforts with Field Co. and the information on the CETI cell status. >I am waiting for news from Scott (he promissed to write to Field) and >from people having access to the performance data of the CETI cell. I >heard it is also self-sustaining for time lengths probably depending >on the quantity of hydrogen accumulated in the Pd layer. (over 10 >hours). And needless to comment, Peter's bright optimism for the O/U field. >Our field is very interesting and has a bright future. There are some >problems with the present. Please notice how he spells his last name (now). Not Gluck >dr. Peter Glueck > >Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 >Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 >Tel:064-184037/144 >Cluj 5, 3400 Romania >E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro CC: Peter Glueck From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 14:51:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA29991; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 06:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 06:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:13:33 Horace Heffner wrote: > > >The primary problem is that there is a step down transformer >in the power supply. > >That transformer places a limit of a few watts to the power >that can pass through it. > >A few watts is ambiguous. for instance a transformer with a >secondary rated at 6 volts >@ 300 ma would be capable of suppling 1.8 watts. Assume the >output is half wave >rectified by one diode as you have suggested. If the output is >shorted you have a >.7 volt drop across the diode for the duration of the short. >During this time frame the >voltage would be .7 volts and the current would be 1.8w / .7 = >2.57 amps.( in actual >practice the current can be even higher because the reactance >of the core changes with >load.) If the shorted output time is a few milli-seconds or >nano-seconds and with >a small % duty cycle- most transformers can handle this without >any damage. >Remember that a transformers rating is a specific voltage at a >rated current. If >the same transformer were lightly loaded the output voltage >would be much higher for >the same reason, this is why product lines such as 7800 or >7900 series >voltage regulators exist. > >>The impedence of that transformer at high frequencies >enormously limits the >>amount of HF current that can pass through it. > >The inductance of the power supply transformer cannot be >calculated the same >as a choke coil, the problem is much more complex. HF spikes >"walk" across >supply transformers, this is a common problem with power >supplies, and is the >reason additional filtering is required when HF is present. Well, for the PPC to be a hoax that hoax pupetrator needs to figure out how to conduct 200 watts on a sustained basis through that 2 watt transformer undetected. If you can do this, you can put a bigger transformer and some circuitry in your house at the main juction box and use the same technique to reduce your electric bill by 99 percent. That ought to be worth something! Actually this thought has been seriously suggested before, by using "negative power" generated by getting the current and voltage way out of phase. > >>The second problem is the low voltage diode in the power >supply. > > I don't know what is meant by a low voltage diode. Silicon >diodes have a >forward drop of about .7 volts and germanium diodes have a >forward drop >of about .5 volts. More than likely you are using a 1N4000 >series diode, >which is the most common. These diodes have a PIV of 50 volts >at 1 amp >,1N4001, up to 1000 PIV at 1 amp. Their physical size is only >about .125" dia >x .1875" length. Diodes can handle many times their rated >current with short >duration pulses. The key spec on a diode is its junction >temperature, as long >as this is not exceeded they are pretty tough. There are two ways to fry a diode. To much heat (sustained current) or too much voltage. Toomuch voltage will zap them almost instantly. The other problem, too much heat, would occur while you are producing 200 watts for hours from a power supply disigned to handle 2 W. > > >>If pulses of sufficient voltage to drive a significant current >through the >>impedence of the transformer were occuring, the diode would be >fried, >>and probably an electrolytic capacitor as well. > >During the time the transformer is loaded the impedence will be >low. > >>If there is a capacitor, it will damp out most of the A/C that >doesn't get throught the transformer. > >The electrolytic cap is used to smooth the rectified 60 hz AC >and will pass >HF without a problem, even if a small cap ie: .001 uf is used >to bypass HF >to ground in the case I have described it will bypass the >supply and pass the HF >back to the cell. You are talking about capacitors in series. The ripple voltage divided by the supply voltage of capacitors in parallel to the load, as with a smoothing capacitor across the output of a DC power supply, reduces with the frequency of the signal. You get the same ripple with much smaller capacitors when the supply frequency increases. A big capacitor designed for smoothing 60 Hz will wipe out sustained HF energy. You would be lucky to get 10 percent extra sustained power past it and 1000 percent is way out there. As for the pre-transformer HF shunt, it should produce no significant power in the output if the case is grounded, true? (You might be right about that though, that cheap Radio Shack supply might be 2 pronged, and it is unregulated I believe.) Besides, the source of significant spikes in that direction is from the line, not from the cell. If it's from the cell, where does the inital power come from? The average power must balance. And how does it get by the filtering capacitor and diode without going to ground on the reverse trip? Maybe you see some possibilities I don't. Maybe a good idea would be to build some kind of PPC simulation circuit, some kind of unstable oscillator, or crazy rotary spark gap device (a tall order from a 2 W supply) to maximize the effect you are talking about and measure the best hidden power draw you can come up with. At least you would have the advantage that it would not have to look like a PPC or use water. There may be something learned by us all regarding PPC test methodology, or even cell design. > > >Then there is the problem of the source of the HF A/C. > >I don't think you understood the operation of the cell as I >described it. The >source of the HF DC Spikes of many TimeVarying frequencys is >the cell. >This is the reason measurements are difficult, even with a high >dollar scope. >Time varying spikes are difficult to measure. You would have to >observe >the supply over many different sweep ranges to observe them >all, much less >measure them. Even a $2100 scope these days provides peak voltage and current values in numeric form, resolved down to at least 50 MHz, or 20 ns. Check out your local Tektronix dealer. The portable Tekscope is flat amazing. I NEED one, just GOTTA have it! > > >>Finally, even if a HF source at 10 x the power were present, >>a DMM set on A/C amps would readily detect it. > >The Sample rate of most DMM is much to slow and would probably >miss most of the spikes. A DMM is pretty useless for measuring >a >complex waveform or time varying frequencys. The Cell I >descibed >would be pretty random with waveforms. It's not likely that the >action I am describing would fry the meter. Yes, it would miss most of the spikes. The problem for the hoax purpetrator is how to get enough spikes by for a sustained 100 to 1 hidden throughput. A good DMM might even miss 100 percent, but 1000 percent? > >>PS - You may have noticed I put your idea of controlling >ambient pressure >>in the suggested improvements list for the 10 m electrolytic >cell >>experiment for future reference. > >Horace, be extremely careful when experimenting with a closed >cell. With simple >experiments I perfomed, using 10 volts @ 10 ma I built up >enough pressure >to push electrolyte thru a very good neoprene seal. I could >relate to you a >horror story where a Glass enclosed cell exploded during an >experiment >I was performing about 30 years ago. I'm real lucky I wasn't >blinded by >the flying glass!!!!! Yes, thanks for the concern. I am aware of the danger. The method in my post was not closed but open. The idea was to use a fixed height water column to provide the constant pressure head. On another note, I am very worried about the degassing chamber in the two loop calorimeter. It is sealed in a dewar and could spontaneously explode because the H2/O2 ratio is perfect. I included a couple extra tubes for purging the gas, but I need temperture control on the input displacing air. You should see the degasser. It looks like a sea anemone. It also has tubing for monitoring fluid level externally, and one for refreshing the solution with distilled water, as well as the input and output tubes. I will be much happier with an orthogonal cell, where the H2 bearing and O2 bearing electrolyes don't mix and there are 2 degassing chambers. It is going to cost me for another pump, heat exchanger, degasser, and some temperature measuring stations, and the new cell, but it's worth it. Best of all, there will be data on heat output from the anode separate from the heat output of the cathode. Interresting, eh? I am going to test the "standard" PPC already built first, but don't like the risk. > [snip] > >Joe Flynn > Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 21:37:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA13476; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 08:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 08:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: on A potential X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Horace, Thank you for the interesting messages on Marinov's force you sent me! I need some time to study the technical aspects of the proposed experiments. What about the calculation part, I would like to give some notes. First of all, I am not agreed with Michael Schaffer's notes on the vector potential. Yes, in the conventent eledctrodynamics it has been established that the potentials are never uniquely defined due to the gauge invariance. However, let us consider where it follows from? It follows from the fact that the solutions of Maxwell eqns must obey the gauge invariance. However, why must EM force, which can be of non-Lorentz nature, obey the gauge invariance? As I know there is no such mathematically strict proof. Moreover, there are the experiments where the vector potential displays in transparent form, i.e. the ones on Aharonov-Bohm effect. Despite the experiments should be described in frame of quantum mechanics, anyway, only the vector potential can influence the electron passing near (and outside) the solenoid of which magnetic field does not equal to zero only inside the solenoid. To resolve the contradiction between the reality of the vector potential and the gauge invariance, the physicists assume that because the end result of the AB experiments (displacement of the diifraction pattern) depends on the magnetic flux (which is observable quantity) but not on the vector potential all is OK in the above problem. However, the question - what really do influence the electron except the vector potential - remains. So it seems the physicists keep in mind that the vector potential is a real physical quantity but never speak it. Concerning Scott Little's note on an infinitely long solenoid and definition of the vector potential inside and outside the latter, I would like to say that this problem is fully considered in the book of Peshkin and Tonomura I cited. It isn't so easy to add some "grad phi" to the vector potential in such a way that new vector potential doesn't contain divergencies at the axis or at the boundary of the solenoid because "phi" must obey the wave equation with zero boundary conditions. I proposed the experiment for direct detection of the vector potential in the classical electrodynamics where the end result depends only on the vector potential. Because I am a theoretical physicist (at least, I was him two years ago) but not experimentator I cannot carry out the experiment myself. However, I make the calculations according them whether we must observe breaking of the law of the energy conservation or we must detect directly the vector potential. I told the content of my paper at Electrodynamical seminar of St.Pete Physical Society. There were some orthodoxal physicists at that seminar, however, they had to be agreed with my arguments. So I don't think a non-unique definition of the vector potential is the obstacle in the experiments you propose. Now I would like to ask some questions on Lawrence Wharton's definition of Marinov's force. 1. What Hamiltonian it corresponds to? 2. Let us choose the charge velocity v to be directed only along one axis, for example, x axis. Then it is easily to calculate that Marinov's force degenerates into the only term: Fx = [vxdot(dAx/dx)]; where Ax is the x component of A, vx is the corresponding component of the velocity and d_/dx is the partial divergence with respect to coordinate. Obviously, dAx/dx never can be expressed via the magnetic field. However, all the proposed schemes of the experiments are for the magnetic field. How do you intend to overcome this obstacle? If my message is interesting to the vortex people, please, post it, of course with correction of my English. With warm regard, Volodya Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 08:55:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA15166; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Joe Flynn writes: > There would be high current spikes and odd frequencies riding the input > lines. > ... I can easily predict a margin of error greater than 10 times. You are making demands that the power supplies can't deliver. In theory perhaps you can sneak large amounts of power passed the xformer cores, filter caps, regulators, but in reality it is generally not possible to do so, as all these elements have limitations on transient response (ability to deliver.) In the last CETI demo, they just used "battery eliminators" which are low wattage devices (less than 5W.) If you can pull 50 watts average through one of them with some spike mechanism, and if this is all hidden from the type of meters used by CETI et al, then I will be impressed. -- - 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@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 09:09:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA17049; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 09:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 09:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman motor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk writes: > I would like to propose to Mr. Newman, and all members of this list > that we as a group ask Scott Little to do an independent test of the > Newman motor. Perhaps we are overloading Scott. There are more whacky ideas than hours in a day. We each have to be selective in which ones we will pursue. To be brutally honest, there aren't many OU claims that I'd spend 10 cents on trying to investigate. I just don't object to others spending their time and money on them -- it's just another hobby, like stamp collecting. -- - 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@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 09:22:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA19065; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 09:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 09:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: dacha@shentel.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: longitudinal force >From Russia< X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >Dear Horace, > >Thank you for the interesting messages on Marinov's force you sent me! > >I need some time to study the technical aspects of the proposed >experiments. What about the calculation part, I would like to give some >notes. > >First of all, I am not agreed with Michael Schaffer's notes on the vector >potential. Yes, in the conventent eledctrodynamics it has been established >that the potentials are never uniquely defined due to the gauge >invariance. However, let us consider where it follows from? It follows >from the fact that the solutions of Maxwell eqns must obey the gauge >invariance. >However, why must EM force, which can be of non-Lorentz nature, obey the >gauge invariance? As I know there is no such mathematically strict proof. > >Moreover, there are the experiments where the vector potential displays >in transparent form, i.e. the ones on Aharonov-Bohm effect. Despite the >experiments should be described in frame of quantum mechanics, anyway, >only the vector potential can influence the electron passing near (and >outside) the solenoid of which magnetic field does not equal to zero only >inside the solenoid. >To resolve the contradiction between the reality of the vector potential >and the gauge invariance, the physicists assume that because the end >result of the AB experiments (displacement of the diifraction pattern) >depends on the magnetic flux (which is observable quantity) but not on the >vector potential all is OK in the above problem. >However, the question - what really do influence the electron except the >vector potential - remains. >So it seems the physicists keep in mind that the vector potential is a >real physical quantity but never speak it. > >Concerning Scott Little's note on an infinitely long solenoid and >definition of the vector potential inside and outside the latter, I would >like to say that this problem is fully considered in the book of Peshkin >and Tonomura I cited. It isn't so easy to add some "grad phi" to the >vector potential in such a way that new vector potential doesn't contain >divergencies at the axis or at the boundary of the solenoid because "phi" >must obey the wave equation with zero boundary conditions. > >I proposed the experiment for direct detection of the vector potential in >the classical electrodynamics where the end result depends only on the >vector potential. Because I am a theoretical physicist (at least, I was >him two years ago) but not experimentator I cannot carry out the >experiment myself. However, I make the calculations according them whether >we must observe breaking of the law of the energy conservation or we must >detect directly the vector potential. >I told the content of my paper at Electrodynamical seminar of St.Pete >Physical Society. There were some orthodoxal physicists at that seminar, >however, they had to be agreed with my arguments. >So I don't think a non-unique definition of the vector potential is the >obstacle in the experiments you propose. > >Now I would like to ask some questions on Lawrence Wharton's definition of >Marinov's force. > >1. What Hamiltonian it corresponds to? > >2. Let us choose the charge velocity v to be directed only along one axis, >for example, x axis. Then it is easily to calculate that Marinov's force >degenerates into the only term: >Fx = [vxdot(dAx/dx)]; where Ax is the x component of A, vx is the >corresponding component of the velocity and d_/dx is the partial >divergence with respect to coordinate. >Obviously, dAx/dx never can be expressed via the magnetic field. However, >all the proposed schemes of the experiments are for the magnetic field. >How do you intend to overcome this obstacle? > >If my message is interesting to the vortex people, please, post it, of >course with correction of my English. > >With warm regard, >Volodya From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 10:30:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00105; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960421125945_195527858@emout18.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Puthoff@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Another try at the Yusmar X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris, Re Dave Davies try at the Yusmar. Should we send him a set of our reports on our attempts? (Maybe they would just be discouraging!) If so, let us know his address. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 10:32:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00344; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960421132132_195537480@emout17.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Puthoff@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: longitudinal force. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Re Scott's question concerning longitudinal force as discussed by Graneau. My understanding is that Maxwell's eqns with Lorentz force eq does NOT predict a longitudinal force. That is why Graneau resurrected Ampere's formula because it DID predict such a force, which he has observed on his Hg boat experiment among others. Both Lorentz and Ampere force laws agree for closed circuits, but they differ for open circuits (as in rail guns) in that under the open circuit condition only the Ampere force law predicts a longitudinal force. As I understand it, Marinov's proposed longitudinal force goes one step further predicting the possibility of a "perpetuum mobile" which neither the Lorentz nor the Ampere force law would predict. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 11:34:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12074; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3SZQ6BWGI9BYNC1@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 21 Apr 1996 08:55:39 John Logajan wrote: >You are making demands that the power supplies can't deliver. Give me the Data. Data that we Know are FACT. Not just number released by CETI or Patterson. Numbers obtained independently. Please include the source of the Data. I don't believe something just because someone "heard" or "read" or "reported". >In theory perhaps you can sneak large amounts of power passed >the xformer cores, filter caps, regulators, but in reality it is generally not >possible to do so, as all these elements have limitations on transient >response (ability to deliver.) Electronic and electrical design is my business. Be more specific as to what limitations and specific devices you are speaking of, this is to ambigious for me to answer without specifics. >In the last CETI demo, they just used "battery eliminators" which are >low wattage devices (less than 5W.) Again how do you know these were not transformerless supplies. Did an independent source disassemble one? Did CETI say what kind of "Battery Eliminators they were? My lap top computer uses a transformerless battery eliminator, and with the change of a single resistor I can pull several hundred watts thru it. It looks just like a transformer type. Do you Know what I mean by Transformerless? Just in case, simply put its a triac phase control (similar to a light dimmer) with some extra bells and whistles. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 11:34:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12158; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604211819.NAA11893@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: longitudinal force >From Russia< X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:22 AM 4/21/96 -0700, Volodya wrote: >>I proposed the experiment for direct detection of the vector potential in >>the classical electrodynamics where the end result depends only on the >>vector potential. I would like to obtain an English copy of this proposal. I am interested in performing the experiment you describe. Robert, do you have this work of Volodya? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 11:36:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12295; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604211819.NAA11865@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman motor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:08 AM 4/21/96 -0700, Logajan wrote: >Perhaps we are overloading Scott. There are more whacky ideas than >hours in a day. We each have to be selective in which ones we will >pursue. To be brutally honest, there aren't many OU claims that I'd >spend 10 cents on trying to investigate. John makes an excellent point here. We started out in this "business" thinking that we could objectively test EVERY device that came to our attention. This is proving to be impractical and we are now grappling with the uncomfortable problem of discriminating among the many devices out there. It is difficult to be completly objective in this discrimination process. I would greatly appreciate some suggestions from the group as to how to objectively rank devices for testing and investigation. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 14:02:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09094; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman motor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >I would greatly appreciate some suggestions from the group as to how to >objectively rank devices for testing and investigation. > - Scott Little You may be interrested in an idea called the Delphi Principle. I don't recall where I read about this or who did the reasearch. The purpose of the research was to find the best predictive statistic resulting from surveys of predictions of future quantitative values (oops , problems already, quantifying, ugh) by established experts (oh oh, more problems). This research was applied to things like expected crop yields in the Ukraine for the next year and things like that, where actual event data could be obatained and compared to the prediction of the experts. The best predictor was the mean of the 1st and and 3rd quartiles. This basically means throw out the whacko top 1/4 and bottom 1/4 and average the remaining extremes. This is the Delphi Principle. This group is maybe a little small to try it on, but it might work. Give us something to go on and we privately email you back an estimated percent probability of success (very low in all case), and a 0-10 ranking number based on the intangible quality of the claim or the apparatus. Can't hurt. Probably won't help, but it may be interresting. Maybe a weighted priority or knockoff checklist would be a good start, eg: Will ship apparatus __ Will attend test __ Apparatus shippable in a practical way __ Apparatus currently working __ Apparatus works reliably __ Apparatus requires great expertise to operate succesfully __ Technical description of Apparatus available __ Experimental data is available for comparison to expected performance when test is made by EarthTech International __ Is apparatus easily replicatable __ Piece of the profit action is available __ Percent ou __ Marketable device in short time if it proves out __ Marketable device with reasonable capital risk if it proves out __ Inventor suffers from inventor's syndrome __ Inventor's time available to fix problems should they arise __ Patent protection available __ Patent pending __ Patent infringement on broader patent __ Potential Market Size __ Then there is the old prioritizing number: (expected cost)/(expected benefit). Probably most important is the fun criteria: "if it ain't fun don't do it". Just food for thought. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 14:02:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09238; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604212031.QAA07154@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: 10 meter Cell Experiment Conclusions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >Since vortex seems to be working very well again I will try to post the >following conclusions again for those who did not receive them. I have not received any messages from vortex since April 14. Today a whole pile of messages arrived, but it does seem as if I have missed some intervening messages as there are references to messages I never did receive. I do hope that vortex is, in fact, "working very well again". > > >The following are final observations and conclusions posted to attempt to >bring this experimental effort to a close for now on my part. > ... > >DIRECT CONCLUSIONS FROM DATA > >(1) The most significant conclusion is that charge differential can be >equalized in a 1 m Li2SO4 electrolytic cell at a velocity of more than 10^6 >m/s in a field gradient as small as 1 V/m, and this can happen in an >electrolyte flowing at over 4 cm/s in either direction. This is determined >by looking at the rise time of the square wave at output of cell vs input >of cell. Looking back through your message, Horace, I realize that I have never really understood what you meant when referring to the "output" of the cell versus the "input of the cell". Since the electrolysis cell is a two terminal device, I don't think this terminology is appropriate. The circuit that you set up, as I understand it, is as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): -------------- V1 --------------------- | power |----o----| electrolyte (10m) |--- | source | --------------------- | | (square wave | G R1 V2 | | generator) |----o---/\/\/\/---o-------------- -------------- | | \|/ ground With a common ground, you placed the scope probe at points V1 and V2 in the circuit. The output of the power source (V1) was 10 V. The potential applied to the cell is the difference between V1 and V2. The current is V2/R1. Your discussion suggests that you tried to measure the propagation time of a pulse applied as an "input" to the 10m long cell, but I think all you can be observing is the phase relationship between the current and the voltage. >... >(3) The unexpected 0.4 V drop in the output voltage square wave appears to >be the well understood faradaic rectification effect. > Could you elaborate on what is meant by "faradaic rectification effect"? Can you provide a reference? > >ANALYSIS > >Since it is well known this analysis is by an untrained amateur, >appropriate preceeding clauses like "as far as I know", or "in my limited >experience", or "I think" are assumed and deleted in the interest of >brevity, with most all of my posts. Understood. >... >Based the fact that charge can clearly move through the solution at 10^6 >m/s, much faster than heavy nuclear ions can propagate a wave via a local >field gradient change, there appears to be an inconsistancy in the >assumptions. I suggest the possibility that, to some degree, charge is >transported through the solution regime via electrons. I don't understand this notion of "propagate a wave via a local field gradient change". You are simply applying a varying potential across the cell and you are measuring the variation in the current. I do not see any inconsistency with the assumptions. > It is interresting >that this could be true without changing any existing model for steady >state electrolysis. This is because the electron charge transport would >occur in the solution regime and terminate with great likelyhood when the >electron reaches the ion gradient at the boundary of the interface regime. >The net effect of the electron transport could look like an actual ion >transport. It is just that a charged species is replaced (in net effet) by >an uncharge species at the end of the electron propagation chain, or vice >versa. For example, given a starting condition of an Li atom at the anode >and Li+ at the cathode, and electron exchange could occur of the form: > >Li.............Li+ (initial condition, Li momentarily created by electonation) > >Li+...e-..->...Li+ (electron transiting) > >Li+............Li (electron transit complete. Li then quickly gives up e-) > > >The net effect is equivalent to a charged species diffusing in one >direction, and an uncharged species in the other. The electron propagation >could be via holes or actual electrons. Horace, I think your model of electrical conductivity needs to be brought up to date. Do you really think that it makes sense to speak of an electron as if it can be labelled and following its "path" from one end of a conductor to another? This grossly contradicts what quantum mechanics has to say about the nature of reality (however strange that may be). Modern solid state physics treats the many-body wavefunction of a conductor in terms of "energy bands". The electrons are "de-localized" within the conduction band, i.e. these electrons have no well defined locations and the wavefunction is non-zero over the entire length of the conductor. > It is already suggested that the >proton propagation rate is high and tunneling is being suggested as a >possibility. Due to the electron's far greater ability to tunnel, it seems >like electron tunneling in the solution regime should be considered a >possibility. Again, the difference between an insulator and a conductor is explained by the exclusion principle and the organization of the allowed energy levels into bands with significant gaps between bands. An insulator has its conduction band full so that no change in electron energy is allowed, while an conductor has only a partially filled band, allowing electrons easy access to higher energy states, thus allowing them to react to changes in the applied potential. The ability of the electron to "tunnel" has little to do with the notion of conductivity, except to provide the situation where such "delocalization" occurs and energy bands are formed. Most electrolytes are electronic insulators in this sense. This same analysis can be applied to the motion of protons (and to a muct lesser extend to some extent other ions). Water appears as a proton semiconductor to which dopants can be added to affect the occuppation of proton band states just as with electronic semiconductors. >... >(5) Further investigation and analysis of the rate of charge equalization >in the solution regime of an electrolytic cell seems warranted. It appears >most investigations have been carred out using cells with electrodes, and >thus electode interfaces. This muddies the water with regard to transport >in the fluid regime. Using electrodeless cells might assist in >investigating electron charge transport, if existant. Charge differentials >can be generated in tubing carrying electrolyte via induction, thus >avoiding the need for elctrodes altogether. Resulting currents can still >be examined via current probes, which do not require electrodes. Such >configurations might possibly be used to generate pressure peaks, i.e >hammering pulses, in a sonoluminescence based fusion devices. It may be >possible to generate such pulses in electrodeless MHD pulse generators. >Understanding the mechanism of current propagation would be essential for >engineering such devices. I think this idea is very important and I would like to discuss the notion of "electrodeless" cells in more detail. More comments to follow .. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 14:03:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09324; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9604212149.AA09322@ arnold.math.ucla.edu.ucsd.edu > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: barry@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman motor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >I would like to propose to Mr. Newman, and all members of this list >that we as a group ask Scott Little to do an independent test >Such a test(s), if positive, would lend more credence to the Newman >motors, and likely convince other laboratories, of the merits of >making similar tests. I doubt it. Sorry, Scott, but I would have to trust the tests made by the National Bureau of Standards over those made at EarthTech. Any re-opening of the Newman Motor case would have to address several points: (1) What was wrong with the NIST tests, which *provided a clear explantion* of the functioning of the newman motor? (i.e. his ``long wire'' winding made huge voltage spikes that were missed by ordinary test equipment). and, the following tangential, but curious, points; (2) If Newmand eletric motor is well over unity, why in all these years (> 10 years now) has he never been able to hook it up in a self-driving mode? (3) Why take seriously someone of Newmans, shall we say, dubious character? (divine inspiration for his invention, a whacked out theory for why it ``works'', a few years of jail time after god commanded him to have sex with a minor, etc). Personally, I think it best to ignore Newman. He's blown his chances. If his motor works, its his burden to prove it to the world now. If Scott Little wants to repeat the NIST tests, that is fine, though he's likely to need some pricey special test equipment. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 15:54:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA28310; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960421220121_100060.173_JHB107-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman motor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott, >> I would greatly appreciate some suggestions from the group as to how to objectively rank devices for testing and investigation. << Since you ask - I would prioritize in the following descending order: 1. Devices which are supplied by the inventor complete and in full working order with a full and clear set of operating instructions in English. 2. Devices capable of manufacture and assembly from full working drawings supplied by the inventor, otherwise as 1. I feel strongly that any other proposal without complete design and operational specifications supplied by the inventor, is virtually guaranteed to fail and a complete waste of time and cash. The other stumbling block which always arises is the fear of the inventor that we will steal his wonderful ideas and he will be left with nothing. If this fear isn't abated by the signature of the researcher on a legally binding confidentiality agreement then its no-go. So we should have a standard agreement ready for signature. Hope this helps. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 20:26:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA15017; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 04/21/96 18:21 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? TO JOE FLYNN--- - Would you please contact Jim Redding at CETI directly and tell him that you plan to make it clear you believe the cell is a hoax? At first I was very irritated when I read your postings. But then I realized that you have not had "hands on" and I have. There is no mystery source of power going into the cells. There are no magic "spikes" supplying un-accounted for power. When you switch the DVOMs to AC, which I have done, you get millivolts of ripple out of the DC power supplies, WHILE they are supplying the cell. The DC power supplies are standards. The power supply I dealt with was switched BY HAND WITH BANANA PLUGS between running a heating omhic resistance in the flow line to "powering the cell". - What you are bringing up as a point which is valid is that Redding is being so "controlling" on the cells/materials/samples etc. as to leave them (CETI) open to such complaints. Redding, in this respect, is a fool. And I congradulate you on making that point so eloquently. But PLEASE, at least ATTEMPT to contact Redding/CETI and voice your concerns directly there ---where it has some meaning. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 20:28:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA15391; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 04/21/96 18:04 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: 28April For those of you who read the posting from Frank Z about being in Urbana IL with Miley on the 28th of April, this was CANCELED at Jim Redding's request. This is among just a few of the reasons that my sympathies for Redding et.al. are at a VERY LOW EBB. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 22:11:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA02978; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960422034718_75110.3417_CHK55-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman motor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Horace, >> The best predictor was the mean of the 1st and and 3rd quartiles. This basically means throw out the whacko top 1/4 and bottom 1/4 and average the remaining extremes. This is the Delphi Principle. << I read somewhere that this technique was tried using non-experts -- just the general population (however that was determined, I don't know). They reported that the general population were better predictors (using the Delphi techniques) than the experts. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 22:12:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA03160; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: 10 meter Cell Experiment Conclusions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page wrote: > >Looking back through your message, Horace, I realize that I have never >really understood what you meant when referring to the "output" of the cell >versus the "input of the cell". Since the electrolysis cell is a two >terminal device, I don't think this terminology is appropriate. The circuit >that you set up, as I understand it, is as follows (please correct me if >I am wrong): > > > -------------- V1 --------------------- > | power |----o----| electrolyte (10m) |--- > | source | --------------------- | > | (square wave | G R1 V2 | > | generator) |----o---/\/\/\/---o-------------- > -------------- | > | > \|/ > ground > >With a common ground, you placed the scope probe at points V1 and V2 in >the circuit. The output of the power source (V1) was 10 V. The potential >applied to the cell is the difference between V1 and V2. The current is >V2/R1. This is correct for the later "with resistor still in place" experiments and the for the last three photos on www. The square wave generator is the scope calibrator circuit. The ground is the scope ground which actually has continuity with the ground pin on the recepticle and the shield of the probe, unlike modern scopes where entire circuits float. The other voltage measurement were tkaen by simply putting the probe onto V2, eliminating R1, but the scope has a low impedence compared to today's stuff, so the R is still there, but it's about 0.9 megohms I believe. > >Your discussion suggests that you tried to measure the propagation time >of a pulse applied as an "input" to the 10m long cell, but I think all >you can be observing is the phase relationship between the current and >the voltage. No, this is a very slow 1 kHz square wave. I think you get exactly the same output using battery input (infinite wavelength) but I could not photograph it. A digital scope is what is needed. > >>... >>(3) The unexpected 0.4 V drop in the output voltage square wave appears to >>be the well understood faradaic rectification effect. >> > >Could you elaborate on what is meant by "faradaic rectification effect"? >Can you provide a reference? > The effect, a shift in output potential vs. input potential at the interface is due to lack of symmetry in the i vs. nu (overpotential) curve. See "Modern Electrochemistry" Vol 2, by Bockris, p. 885. (Thanks again!) >> >>ANALYSIS >> >>Since it is well known this analysis is by an untrained amateur, >>appropriate preceeding clauses like "as far as I know", or "in my limited >>experience", or "I think" are assumed and deleted in the interest of >>brevity, with most all of my posts. > >Understood. > >>... >>Based the fact that charge can clearly move through the solution at 10^6 >>m/s, much faster than heavy nuclear ions can propagate a wave via a local >>field gradient change, there appears to be an inconsistancy in the >>assumptions. I suggest the possibility that, to some degree, charge is >>transported through the solution regime via electrons. > >I don't understand this notion of "propagate a wave via a local field >gradient change". You are simply applying a varying potential across the >cell and you are measuring the variation in the current. I do not see any >inconsistency with the assumptions. I have a feeling you missed a bunch of posts on this topic. I'll try to be brief. (1) A potential in a cell only occurs only due to the *local* presence of charge. The instrumentaion involved could not detect the potential at the input to the cell over 10 cm much less 10 m if there were no fluid, for example. (2) The coveyance of potential dV/dT mandates and is completely tied to the conveyance of charge dQ/dT. You can not have one without the other in the electrolyte. (3) EM fields, to the limited extent they propagate in water, can only carry oscillating fields, not charge. (4) The propagtion of charge dQ/dT involves the movement of charge in response to an intitating (but close) movement of charge dQ/dT, thus requires the acceleration of charge dI/dT. (5) Mass is associated with every form of charge. Therefore the rate of acceleration of charge dI/dT involves a force (the electrostatic change in force due to the local dQ) and the mass of the charge. (6) The practical range of the electrostatic force in the potentials involved is very short. The propagation of an EMF is therefore a wave similar to a spring/mass wave. The mass moves, the spring compresses, the adjacent masses move, etc. (7) therefore, the rate of propagation of an EMF in an electrolyte is inversely proportional to the mass of the charge transporting the EMF. (8) Therefore an upper limit on proton EMF propagation speed is Vp = C/(Mp/Me) = (299792458 m/s)/1836.152701 = 163272.0731 m/s or 1.6x10^5 m/s. Since the propagation speed of electrons in wire is .6 C a better limit is 0.6 x 1.6x10^5 = 9.8x10^4 m/s. (9) since the rise time of a square wave in the 10 m cell indicates a propagation speed of about 10^6 m/s, proton conduction, which may be involved in large currents, does not answer how a small charge is transported so fast across 10 m. > >> It is interresting >>that this could be true without changing any existing model for steady >>state electrolysis. This is because the electron charge transport would >>occur in the solution regime and terminate with great likelyhood when the >>electron reaches the ion gradient at the boundary of the interface regime. >>The net effect of the electron transport could look like an actual ion >>transport. It is just that a charged species is replaced (in net effet) by >>an uncharge species at the end of the electron propagation chain, or vice >>versa. For example, given a starting condition of an Li atom at the anode >>and Li+ at the cathode, and electron exchange could occur of the form: >> >>Li.............Li+ (initial condition, Li momentarily created by >>electonation) >> >>Li+...e-..->...Li+ (electron transiting) >> >>Li+............Li (electron transit complete. Li then quickly gives up e-) >> >> >>The net effect is equivalent to a charged species diffusing in one >>direction, and an uncharged species in the other. The electron propagation >>could be via holes or actual electrons. > >Horace, I think your model of electrical conductivity needs to be >brought up to date. Do you really think that it makes sense to speak of >an electron as if it can be labelled and following its "path" from one >end of a conductor to another? This grossly contradicts what quantum >mechanics has to say about the nature of reality (however strange that >may be). Modern solid state physics treats the many-body wavefunction of >a conductor in terms of "energy bands". The electrons are "de-localized" >within the conduction band, i.e. these electrons have no well defined >locations and the wavefunction is non-zero over the entire length of >the conductor. Note that the above says "electron exchange", it does not say one electron goes from beginning to end. An electrolyte is not a crystal structure, although it has "islands" of structure. I *do* think there are, for the most part, long event chains involving single e-e exchanges across atomic gaps (actually involving skipping "through" one or more inert atoms via the electrostatic force, and across interatomic gaps via tunneling, and direct inter-orbital exchanges.) that result in net charge propagation. It is true that, for example, two electrons could arrive at a locality and only one depart, or vice versa, but for the most part I would think there would be individaul chains of events. > >> It is already suggested that the >>proton propagation rate is high and tunneling is being suggested as a >>possibility. Due to the electron's far greater ability to tunnel, it seems >>like electron tunneling in the solution regime should be considered a >>possibility. > >Again, the difference between an insulator and a conductor is explained >by the exclusion principle and the organization of the allowed energy >levels into bands with significant gaps between bands. An insulator has >its conduction band full so that no change in electron energy is allowed, >while an conductor has only a partially filled band, allowing electrons >easy access to higher energy states, thus allowing them to react to >changes in the applied potential. The ability of the electron to "tunnel" >has little to do with the notion of conductivity, except to provide >the situation where such "delocalization" occurs and energy bands are >formed. > >Most electrolytes are electronic insulators in this sense. > >This same analysis can be applied to the motion of protons (and to a muct >lesser extend to some extent other ions). Water appears as a proton >semiconductor to which dopants can be added to affect the occuppation of >proton band states just as with electronic semiconductors. I admit I am clueless regarding proton conduction bands in an electrolyte. However, the present description of diffusion as the primary vehicle of charge transport in the low field gradient environment of the solution regime seems absurd to me in light of the speed at which it takes place, especially upstream, so proton conduction sounds like a big improvement for an explanation. Electron tunneling is a principle player in the mechanics of the interaface. If it can play such a strong role in the metal-electrolyte interface, which is atom to atom, why can it not play a similar role in an electrolyte to electrolyte (atom to atom or ion to ion) exchange? In other words, how come the atoms/ions so cooperative at the interface get so inert in the solution? [snip] > >Cheers, >Bill Page. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 23:29:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA15087; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Frank Stenger X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > In honor of new vortex member Frank Stenger I thought I would >mention Stephan Marinov's E&M. Frank has been a leader in investigating >the logitiduinal electromagnetic force which is a magnetic like force that >is directed along a particle's velocity. [snip] >Lawrence E. Wharton Is Frank Stenger still on board? I didn't catch his email address. After watching Frank Stenger's ball lightning experiment on Frank Znidarsic's video tape I came to the conclusion Frank must be a very interesting guy, and good craftsman, even if his neighbors might be a little concerned about those noisy discharges! He's definitely into very exciting experiments. I was hoping to hear from Frank Stenger in this forum. What do you think about Marinov's force Frank? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 23:31:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA15294; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman motor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Hi Horace, > >>> The best predictor was the mean of the 1st and and 3rd quartiles. This >basically means throw out the whacko top 1/4 and bottom 1/4 and average the >remaining extremes. This is the Delphi Principle. << > >I read somewhere that this technique was tried using non-experts -- just the >general population (however that was determined, I don't know). > >They reported that the general population were better predictors (using the >Delphi techniques) than the experts. > > Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) That's great! But did they ever try self described lunatic fringe free energy true believers allied with serious scientists and engineers? (Heh, heh, guess everybody knows which category I'm in. %^} ) You are left with optimists and optimistic pessimists. How do you deal with that? Throw out the top 1/2 and bottom 1/8? Thinking some more, that must be top 5/8 and bottom 1/8. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 23:33:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA15777; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3TQCTX49E9BYWB1@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Patterson Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >Well, for the PPC to be a hoax that hoax pupetrator needs to figure out how >to conduct 200 watts on a sustained basis through that 2 watt transformer >undetected. Unfortunately we only have the details of the of the Patterson Cell as CETI wishes to release. This includes the EXACT nature of their power supply. As I stated in an earlier post, their are many kinds of power supplies I'm not totally convinced a Hoax is always intentional, not at the beginning anyway, sometimes information is covered up when it's discovered at a later time. I am not one to easily believe anything based on limited info, even my own projects. I am willing to risk the fact that something may not be as it appears, and do and will always ask tough questions. >There are two ways to fry a diode. To much heat (sustained current) or too >much voltage. Too much voltage will zap them almost instantly. Only exceeding Peak Reverse Voltage or (PRV or PIV) will zap them fairly quickly. Forward voltage of several hundred volts is not a problem with most rectifier diodes used in power supplies. I'm assuming you Know the difference in these specs. Again High current in continuous pulses depends on duty cycle, and may not harm the diode and your DMM may incorrectly average this value. >You are talking about capacitors in series. The ripple voltage divided by >the supply voltage of capacitors in parallel to the load, as with a >smoothing capacitor across the output of a DC power supply, reduces with >the frequency of the signal. You get the same ripple with much smaller >capacitors when the supply frequency increases. A big capacitor designed >for smoothing 60 Hz will wipe out sustained HF energy. You would be lucky >to get 10 percent extra sustained power past it and 1000 percent is way out >there. As for the pre-transformer HF shunt, it should produce no >significant power in the output if the case is grounded, true? (You might >be right about that though, that cheap Radio Shack supply might be 2 >pronged, and it is unregulated I believe.) Besides, the source of >significant spikes in that direction is from the line, not from the cell. >If it's from the cell, where does the inital power come from? The average >power must balance. And how does it get by the filtering capacitor and >diode without going to ground on the reverse trip? Maybe you see some >possibilities I don't. I'm not talking about caps in series, but parallel. one for ripple one to bypass HF to the negative side of the supply. First you do not have a ground if you have a transformer providing isolation from the main unless the secondary neg is also hooked to the case. If this is so then I could include another whole set of circumstances to add to the list of possibilities. For instance if the CETI pump has grounded metal parts ie: stainless steel and the power connection to the pump is incorrectly wired and with a grounded secondary on the power supply you could easily have 120 volts and current only limited by the main presented to the cell. This would not be measured between the outputs of the supply. Ever here of a wireless intercom, where the audio is transmitted over the house wiring on 455 khz carrier? You can put a cap across the main so the signal will be on both sides of the 220 main, why do you think this signal is not "grounded out". In an ungrounded supply what frequencies do you think a 1000 uf cap will pass? Ever hear of a negative going spike, one that goes below ground? The supply ground then appears as a positive to the spike. >Maybe a good idea would be to build some kind of PPC simulation circuit, >some kind of unstable oscillator, or crazy rotary spark gap device (a tall >order from a 2 W supply) to maximize the effect you are talking about and >measure the best hidden power draw you can come up with. At least you >would have the advantage that it would not have to look like a PPC or use >water. There may be something learned by us all regarding PPC test >methodology, or even cell design. I have already operated a cell, using metal and plastic (insulating) spheres configured as I described in my original post, allowing the cell to sustain combustion. I'm still convinced that something based on my original post is the true underlying action of the Patterson Cell. I have a very well equipped lab and machine shop, and can quickly perform simple experiments based on what I see posted here. I have very limited time due to other projects and cannot take the amount of time necessary to do extensive tests but perhaps as time permits I can gather some useful data. >Even a $2100 scope these days provides peak voltage and current values in >numeric form, resolved down to at least 50 MHz, or 20 ns. Check out your >local Tektronix dealer. The portable Tekscope is flat amazing. I NEED one, >just GOTTA have it! I currently use a Tektronic T912 storage scope, I hope to upgrade someday. Amen, Nothing beats a good scope for accurate testing. >On another note, I am very worried about the degassing chamber in the two >loop calorimeter. It is sealed in a dewar and could spontaneously explode >because the H2/O2 ratio is perfect. I included a couple extra tubes for >purging the gas, but I need temperture control on the input displacing air. >You should see the degasser. It looks like a sea anemone. It also has >tubing for monitoring fluid level externally, and one for refreshing the >solution with distilled water, as well as the input and output tubes. I >will be much happier with an orthogonal cell, where the H2 bearing and O2 >bearing electrolyes don't mix and there are 2 degassing chambers. It is >going to cost me for another pump, heat exchanger, degasser, and some >temperature measuring stations, and the new cell, but it's worth it. Best >of all, there will be data on heat output from the anode separate from the >heat output of the cathode. Interresting, eh? I am going to test the >"standard" PPC already built first, but don't like the risk. I can relate, some of my projects look very stange also. My wife wants to make an art studio on the second floor of my lab, currently my storage space. When I clean it out I will check with you before tossing, to see if there might be something of interest to you. I've accumulated some interesting junk like condensing tubes to drip flow meters and who knows what else. It will probably be late summer before I get around to it. Keep up the good work, if anyone will make it happen independent of CETI it's quite possible it'll be you and don't blow yourself up! Joe Flynn Flynn Research Inc. P.O. Box 11657 Kansas City, Mo. 64138 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 23:34:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA15996; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:33:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:33:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3TQF4RUGO9BYWB1@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I have another pressure riddle. 1st: Input power produces H and O at some rate of efficiency, Right? Pressure builds up at some rate in a closed cell, Right? If the pressure is forced to do work as it is released, and then the H and O is burned to produce heat afterward, what amount of the input was the stored energy in the work performed by releasing the pressure and what amount of the input is recovered in producing the heat of combustion?? 2nd: Input power produces H and O at some rate of efficiency, Right? Pressure is not built up but the H & O is burned as it is produced. What happened to the amount of energy used to pressurize? Was more gas produced thus more heat? Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 23:36:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA16186; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3TQRCW8M69BYWB1@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Electrolysis spiral\ for Horace X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >If you are interested I will post a description of an >electrolysis cell that creates an >observable spiral around the positive electrode using a >stationary magnet. This may >have to do with the spiral effects you have been describing, I >don't know, but >it's neat to look at. > >Joe Flynn > Let's here it! Sounds cool. Horace, since it's easier to show with drawings I am Mailing a copy of the experiment to you. It's from "The Storage of Electrical Energy" by Gaston Plante and referred to as "The electro-Dynamic Whirls Experiment" I tried it and it works. If you do not have a strong enough magnet let me know, I'll supply you with one. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 01:05:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA29623; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:03:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:03:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960422074153_100060.173_JHB54-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark, >> the posting from Frank Z about being in Urbana IL with Miley on the 28th of April, this was CANCELED at Jim Redding's request. << While my gast may be completely flabbered, this is in full keeping with the attitude of Redding from the start. My guess is that the ou performance of their cell has not be replicated by an independent lab who have had the same fun and games as vortexians. If there had been full independent replication the wires would have been hot with the news by now, with the patents being granted and all. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 01:09:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA29792; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:05:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:05:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960422074153_100060.173_JHB54-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@CompuServe.COM> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark, >> the posting from Frank Z about being in Urbana IL with Miley on the 28th of April, this was CANCELED at Jim Redding's request. << While my gast may be completely flabbered, this is in full keeping with the attitude of Redding from the start. My guess is that the ou performance of their cell has not be replicated by an independent lab who have had the same fun and games as vortexians. If there had been full independent replication the wires would have been hot with the news by now, with the patents being granted and all. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 19:16:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA04090; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell voltage vs pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Scott Little wrote: > Dieter this one's primarily for you: > > I have been thinking about Flynn's suggestion that the gas pressure head on > an electrolysis cell would increase the required electrolysis voltage. I > have come to the tentative conclusion that, until you get up into pressures > where the ideal gas law doesn't hold, head pressure will have no effect on > cell voltage. > > I reached this conclusion by considering the work required to put a certain > volume of gas into the head space at a certain pressure. This work is > simply p*v. For a given amount of gas that obeys the ideal gas law the p*v > product is a constant (p*v = n*R*T) assuming constant temperature. > > Am I missing something here? > > If not, it seems that one could practically achieve some pretty high > pressures by using electrolysis to deliver gas into a closed volume. I think Flynn is thinking of equilibrium potentials, Nernst equation and all that, where pressure enters. The cell voltage is made up of the two over- voltages at the respective electrodes plus the iR drops. Neither of these would be affected greatly by pressure until you get to really high values. Basically, a high H2 pressure would also mean a higher concentration of dissolved H2, and a higher rate for the reverse reaction at the cathode, so you'd get less current for the same overvoltage, or (using constant current), a higher overvoltage for the same current. However, you are right about your last point; you can have "electrochemical compression". This is argued, correctly, by CNF believers, who say that the deuterium overvoltage presses deuterium into the Pd to high pressures. Where they go wrong (sometimes) is in equating fugacity (which is what you get out of the Nernst equation) with actual pressure. A fugacity of 10^26 is in fact "only" a pressure of 10^4 atm. Corrosion people know this well, it causes hydrogen embrittlement. And all you need to make it, is an overvoltage of 0.8 V. So, yes, you could indeed pressurise gas in a small volume by electro- chemistry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 18:41:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05926; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Scott Little wrote: > At 16:53 4/15/96 -0700, Dieter wrote: [...] > >2. There is the possibility (faint) of several side reactions at the cathode. > > But doesn't the most obvious of these just end up producing the same result > as a direct splitting of the H2O? For example, if a Li atom deposited on > the cathode wouldn't it promptly react with an H2O to produce LiOH plus a > free H? Similarly if some SO4 got deposited on the anode, it would react > with H2O to make H2SO4 and O (I think)...and then the LiOH and the H2SO4 > would eventually meet up and react back to Li2SO4 and H2O. This might come later, but while current flows, the Li would not redissolve. After all, something makes it deposit. SO4= ions would be quite inert. I was (pedantically) thinking of such side reactions as trace metals being deposited, like Cu, Zn, Pt and the like, and maybe small residues of O2 - or, come to think of it, O2 diffusing across from the anode - getting reduced [...] > Dieter: > > Practically speaking, assuming a saturated cathode and no recombination, are > there reactions that I haven't imagined that can significantly alter the > relationship between cell current and gas outflow rate that one can > calculate by assuming that one H2O molecule is dissociated every time 2 > electrons pass thru the cell? Leaving pedantry behind, the answer is "no". I go along with F&P; current efficiency is up around 99% or better. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 17:59:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA12693; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 02:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 02:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Tony Rusi To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 200+K Russian Superconductor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Went to the UW engineering open house Saturday. Went to the Materials Science building where one of the students who was twenty five years past 20 the normal college age, was demoing 123 the liquid nitrogen superconductor and the miesner effect. He floated a small magnet over the top of a disc of 123. The magnet only floated above the disc of 123 after the material reached thermal equilibrium, less than 30 seconds. He claims that The Journal of Superconductivity had an article in it about a 200+k Russian superconductor. Anybody seen this article? Or have access to it? Tony Rusi From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 19:07:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA12237; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 08:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 08:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604221405.KAA16244@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: 10 meter Cell Experiment Conclusions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >... Charge differentials >can be generated in tubing carrying electrolyte via induction, thus >avoiding the need for elctrodes altogether. Resulting currents can still >be examined via current probes, which do not require electrodes. Such >configurations might possibly be used to generate pressure peaks, i.e >hammering pulses, in a sonoluminescence based fusion devices. It may be >possible to generate such pulses in electrodeless MHD pulse generators. >Understanding the mechanism of current propagation would be essential for >engineering such devices. I wrote: >I think this idea is very important and I would like to discuss the >notion of "electrodeless" cells in more detail. More comments to follows >.. So consider a kind of transformer with one winding consisting of copper wire, the other "winding" consisting of coiled insulating tubing filled with an electrolyte. || ==============\ -----------\ || // || / || \\ || electronic \ || // ionic ||(------- current probe cicuit / || \\ circuit || \ || // || -----------/ || \\ || || ==============/ What sort of current probe do you have in mind? A SQUID-type of device? What sort of shielding would be necessary? It is possible to construct the proton semi-conductor analogue of a diode using juxtaposed oppositely doped electrolytes [see ref. M. Eigen in my 2-D Proton Conductor paper]. This has been tested using electrolytes in the solid-state (frozen), but perhaps it can also be done using suitably choosen membranes to separate the electrolytes. Or it might be desirable to freeze the electrolyte in the entire circuit. For obvious reasons, the solid state provides a better environment for band-state conduction. Using a proton semi-conductor diode bridge as a rectifier, it should be possible to set up a direct current proton circuit. Such a circuit might have the ability generate the kind of "pressure" (= proton EMF?) that you referred to above. Another type of experiment might attempt to measure the Hall effect currents induced an electrolytic conductor. This is a good approach for better determination of the actual current carriers. This type of experimentation seems tailor made for a "tinkerer" like you, no, Horace? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 18:14:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAB17824; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960422130941_72240.1256_EHB128-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 28 April (should be 29 April) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Norman Horwood writes: "My guess is that the ou performance of their cell has not be replicated by an independent lab who have had the same fun and games as vortexians." While I am ready the believe the worst of CETI and Reding, I know that this guess is incorrect. Miley, Bowles, Motorola and everyone else I know of who has tested the cell has reported that it works, and Miley has independently replicated it. I might not believe that if I heard it only from CETI, but I have original sources. "If there had been full independent replication the wires would have been hot with the news by now . . ." I do not think so. Which wires would be hot with news? Vortex-L? Reuters? Who would publish it? No reporter would even know about it unless Gene or I or some reader here told them. CETI and Miley do not want to discuss the work with anyone. There has been full independent replication of Pons and Fleischmann for years, but it is never published. NASA fully and independently confirmed Mills, but no word of it has been published. For many years people have argued that "if cold fusion was real, it would be on the 7 o'clock news." This argument fails for two reasons: 1. The people who themselves write the 7 o'clock news believe it, and they get most of their stories by copying one-another, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy; 2. Most of the cold fusion scientists do not want publicity. That is why Reding forced Miley to cancel the April 29 meeting. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 19:32:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA02079; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960422130954_72240.1256_EHB128-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Joe Flynn writes: "Again how do you know these were not transformerless supplies." We know because Kawasaki and I observed and photographed the power supplies at Power-Gen and others photographed the ones at ICCF5 and SOFE. The Power-Gen power transformer was, as stated here by Logajan, a Radio Shack universal AC/DC Adapter (battery eliminator) with 5 voltage settings switch selectable. "Did an independent source disassemble one?" No. An independent source (Cravens) went to Radio Shack and bought one. "Did CETI say what kind of Battery Eliminators' they were? No, I did. Flynn should read the archives of this forum before making such extensive comments. "My lap top computer uses a transformerless battery eliminator, and with the change of a single resistor I can pull several hundred watts thru it." I gather that Flynn is suggesting here is that CETI, Cravens or someone else slipped in a modified transformer into the Power-Gen setup in order to create a hoax or an illusion of excess heat. This is preposterous. What would be the point? How could anyone profit from such a hoax? No sane investor would put money into CETI without first independently testing the claims, so the hoax would be found out. How on earth could CETI get Miley, Bowles and Motorola to go along with this hoax? Why do they also claim that they were seeing excess heat using their own equipment? How did CETI manage to modify the electronic meters to show the right numbers? The whole scenario is wildly improbable and riddled with impossibilities. In any case, I believe it is a sterile hypothesis, and it is inappropriate for this forum. I suggest it should be moved to sci.physics.fusion, which specializes in such topics. I agree with Mark Hugo; Flynn should "please contact Jim Reding at CETI directly and tell him that you plan to make it clear you believe the cell is a hoax?" Flynn and Reding deserve one another. Perhaps Flynn means that this might be an inadvertent or overlooked source of error. Cravens would never have modified the power supplies and then neglected to tell me. He would understand how critical that point is, and he would certainly have discussed it during his Power-Gen presentation. In any case, all discussions of the power supply accidentally or deliberately producing the excess heat effect are moot. The excess heat is seen with zero input power over extended periods of time in heat-after-death electrochemical cells, and in gas loaded cells where no electric power is used. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 12:19:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07907; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:56:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:56:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 04/22/96 01:38 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: 28April Norman---Sorry, you are WRONG buddy! CETI HAS IT....It is not a damned over unity device! It is a Cold Fusion device. It works. I've seen it, I've run it myself. I wish we could separate the SPECULATION from the REALITY and the hands on measurements. I wish I could make this totally clear to you and everyone else. Why ELSE would I be busting my butt trying to get a replication made of the active material??????? Has it ever occurred to everyone out there that the plastic plating process Patterson uses IS hard to do? Has it ever occurred to anyone that Redding, as stupid and controlling as he is might have some small "method" to his madness. Like Jed, I DON'T agree with his approach. (In fact vehemently so...) But ----ah shoot, it just ain't worth the time... Bye! From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 12:20:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07923; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: on the experiment with C magnet X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Horace, I would like to make a note on the experiment with superconducting ring removed from a C magnet. For superconduction phase, there are no the current in the ring, i.e. no usual current from point of view of classical electrodynamics, however, there is a difference of the phases of quantum pair condensat. When the ring is removed from the area between the poles of the C magnet motion of the pairs of the electrons will be correspond to the current of the classical el-dynamics. Assuming the ring is removed along x axis, we can find that the longitudinal force is caused by the term including dAx/dx. Such a force should re-distribute the pair condensat inside the ring and, therefore, cause re-distribution of the magnetic field frosen in the ring, however, cannot change the total flux of the magnetic field crossing the plane of the ring. Maybe it occurs while removing of the ring, however, it is too difficult to check out experimentally. Second point. If we remove the ring too fast the vortex electrical fields induced inside the ring could be sufficient to destroy superconductivity. One must estimate account of both possible effects. With warm regard, Volodya Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 14:49:59 1996 Received: from mail (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA02954; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Changing Scott Little's diagram we have: > > -------- ------- > | | | > | N | S | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | S | N | > | | | > -------- ------- > >This looks like "place them together in parallel with the N and S poles >together" doesn't it? This is the way they should be placed, I flipped one of the magnets here. But it dosen't matter how one places the magnets this force most likely does not exist. I did an experiment this weekend where I had current flowing through a coil. I had placed magnets in a position which should have resulted in a change of about 20 ma in the current from this force but instead failed to get even .1 ma (the accuracy of my meter). This force is just too large and too easy to measure to have been overlooked. However, there still is some interest in looking at the effect described by Ide Osamu, J. Appl. Phys. 77, 1 June 1995, pages 6015 to 6020. There appears to be a real effect there that is not described by conventional E&M. The effect may depend on the time varying magnetic fields as opposed to Marinov's force which exists for static magnetic fields. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 16:25:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA19188; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604221805.LAA10635@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman motor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:08 AM 4/21/96 -0700, you wrote: >Robin van Spaandonk writes: >> I would like to propose to Mr. Newman, and all members of this list >> that we as a group ask Scott Little to do an independent test of the >> Newman motor. > >Perhaps we are overloading Scott. There are more whacky ideas than >hours in a day. We each have to be selective in which ones we will >pursue. To be brutally honest, there aren't many OU claims that I'd >spend 10 cents on trying to investigate. I just don't object to others >spending their time and money on them -- it's just another hobby, >like stamp collecting. > >-- > - 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 - > > I feel the same way. I think Shannon's detailed analysis of Newman' thought processes and examination of the evidence is sufficient to put Newman back in the file. It really is up to Newman to demonstrate an operative principle, soundly, in way which cannot be explained by the standard accounting given by Shannon. Until then, there is a lot of other stuff perking around. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 18:29:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA15266; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 18:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 18:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604221805.LAA10626@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:13 PM 4/18/96 -0700, you wrote: >Try number 2: > > >>The higher potential provides electrical pressure to "punch >>through" the surface electrolyte coating on a bead. The lower >>current prevents contact welding of the beads. The greater the >>current and voltage vary, and especially with low current the >>greater the margin of error for simple test equipment. I can >>easily predict a margin of error greater than 10 times. >> >>Joe Flynn > > >There are some problems with this theory. The primary problem is that >there is a step down transformer in the power supply. That transformer >places a limit of a few watts to the power that can pass through it. The >impedence of that transformer at high frequencies enormously limits the >amount of HF current that can pass through it. The second problem is the >low voltage diode in the power supply. If pulses of sufficient voltage to >drive a significant current through the impedence of the transformer were >occuring, the diode would be fried, and probably an electrolytic capacitor >as well. If there is a capacitor, it will damp out most of the A/C that >doesn't get throught the transformer. Then there is the problem of the >source of the HF A/C. To get power from outside the system the source of >power must preceed the DC power supply, i.e. must be in the power mains. >How does it get there by actions of the cell? Transients from the cell >might be superimposed on the external waveform, but the power for the >superimposed waveform would have to come form the cell, thus from the DC >power supply, unless the cell were ou. Finally, even if a HF source at 10 x >the power were present, a DMM set on A/C amps would readily detect it, or >get fried. There needs to be a lot more explanation before this theory is >palatable, to me anyway. > > >PS - You may have noticed I put your idea of controlling ambient pressure >in the suggested improvements list for the 10 m electrolytic cell >experiment for future reference. > > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > If transients are a problem, can't you just add capacitance shunts? And if that is not feasible,anytime you want to get rid of high frequency transients on input output lines and you don't want to add capacitance, get ahold of black sand ferrites and pot them mixed in with high temp silicon around a length of the line. The magnetic properties will STRONGLY quench any tendency to fast rise times without directly adding much measurable inductance or capacitance into the normal circuit operation (which is presumably at very slow rates in the case of these cells). ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 23:51:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA13846; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604230118.SAA02884@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:27 AM 4/22/96 -0700, you wrote: >*** Reply to note of 04/22/96 01:38 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: 28April >Norman---Sorry, you are WRONG buddy! CETI HAS IT....It is not a damned over >unity device! It is a Cold Fusion device. It works. I've seen it, I've >run it myself. I wish we could separate the SPECULATION from the REALITY and >the hands on measurements. I wish I could make this totally clear to you >and everyone else. Why ELSE would I be busting my butt trying to get a >replication made of the active material??????? Has it ever occurred to >everyone out there that the plastic plating process Patterson uses IS >hard to do? Has it ever occurred to anyone that Redding, as stupid and >controlling as he is might have some small "method" to his madness. Like >Jed, I DON'T agree with his approach. (In fact vehemently so...) But >----ah shoot, it just ain't worth the time... Bye! > Yes, I think they do. Little birdies in the bush tell me that CETI has turned down an eight figure offer... Motorola, rest assured, does not offer to buy something which 'might' work, not for any amount of money. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 23:55:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA14314; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Some history and information...(part 1) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Some history and information...(part 1) - Dear Vortexians: - In reading a variety of postings, and forcing myself to think about the "Patterson Power Cell" I began to realize that not having the rather close connection with the goings on at CETI which I have had, and not knowing all the details I know, can lead to some confusion and a lot of "misinformation" and unnecessary speculation. - Therefore I would like to give some background on my association with Patterson/Redding/Cravens, etc. and what I have seen and what I have observed. - In Sept. of '94 I heard via the grapevine that Patterson had a "totally reproducible" Cold Fusion device. What I did at that time was to contact Patterson/Redding and discuss the results of Patterson's work on the phone. At that time Jim R. was very open, and quickly faxed me several pages of hand written data taken from several runs of his grandfather's cells. - I went over the data carefully, and the first thing I noticed was that the calibration runs only involved recovery of about 35% of the input heating as an output DeltaT*mdot*Cp (temp. diff times flow times heat capacity). I then noticed that all the results were based on scaling the output power by multiplying whatever was observed by DeltaT*mdot*Cp by (1/.35) This is what Patterson quaintly called "the aliquout method". - During about the next week of talking with Patterson/Redding et. al., I received a copy of the cell geometry, some pictures, etc. And I was able to figure out that the calibration heating was done by a heating coil wrapped around the OUTSIDE of the cell tube. - I pointed out to Patterson, et. al. that there was a serious problem here, as the transition to electrolysis heating could mean a more effective heat transfer, and thus change the "effeciency" of the calorimetry. - Enter- Cravens.... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 23:56:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA14504; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: History of the World (AKA PPC) Part 5, Final.. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: History of the World (AKA PPC) Part 5, Final.. - Now this is the FOUNDATION of my connection with the PPC. - On a personal level, I have been trying since about December of '95 to fabricate Patterson style beads. I have been doing this on my own, as it is transparent that Redding is VERY CONTROLLING and not too bright on differentiating who his friends are and who is just being patronizing. - It has come to my attention in trying to accomplish this that the Patterson beads, at least on a "hand made batch basis" are not easy to make. That is not to say that this is an inhibition. It is clear that given dedicated reasources and personnel the Patterson beads could be made cheaply an in mass. Got a few ten thousand to spare anyone??? - I have good reason to believe that the Patterson beads work precisely because the are plated onto a hydrocarbon substance and that Scott's ersatz beads are DOOMED to failure from the outset. - I also believe that the plating process generates certain conditions which are beneficial to the reactions which mere sputtering does not, although the sputtering comes close. (Thus the "partial" success of Miley with sputtered polystyrene beads.) - I think that Redding is missing the boat with not trying to make as many beads a possible and distributing them WIDELY. Certainly some people would manage to foul things up and come up with a null result. BUT I'm also convinced positive reports would start coming in. - Also, the scaling is very important. There is some evidence simple scaling to about 2 cc and raising the input temperature has produced long runs of .1 watt input and 10 to 15 watt outputs for CETI. (This work performed by an independent contract laboratory, and data which Redding is keeping under wraps, and trying to use as leverage for getting corporated big bucks.) - So that's the story. - Now time for me to shut up and get working! MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 23:56:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA14693; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604230442.VAA26143@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:58 PM 4/20/96 -0700, you wrote: > > >Horace, be extremely careful when experimenting with a closed >cell. With simple >experiments I perfomed, using 10 volts @ 10 ma I built up >enough pressure >to push electrolyte thru a very good neoprene seal. I could >relate to you a >horror story where a Glass enclosed cell exploded during an >experiment >I was performing about 30 years ago. I'm real lucky I wasn't >blinded by >the flying glass!!!!! > >P.S. >If you are interested I will post a description of an >electrolysis cell that creates an >observable spiral around the positive electrode using a >stationary magnet. This may >have to do with the spiral effects you have been describing, I >don't know, but >it's neat to look at. > >Joe Flynn > >Flynn Research Inc. >P.O. Box 11657 >Kansas City, Mo. 64138 > Yes they can be very dangerous. Hawkins, who used to subscribe, very badly cut and burned his arm when his handbuilt electrolysis unit "exploded" on him. He overdrove it (I think) and turned too much water into gas too quickly and of course the whole thing got very hot. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 23:57:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA14894; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604230442.VAA26154@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Mystery Pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:15 PM 4/20/96 -0700, you wrote: > >Date: 19-APR-1996 23:40:48.95 > NEWMAIL >From: IN%"vortex-l@eskimo.com" > > >Scott Little wrote: > >> I'm still not convinced >>that my earlier posted conclusion is correct...i.e. that the >work required >>to put the gas into the head space is independent of the >pressure. > >Scott your confusing me. If the voltage and current remain the >same regardless of pressure then gas production must be the >same, pressure would continue to rise Where's the energy coming >from to produce the pressure? > >Another conclusion would be if voltage and current remain the >same, the pressure is not increasing, and conduction is present >without gas production?? > >And another conclusion, current and voltage remain the same, >pressure does not increase, produced gas is immediately >recombined, but how? With a ratio of 2040:1- gas to gas in >electrolyte from someones earlier post, recombination due to >pressure is not likely to occur very quickly. > >The source of the stored energy in the compressed gas WITHOUT a >change in the input power would be a real mystery to me. > >Joe Flynn > > The "stored" energy in the gas is in the molecular electron valance shell which has been expanded due to its dis-association with the other gas. Excite them enough as with a spark and their ionization produces a re-association, which of course releases the energy. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 00:00:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA15124; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Electrolytic (MOE) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The following is to clean up what I wrote about a multi-resonant orthogonal cell design earlier, and add some thoughts. We have established experimentally that cell EMF equalization rates and cell chemistry should not be affected by changing the electrolyte flow direction from longitudinal, as in the Patterson Power Cell (PPC), to a direction orthogonal to electrolytic current flow. Provided electrolyte flow is upward, an orthogonal electrolytic cell should work as well as the longitudinal flow PPC. It is superior in that the H2 and O2 can be obtained from separate degassing stations, and thus it is possible to avoid recombination, avoid explosion risks, and possible to utilize the evolved gasses later in a fuel cell or by other means. In an orthogonal cell it is also possible to combine many simultaneous forms of stimulation into a single multi-resonant electrolytic cell design. Assume two vertical electrodes with a gas barrier between, and verticle (y axis) fluid flow, and horizontal (x axis) electrolytic current flow. It is then possible to place a major magnetic field B in the z axis direction. This has several advantages: (1) MHD forces will move the electrolye so no pump is needed. This permits a much higher electrolysis current with the same efficiency because it is doing triple duty doing electrolysis and acting as two pumps, one for O2 bearing and one for H2 bearing electrolyte. As a bonus, there are no moving parts. (2) There is still room for a small perturbing magnetic field generation in the x direction, thus it is possible to stimulate the protons or deuterons with an NMR resonant frequency. This will put the protons in a continual state of precessiona nd flipping. At very least this proton motion stimulation should increase adsorbtion rates. At best it may assist in phaselocking deuterons or protons interacting at lattice site boundaries and in the fluid phase of the cell, permitting other forms of stimulation to trigger fusion events. In addition, should an energetic electron "fall into" the coulomb well, an interaction with the magnetic field of the flipping nucleus should increase the probabiliy of an energetic photon emission, thus temporarily binding the electron to the nucleus until it can sap enough energy from the ZPE sea to climb back out. This series of events, as described in the Partial Orbital Hypothesis of Cold Fusion, would transfer energy from the ZPE sea to the lattice as heat. This process would be assisted by alloying particle emitters, especially beta emitters, into the cathode. (3) Storms' paper "Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion" Effect", March 1, 1996, page 42 mentions 82 MHz RF signals and high current micropulses (through the cathode) as being heat enhancing stimuli. For this reason, it may be desirable to combine the 82 MHz signal superimposed on the electrolytic potential with the NMR perturbing magnetic force generating current, thus the NMR resonant frequency should be 82 MHz. This means, for light water (proton) applications, that B must be 1.9524 weber/meter^2. Then the NMR perturbing field coil can be excited by the same 82.0 MHz current that is superimposed on the DC electrolytic current, making the AC portion of the electrolytic current do double duty, once as an electrode/interface stimulator, and second as an NMR perturbing field generator. (4) The electrolytic cell has it's own innate capacitance which is controllable through choice of electrode geometry and electrolyte chemical composition. It should be possible to design the cell so, used with additional inductance, tuning and control circuitry, it will resonate at 82 MHz. (5) The 82 MHz electrolyte stimulation signal will also make protons in the solution oscillate up and down in the y direction, generating accousic vibrations in the cell. The dimensions and geometry of the electrolytic fluid containing walls of the cell can be adjusted to create an accoustically resonant environement. Also, electrode geometry and surface geometry may be designed to reflect and/or utilize this ultrasound to aid in adsorbtion or other desired effects. Such an electrolytic cell would therefore clearly be multiply resonant. In addition to gaining large effect with small input by utilizing resonance, the proposed design gains efficiency by utilizing a single electric waveform to drive all of the cell functions and stimulate all of the cell's resonances. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 00:00:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA15405; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: History of the World (Excuse, PPC) Part III X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: History of the World (Excuse, PPC) Part III - So Dennis set up to run the PPC using H2O and LiSO4. Now this is where I have just gotten bits and pieces. In fact in late Feb. and early March '95, Dennis was rather circumspect about what he was telling me about his results. I think he had some doubts about his own sanity because of what he was seeing. - >From what I can put together, when Dennis fired up the LiSO4/H2O cell, he almost from the start began to get over 100% recovery of the input power in the output. (This at about the 10 watt input level.) This was somewhat of a surprise for Dennis, as he was pretty sure NOTHING had changed significantly about the experiment except the change from D2O to H2O. - So in sratching the head, and wondering what to do, he decided to do a "power range" observation. I.e., run the power over a range. From what I understand he decided to start high, and go low. That's where it got really funny for Dennis, as he went down below 5 watts input, and continued to observe a 5 degree delta T for a 15ml/minute flow. He eventually got to the .5 watt realm and was still getting the 5 degrees delta T. - Now somewhere in this time frame, from what I recall, Dennis began to get suspicious of his own instruments, so he began to figure he needed to back up his work. That led to the installation of Thermistors in the flow. - Same result! - Now time frame wise, we are now moving into the middle of March '95. At this time Redding is beginning to take everything at face value and figure that he's really got "hot property" with regard to the PPC and his grandfather's patents. And ICCF5 is coming up. - That's where I and my good friend, and brillant control systems designer, Leon Sojka of Beaverton Oregon come in. - See history of the PPC part 4. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 00:02:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA15708; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960423062745_100060.173_JHB61-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@CompuServe.COM> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark, >> Has it ever occurred to anyone that Redding, as stupid and controlling as he is might have some small "method" to his madness. Like Jed, I DON'T agree with his approach. (In fact vehemently so...) But ----ah shoot, it just ain't worth the time... Bye! << I bow to your obvious sincerity and experience, and I only hope that Reding is not as stupid as he seems. Mind you - by now I almost hope he loses out to the sharks and his CF cell goes commercial without him. By the way, why do you object to a CF device being referred to as an ou machine? Norman From billb@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 00:20:07 1996 Received: from anc.ak.net (root@anc.ak.net [204.17.241.19]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA20127 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [204.17.242.75] ([204.17.242.72]) by anc.ak.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA14176 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:59:26 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:19:44 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: on the experiment with C magnet >from Russia< Status: RO X-Status: Dear Horace, I would like to make a note on the experiment with superconducting ring removed from a C magnet. For superconduction phase, there are no the current in the ring, i.e. no usual current from point of view of classical electrodynamics, however, there is a difference of the phases of quantum pair condensat. When the ring is removed from the area between the poles of the C magnet motion of the pairs of the electrons will be correspond to the current of the classical el-dynamics. Assuming the ring is removed along x axis, we can find that the longitudinal force is caused by the term including dAx/dx. Such a force should re-distribute the pair condensat inside the ring and, therefore, cause re-distribution of the magnetic field frosen in the ring, however, cannot change the total flux of the magnetic field crossing the plane of the ring. Maybe it occurs while removing of the ring, however, it is too difficult to check out experimentally. Second point. If we remove the ring too fast the vortex electrical fields induced inside the ring could be sufficient to destroy superconductivity. One must estimate account of both possible effects. With warm regard, Volodya Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 02:21:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09744; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 02:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 02:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Patterson Cell, a Hoax? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 JOEFLYNN@delphi.com wrote: > I conducted a simple experiment, and am now convinced that the > Patterson Cell is probably a CLEVERLY DISGUISED H2 O2 > combustion cell. > > With the correct ratio of coated and uncoated beads - no > separators between > cathode and anode - the beads loosely packed - Pulsating pump > to agitate the beads - current regulated supply- the following > can occur. > > With the correct ratio of coated and uncoated beads (ratio > based on the > amount of agitation it doesn't take much) probability states > that the cell will short from anode to cathode with a given > frequency. Uncoated beads prevent > a continuous short. > > H2 and O2 are produced by electrolysis by the anode and cathode > and is > circulated by the pump and is partially trapped by the bed of > beads. Each > time a short occurs, if enough gas is collected (loaded) in the > bead bed a > very minor arc occurs and ignites the gas. (Anyone who does not > believe > arcing and combustion can take place in the electrolyte need > only to talk to any company who does plating. I can also post a > simple experiment to > demonstrate this, if anyone wants to investigate.) The arc's > are micro in nature and mainly hidden by the beads. With many > micro combustions > taking place and given the heat of combustion of Hydrogen > 68.317 (From memory, may be slightly off) kcal / mole, the heat > produced by the Patterson Cell can be accounted for. The > product of this combustion is H2O and, although rare, under > very special circumstances can produce Hydrogen peroxide, so no > chemical ash. What you are describing here amounts to a closed cell, with full recombination. The overall reaction is none at all, and the only process taking place is the movement of ions. You're out of luck, though, with your conclusion. Such a cell canmnot deliver more power than you put in - barring novel phenomena, of course. The power given off as heat will be exactly that put in as electrical power, which people always have a good handle on (integral of I*E). If you get more power than you put in, you have an exotic process. Sorry mate; it doesn't explain a thing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 02:19:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09781; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 02:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 02:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9604230835.AA10507@ arnold.math.ucla.edu.ucsd.edu > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: barry@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >By the way, why do you object to a CF device being >referred to as an ou machine? >Norman Well, if a device really worked by cold nuclear reactions, then calling it an over unity device is about the same as calling a log in the fireplace an over unity device. all over unity really means is that one gets out more energy than what one counts as input. Once you know how to count input properly, no need to call it over-unity. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 03:40:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA20956; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 03:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 03:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960423094417_100060.173_JHB55-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@CompuServe.COM> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: History of the World (AKA PPC) Part 5, Final.. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark, Many thanks for your enlightening history essay. Unfortunately parts II and IV failed to appear in my post-box, but what did arrive (I III & 5) was most interesting and encouraging. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 03:39:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA21047; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 03:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 03:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960423102717_100060.173_JHB64-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@CompuServe.COM> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Barry said: >> all over unity really means is that one gets out more energy than what one counts as input. Once you know how to count input properly, no need to call it over-unity. << I don't think I agree with that. Just because you can "count the input properly" is no reason to ignore the concept of ou - as long as the output is more than the input, then you have a *local* over-unity device. It all depends on how far back you go in the chain. I remember way back in the days when "atomic energy" was being debated as a possible source of infinite "free" energy, someone calculated that taking everything from the extraction of the ore to the disposal of the radio-active waste and the decommissioning of the structure of the generators, there was an overall loss in energy produced/consumed over the lifetime of the utility. I would therefore describe a cold fusion energy generator as an over-unity device, in the same context as your log on the fire. The CF generator is just far more efficient at every level than the log which had to be cut from a tree and transported to the fire at considerable cost in energy, not to mention the losses in utilizing the heat produced for useful purposes. If you simply look at the log fire locally then it is very ou - all you have to do is pick it up and throw it onto the heap and start it burning. This is similar to the debate about the environmental effect of changing from ic engines to electrical power for vehicles. The pollution from the exhaust is transferred from the roads to the power generator. Any reduction in overall pollution depends on the difference in efficiency between the light-weight ic engine and the heavier battery/motor system combined with the power generation/distribution system. If and when we get elec. power gen. cells which can supply enough for mobile transportation use, then we'll see some real reduction in pollution, and thats what I hope will come from CF developments. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 04:26:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA27611; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tilleyrw@digital.net (Robert Tilley) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Reverse Engineering X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I have a question for the entire group, if applicable. The Methernitha Group in Germany with their Testatika generator is "supposed" to be fairly well established. The principle by which the generatior works is fairly known. I've heard it compared to a variety of giant Wimshurst machine. The question is: Why has no one reverse engineered this machine that is supposed to "create" five to fifteen kilo-watts ef electricity??? This should be a rather simple process I imagine. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | "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://ddi.digital.net/~tilleyrw/ -- *** --- *** | |-------------------------------------------------------------------| From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 09:45:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA19088; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604231258.IAA28169@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: Cell Current Propagation Pictures Available X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >> [Bill Page wrote:] >>In my experiments with Al cathodes, I used a simple HCl electrolyte. >>In this case, H+ migration is effected directly by the H+ ion >>conduction. Of course the side effects are Cl2 evolution (nasty) >>and depletion of the H+ and Cl- concentration in the electrolyte >>overtime. And there are a few other problems, but that is another >>story. > >Why not use H2SO4? > I have heard (ALCAN) that H2SO4 is used in some bi-polar industrial aluminium surface treatment processes. "bi-polar" means that the polarity is first with the aluminum as a cathode and then passing immediately to a anodic stage. This process was patented by ALCAN some years ago. One of the "problems" that they had was that these machines needed an awful lot of cooling ... . I did not use dilute H2SO4 as an electrolyte for two reasons: 1) I was interested in replicating Arthur Wasserman's report in Fusion Technology in which he discussed only NaCl and HCl electrolytes. 2) I was not certain how well H2SO4 fits into my hypthesis concerning the relevance of the doped proton semiconductor model of proton conduction in electrolytes. It appears now, that one should distinguish between "substitutional" and "interstitial" doping, but there should be no real good reason not to use H2SO4. 3) Lack of time. (not a real reason of course). Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 09:50:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA19295; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604231258.IAA28172@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: 10 meter Cell Experiment Conclusions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >> [Bill Page wrote:] >>Your discussion suggests that you tried to measure the propagation time >>of a pulse applied as an "input" to the 10m long cell, but I think all >>you can be observing is the phase relationship between the current and >>the voltage. > >No, this is a very slow 1 kHz square wave. I think you get exactly the >same output using battery input (infinite wavelength) but I could not >photograph it. A digital scope is what is needed. > It doesn't matter how "slow", Horace, it matters how "fast" the rise time is (how "square"). You said this yourself elsewhere. In any case, your pictures do show that the voltage and the current have different waveforms. This is all that I mean. >> >>Could you elaborate on what is meant by "faradaic rectification effect"? >>Can you provide a reference? >> > >The effect, a shift in output potential vs. input potential at the >interface is due to lack of symmetry in the i vs. nu (overpotential) curve. >See "Modern Electrochemistry" Vol 2, by Bockris, p. 885. (Thanks again!) Ok, but are you sure you are seeing this effect at the voltages that you are using? >> >>I don't understand this notion of "propagate a wave via a local field >>gradient change". You are simply applying a varying potential across the >>cell and you are measuring the variation in the current. I do not see any >>inconsistency with the assumptions. > >I have a feeling you missed a bunch of posts on this topic. I'll try to be >brief. (1) A potential in a cell only occurs only due to the *local* >presence of charge. No. Or rather, I am not sure what you mean by this. It seems to me that a potential in the cell exists because the circuit guarrantees that one end of the cell is a +10V and the other end is at 0V (relative). > The instrumentaion involved could not detect the >potential at the input to the cell over 10 cm much less 10 m if there were >no fluid, for example. What do you mean by "input"? I suppose you mean the electrode nearest the +10V supply... but why do you call that the input? I could just as easily claim that the other electrode was the "input". This is a circuit with a simple two terminal device. This terminology is not appropriate. In your example where there is no fluid, the resistance is very high (infinite?) so all of the potential difference is dropped here. This is just basic electronics. So I still don't understand. > (2) The coveyance of potential dV/dT mandates and is >completely tied to the conveyance of charge dQ/dT. Hmmm... potential is just dV (difference in voltage). I don't see precisely what its rate of change has to do with this question. And dQ/dT? This looks more like electrodynamics than electronics. Yes, electromagnetic waves do propagate (to a very small extent) in an electrolyte, but I don't see what this directly has to do with conduction. > You can not have one >without the other in the electrolyte. As Bockris and Reddy describe, ions do diffuse in an electrolyte in response to the presence of a potential in such a manner as to equalize (nullify) the electric field (dV/dx). But this is not what I think you are saying, is it? > (3) EM fields, to the limited extent >they propagate in water, can only carry oscillating fields, not charge. Agreed. Although we can talk about the time rate of change of the current and useful work can be transmitted by an alternating current, etc. but this is not directly relevant (but not entirely unrelated) to the issue of mobility of ions in solution. > (4) >The propagtion of charge dQ/dT involves the movement of charge in response >to an intitating (but close) movement of charge dQ/dT, thus requires the >acceleration of charge dI/dT. You've lost me here. > (5) Mass is associated with every form of >charge. Therefore the rate of acceleration of charge dI/dT involves a >force (the electrostatic change in force due to the local dQ) and the mass >of the charge. F=ma, I think, but how is all this relevant to your two terminal cell in the simple circuit that we are discussing? > (6) The practical range of the electrostatic force in the >potentials involved is very short. The propagation of an EMF is therefore a >wave similar to a spring/mass wave. The mass moves, the spring compresses, >the adjacent masses move, etc. No. This doesn't seem right to me. First you create a potential difference between the electrodes - virtually instantaneously (actually I suppose limited by the propagation of the electrical potential difference in the wires - some significant portion of the speed of light). Then, the ions migrate to equilize the field gradient. I suppose you are thinking about how long it takes these ions to reach equilibrium and you are suggesting a simple kinetic sort of model of this process. > (7) therefore, the rate of propagation of an >EMF in an electrolyte is inversely proportional to the mass of the charge >transporting the EMF. What you are calling "progagation of EMF", I think of as just a kind of "relaxation" process. Are you saying that "propagation" is complete when equilibrium is obtained? In that case, the electric field gradient is cancelled by the concentration gradient of the ions. > (8) Therefore an upper limit on proton EMF >propagation speed is Vp = C/(Mp/Me) = (299792458 m/s)/1836.152701 = >163272.0731 m/s or 1.6x10^5 m/s. Here you have lost me again. I don't understand this calculation. > Since the propagation speed of electrons >in wire is .6 C a better limit is 0.6 x 1.6x10^5 = 9.8x10^4 m/s. "Propagation speed of electrons in a wire"? This model doesn't seem right to me. Could you explain your point of view a bit more? The naive kinetic model of electrical conduction views the electrons as being in constant random motion, to which a "drift" is added by the presence of an electric field gradient. > (9) since >the rise time of a square wave in the 10 m cell indicates a propagation >speed of about 10^6 m/s, proton conduction, which may be involved in large >currents, does not answer how a small charge is transported so fast across >10 m. > In a kinetic model of proton conduction, protons, like electrons are in a constant random walk sort of motion. The electric field gradient just adds a very small bias in this random motion. But the motion itself is already there to begin with. >>... >>Horace, I think your model of electrical conductivity needs to be >>brought up to date. Do you really think that it makes sense to speak of >>an electron as if it can be labelled and following its "path" from one >>end of a conductor to another? This grossly contradicts what quantum >>mechanics has to say about the nature of reality (however strange that >>may be). Modern solid state physics treats the many-body wavefunction of >>a conductor in terms of "energy bands". The electrons are "de-localized" >>within the conduction band, i.e. these electrons have no well defined >>locations and the wavefunction is non-zero over the entire length of >>the conductor. > >Note that the above says "electron exchange", it does not say one electron >goes from beginning to end. An electrolyte is not a crystal structure, >although it has "islands" of structure. I *do* think there are, for the >most part, long event chains involving single e-e exchanges across atomic >gaps (actually involving skipping "through" one or more inert atoms via the >electrostatic force, and across interatomic gaps via tunneling, and direct >inter-orbital exchanges.) that result in net charge propagation. It is >true that, for example, two electrons could arrive at a locality and only >one depart, or vice versa, but for the most part I would think there would >be individaul chains of events. > This is not a quantum mechanical description of the process, but I guess that's ok. One has to be pragmatic in physics (use what works). It seems unnecessarily complicated, however. Although, granted, a little strange, the quantum mechanical description seems simpler to me and it seems to work remarkably well in solid state physics. In fact, I am tempted to claim that solid state physicists are among the few types of physicists who really take quantum mechanics seriously! >>... >>This same analysis can be applied to the motion of protons (and to a muct >>lesser extend to some extent other ions). Water appears as a proton >>semiconductor to which dopants can be added to affect the occuppation of >>proton band states just as with electronic semiconductors. > >I admit I am clueless regarding proton conduction bands in an electrolyte. >However, the present description of diffusion as the primary vehicle of >charge transport in the low field gradient environment of the solution >regime seems absurd to me in light of the speed at which it takes place, >especially upstream, so proton conduction sounds like a big improvement for >an explanation. The presence of conduction bands (or more exactly, the presence of forbidden energy levels in the spectrum of allowable energys) is a direct consequence of the quantum mechanics of periodic potentials. Any particle which is sufficiently mobile to be affected by such potentials must experience this phenomena. It is not really very mysterious, although without a lot of calculation, it is not immediately obvious how these forbidden energies arise. One reasonably intuitive approach is to think in terms of de Broglie waves assosciated with the particle and consider how such waves reflect and cancel in a periodic structure at certain energies (wavelengths related to the lattice constants). > >Electron tunneling is a principle player in the mechanics of the >interaface. If it can play such a strong role in the metal-electrolyte >interface, which is atom to atom, why can it not play a similar role in an >electrolyte to electrolyte (atom to atom or ion to ion) exchange? In >other words, how come the atoms/ions so cooperative at the interface get so >inert in the solution? > Yes, you are right, Horace, electron tunneling does play an important role. That is what guarrantees that the electrons will experience the periodic potential that I mentioned above. And therefore the electrons will also experience forbidden energies. It is because the accelleration of the electrons is blocked by the prescense of a forbidden energy band that makes an insulator. None the less, the electrons still tunnel. [The word "tunnel" just refers to the non-zero quantum mechanically explained probability that an electron will cross a potential barrier greater than its kinetic energy.] Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 09:47:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA19361; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: History of the World (AKA PPC) Part 5, Final.. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Mark, > >Many thanks for your enlightening history essay. Unfortunately parts II and IV >failed to appear in my post-box, but what did arrive (I III & 5) was most >interesting and encouraging. > >Norman Likewise. I hope this is not a representative sample of how much is getting through the vortex list server! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 21:07:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA22996; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 20:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 20:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: 10 meter Cell Experiment Conclusions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- >From MAILER-DAEMO Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:53:24 -0800 From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vtx: 10 meter Cell Experiment Conclusions >Horace Heffner wrote: >>... Charge differentials >>can be generated in tubing carrying electrolyte via induction, thus >>avoiding the need for elctrodes altogether. Resulting currents can still >>be examined via current probes, which do not require electrodes. Such >>configurations might possibly be used to generate pressure peaks, i.e >>hammering pulses, in a sonoluminescence based fusion devices. It may be >>possible to generate such pulses in electrodeless MHD pulse generators. >>Understanding the mechanism of current propagation would be essential for >>engineering such devices. > >I wrote: >>I think this idea is very important and I would like to discuss the >>notion of "electrodeless" cells in more detail. More comments to follows >>.. > >So consider a kind of transformer with one winding consisting of >copper wire, the other "winding" consisting of coiled insulating tubing >filled with an electrolyte. > > || ==============\ > -----------\ || // || > / || \\ || > electronic \ || // ionic ||(------- current probe > cicuit / || \\ circuit || > \ || // || > -----------/ || \\ || > || ==============/ > >What sort of current probe do you have in mind? A SQUID-type of device? >What sort of shielding would be necessary? I think the type of probe depends on the specific experiment or application the range of current and response time values, size of condcutor, etc., so the degrees of freedom are very large. A probe should be able to see the DC component as well as the A/C component so a clamp-on core transformer type probe (for AC) combined with a Hall Effect Device (for DC) would be good. The problem with these probes is the bigger the diameter the lower the tail off frequency. A good cheap probe to start with might be a Tektronix A622 AC/DC Current Probe ($390 US). The A622 can handle 50 mA to 100 A pk. (DC to 100 kHz) and a conductor diameter of 11.8 mm or 0.46 in. Because of the hall effect device a DC probe can not be used around magnetic influences, so the ionic circuit would have to be big enough to avoid the influence of the transformer coil. The background is easy enough to test - just unclamp the probe. There are much fancier probe systems with programmable amplifiers that provide automatic degausing and calibration and probes that resolve 20 MHz currents. I think the later stage experiments would be with the objective of generating and focusing shock waves. These would involve really massive currents and maybe very special geometries. It could be that a fluid tokamak style device could be evolved that could generate a sonluminescent style plasma core. If proton conduction is a reality, then deuteron conduction must be a reality. It may be possible to generate a standing wave deuteron hammer. Deuterons moving in a strong magnetic field should have a cyclotron frequency, i.e move in circles in addition to EMF induced lateral motion. This would tend to generate a deuteron hammering effect in every direction in the x-y plane proportional in size to B and the xy plane voltage gradient. It is possible to make that gradient very high by inducing very high frequency high voltage fields. It is good that we have established that an orthogonal flow electrtolyic cell should work as well or better than the longitudinal flow PPC. I think it is possible to combine many forms of stimulation into a single multi-resonant electrolytic cell design. Assume two vertical electrodes with a gas barrier between, and verticle (z axis) fluid flow, and horizontal (x axis) electrolytic current flow. It is then possible to place a major magnetic field B in the y axis direction. This has several advanages. (1) MHD forces will move the electrolye so no pump is needed. This permits a much higher electrolysis current with the same efficiency because it is doing double duty as the pump, and there are no moving parts. (2) There is still room for a small perturbing magnetic field generation in the Y direction, thus it is possible to stimulate the protons or deuterons with a NMR resonant frequency. At very least this should increase adsorbtion rates. At best it may assist in phaselocking deuterons or protons interacting at lattice site boundaries and in the fluid phase of the cell, permitting other forms of stimulation to trigger fusion events. (3) Storms' paper "Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion" Effect", March 1, 1996, page 42 mentions 82 MHz RF signals and high current micropulses as being enhancing effects. For this reason, it may be desirable to combine an 82 MHz signal superimposed on the electrolytic postential with an 82 MHz NMR perturbing magnetic force. This means, for light water (proton) applications, that B must be 1.9524 weber/meter^2. The perturbing field can be excited by the superimpozed 82. MHz electrolytic current, making the AC portion of the electrolytic current do double duty. Also, it is convenient that electrolysis produces bubbles at the surface of the electrode. As with Roger Stringham's (Equest) device, hydrogen can be hammered into the electrode lattice at the surface. A key ingredient to making that work practically might be in reducing the electrolysis current, and increasing the hammering frequency by inducing the compression pulse via magnetically induced proton conduction. Also, the electrode might be made of compressed metal powder to reduce the effects of erosion and increase surface area. It may be possible to avoid electrodes altogether by making single suspended metal particles both cathode and anode alike by magnetically inducing an electric field in the electrolyte. The trick would be having the cycle time be long enough, and the gradient strong enough, that H2 microbubbles could evolve at the surface of the metal particles prior to the onset of the compression and hammering pulses. A horizontal tube of electrolyte around a very large magnetic core with a high current primary would be required, along with a second ferrite core around the electrolyte and high voltage HF hammering pulse circuit. The electrolyte would require turbulence to keep the metal suspended and should flow in and out of the tube through side tubes to carry evolved aheat and gasses away. > >It is possible to construct the proton semi-conductor analogue of a diode >using juxtaposed oppositely doped electrolytes [see ref. M. Eigen in my >2-D Proton Conductor paper]. This has been tested using electrolytes >in the solid-state (frozen), but perhaps it can also be done using >suitably choosen membranes to separate the electrolytes. Or it might be >desirable to freeze the electrolyte in the entire circuit. For obvious >reasons, the solid state provides a better environment for band-state >conduction. > >Using a proton semi-conductor diode bridge as a rectifier, it should be >possible to set up a direct current proton circuit. Such a circuit might >have the ability generate the kind of "pressure" (= proton EMF?) that >you referred to above. > >Another type of experiment might attempt to measure the Hall effect >currents induced an electrolytic conductor. This is a good approach >for better determination of the actual current carriers. Yes, I have considered using the Hall effect to try to obtain difinitve test for electron charge transport. The idea being to place a Y fluid connector in the x-y plane of a B in the Z plane and pass a current through the split loop to see if there is a difference in how much is carried which way by which components in varying conditions. Here is the idea: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ELECTRON TRANSPORT DETECTION EXPERIMENT + ---A1--E2---DG1---- - B/ \ --E1-- B ---- P -->--- | B\ / | | ---A2--E3---DG2---- | | + | ------------------------------<---------- Ai - ammeters B - magnetic field purpendicular to page E1 - a negative electrode E3, E3 - positive electrodes DGi - Drip degassers to prevent current flow P - pump for electrolyte Make all electrodes of same metal. Measure current i1 at A1 and i2 at A2 with B (N to S) out of page (electrons diverted toward E2, positive ions toward E3), and then measure i3 and i4 with B into page, and then i5 and i6 with no B. Repeat with no flow. Premise - electrons being less massive should be easier to divert than ions (greater hall effect in moving current becuse ions have less time for lateral motion) so there should be a bigger current change in the direction of electron diversion when B is removed in flowing electrolyte. Might make DG1 and DG2 one degasser with two drippers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - It would be nice if the Hall Effect would divert 100 percent of the charge carriers! Then you could directly separate the amount of current carried by each class of carrier. As is, I am uncertain as to how "difinitive" this experiment may be. Maybe worth doing. What do you think? > >This type of experimentation seems tailor made for a "tinkerer" like >you, no, Horace? And others. It's just a matter of time and money. Let's all get busy and make energy! > >Cheers, >Bill Page. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 21:06:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA23670; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 20:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 20:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: History of the Patterson Cell, Part 4 (IV) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: 22 Apr 1996 20:11:20 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Subject: History of the Patterson Cell, Part 4 (IV) From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: History of the Patterson Cell, Part 4 (IV) - So on the 17,18,19 of March, 1995 Leon S. and I found ourselves in Jim Redding's apartment in a suburb of Dallas, TX, attempting to install a 16 channel, LabTech Notebook (TM) run PC based data gathering system on the Patterson Power Cell. - Over those three days, we DID succeed in installing the data gathering system, which was subsequently allowed to "gather dust" due to the aforementioned problem with Dennis Craven's deep seated and abiding and overiding fear of computers. - Despite this difficulty, this was an opportunity for Leon and I to work with the Patterson cell HANDS ON. During our time in TX we managed to: 1. See the Patterson beads be taken out of and put back in the cell. 2. See fresh LiSO4, approximately 1 molar be made up for use in the experiment. 3. Measure the input to the cell with our own VOM's and precision resistors. 4. Observe evidence of the cell producing 5 watts out for .3 watts input. - Now we DID experience an experimental difficulty while we were there, which (alledgely) was addressed by Dennis Cravens promptly and before the demonstration was brought to France. I.e., we discovered a "cross talk" between the electrolysis and the thermistors and the thermocouples. - Dennis was rather surprised by this "cross talk" and claimed not to have seen it prior to meeting with us at Redding's apartment. His claim on this is probably CORRECT! Because he personally had installed the thermistors and thermocouples some days before and attempted to isolate them from the flow by coating them with epoxy. We noticed the "cross talk" getting worse with time, and in point of fact by the time Sunday rolled around on us (the third day) it was pronounced enough to make the thermistor and thermocouple readings worthless when the electrolysis was on. - One could ask then, why is it Mr. Sojka and I are so sure there is "something" to be interested in, in the PPC? - We need to drop back slightly on this to figure this out. We need to note that on the second day Leon and I had gotten the computer data gathering system totally functional and we went into a calibration mode. That's when we noticed the "cross talk" between the electrolysis and the TC's and thermistors. We could put two graphs of the deltaT up on the computer screen and watch the values go to "heck" when we turned on the electrolysis power. - We agonized about this for a couple hours and then said, "HEY, we aren't here to work on the CF experiment, we are here to install data gathering. The RESISTANCE calibration heater is sufficient for us..!!" So that's what we did. We spent the rest of the second day and the morning of the third day running between 2 watts input to 8 watts input and calibrating everything on an absolute basis. - Thus we came to the point where by the afternoon of that Sunday, the third day,we felt that we had a 2 to 8 watt thermal calorimeter which was accurate to within an easy +/- 5% absolute value. - We noticed that at for example the 5 watt level, which for our about 15ml/min flow generated a 5 degree C deltaT, the temperature as measured by the precision thermistors and the thermocouples agreed with each other within about .1 degrees C. - The final and most important observation came after we were quite confident in the measurements made using the calibration resistor and we decided one last time to check the device during electrolysis. As soon as we transistioned from about 5 watts into the calibration resistor to the electrolysis we observed (again) the values from the thermistors and the TC's diverged completely and went "way out" (in different directions) Fortunately we became distracted and left the electrolysis on for about a 1/2 hour. Then even more fortunately we turned off the electrolysis WITHOUT turning off the computer data gathering. To our surprise the TC and Thermistor values immediately JUMPED to about 5 degrees C each, again agreeing within about .1 degree C each. We subsequently cycled the electrolysis on and off several times and watched the system for about 45 minutes. - We were dragged slowly and surely to the conclusion that for .3 watts input we were watching a system which could heat a 15 ml/min flow 5 degrees C consistantly, with just the barest perceptable drop in the deltaT during the "electrolysis off" observations. We KNEW this behavior was dramatically different from the resistance calibration runs where 10 minutes of stabalization time accomplished 80% of a change from one power level deltaT to another power level deltaT. (Something we had spend a day and 1/2 watching in the preceeding days.) - At that time (about 5:30 PM on that Sunday) we needed to leave to catch our planes home. And Leon S. and I left feeling that there was a GOOD reason to believe Patterson/Redding/Cravens had something. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 21:08:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA23997; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 20:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 20:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Electrolytic (MOE) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 08:40:41 From: dacha@shentel.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Electrolytic (MOE) Cell >(3) Storms' paper "Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion" >Effect", March 1, >1996, page 42 mentions 82 MHz RF signals and high current >micropulses >(through the cathode) as being heat enhancing stimuli. >For this reason, >it may be desirable to combine the 82 MHz signal >superimposed on the >electrolytic potential with the NMR perturbing magnetic >force generating >current, thus the NMR resonant frequency should be 82 >MHz. This means, for >light water (proton) applications, that B must be 1.9524 >weber/meter^2. >Then the NMR perturbing field coil can be excited by the >same 82.0 MHz >current that is superimposed on the DC electrolytic >current, making the AC >portion of the electrolytic current do double duty, once >as a.n >electrode/interface stimulator, and second as an NMR >perturbing field generator. -----------------End of Original Message----------------- Dear Horace: Very good work. This information forms an interesting parallel to a 1979 paper I wrote " The ..... Theory of Duality of Resonance in Matter" Which was an attempt to explain excess heat in an experimental NMR system. Also a 1986 paper "Experimental Table Top Fusion" reporting on the use of two frequencies, one a catalyst frequency, the other an excitation frequency to create excess heat in a 1000ml pyrex flask. I think you are on the right track Horace, just that your frequencies are a bit off. The coulomb barrier is the key. Good Luck! Robert ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 4/23/96 Time: 8:40:41 AM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 24 06:36:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23666; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960424043403_75110.3417_CHK52-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Reverse Engineering X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Robert, >> The principle by which the generation works is fairly known. I've heard it compared to a variety of giant Wimshurst machine. << Where have they described the principle? I thought they weren't telling anyone how it worked. Also, giant Wimshurst doesn't sound right. I have read that a table-top model, which was started rotating by hand, produces a continuous output of 5 kW. That's a little small for a Wimshurst machine, I would think. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 24 06:53:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23754; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604232210.AA30521@post.tandem.com \POS ,$ZNET 5> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: HORST_BOB@Tandem.COM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: miley visit X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Tandem-QM Gateway: Version K4.5 T0: vortex list [SMTPGATE@POST (vortex-l@eskimo.com)] It is very unfortunate that the trip to Miley's lab was cancelled. I was looking forward to the report. Since we now will not have the benefits of a detailed report, perhaps you will be interested in my short visit to his lab in February. My visit did not involve a nondiscosure agreement and he has not asked me to withhold anything, so I now feel it is all right to send out this information. I was in Urbana to visit another research group, and stopped by to see him. It was shortly after the Nightline story, so he was still recovering from the wave of publicity. Even though he was overbooked that day and had never met me, he took a half hour out to talk and show me the lab. >From visiting the lab, it was clear that he is not seriously trying to prove the overunity claims. I am not an expert in calorimetry, but it was evident that his setup is very simple and does not have elaborate instrumentation or controls. He told me he is concentrating on looking for nuclear products rather than perfecting the calorimetry (he is a Nuclear Engineer with a joint appointment in EE). His best experiments were showing a few watts excess, delta T of 6 deg C, and used about 1/4 cc of beads. To try to answer Michael J. Schaffer's questions: > 1. How did Miley make his own beads that also yielded substantial >excess heat? Were there any "special treatments"? Was the electrolyte >pure Li2SO4, or were there additives? The beads were made by the U of Illinois Materials Research Lab (MRL). The beads were sputtered with multiple layers (Ni-Pd-Ni-Pd-Ni). He was able to see when different layers "turned on" by seeing step functions in the resistivity. I did not ask about the electrolyte. There were no extreme precautions taken to prevent impurities. While I was there, a grad student just took a spare bottle of electrolyte, opened up a running cell, and topped it off. > 2. How were Miley's experiments done? HOw was the calorimetry >checked? How were temperatures measured and what checks were done to >ascertain that there were no interfering signals? As I said, little should be drawn from his calorimetry. He could not give accurate measures of excess, but the calorimeter was adequate for him to find out which types of beads were better than others. There seemed to be vials of beads everywhere. It seems such a shame for that group to have so many beads and poor calorimetry, and some of the vortex group to have the opposite. Maybe Scott could talk him into loaning out a few beads for a test spin. I have the utmost respect for George Miley, and he treated me very well. No doubt that the cancellation of the trip was completly due to Reding/CETI. It seems to me that CETI is on dangerous ground if they are trying to dictate who can and cannot visit a government-funded lab. Universities are very touchy about anything that seems to compromise academic feedem. -- Bob Horst From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 24 06:36:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA24006; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604240613.BAA10146@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: beads & calorimeter X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Over the past two weeks we have continued to work with the ersatz beads and our new calorimeter. Most of the time has been spent "in the trenches of science" and there is little of interest to report. I have discovered that it is still possible to split the coatings off the ersatz beads even when some thermal cycling preceeds electrolysis. Specifically, I recently started a new batch of beads, cycled them once up to 50C and back to 25C and then applied 50mA electrolysis current and simultaneously heated the beads up to 50C. Within 8 hours most of the beads in the cell had split open. As a result of this test, it now seems that two or more temperature cycles before electrolysis are desirable and that a cool electrolysis period at low current (i.e. 20mA) is desirable before attempting electrolysis at elevated temperatures and/or currents. I will attempt to confirm this recipe in the next two weeks. The new calorimeter works reasonably well now. Its precision on flow calorimetry is about +/- 0.05 watts and on NLC calorimetry about +/- 0.1 watts. As mentioned before, both calorimetric measurements are made simultaneously in this system and, thus far, we have observed reasonably good agreement between the two measurements. For all the experiments run thus far, both of these calorimetric measurements have also agreed dismayingly well with the measured input power to the cell. In the latest experiment, I tried cleaning all the components very well before assembling the cell. Then after completing the assembly, I circulated methanol through the system for 30 minutes and then distilled water for an hour. I then drained the water and filled the system with new, scrupulously prepared 1M Li2SO4. After this experiment had run for about 24 hours with no positive results, I added enough As solution to make the electrolyte 10^-5 M As. The experiment has run for 36 hours since the As addition with no sign of excess heat. Has anyone else who received ersatz beads obtained any experimental results yet? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 24 06:51:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA24321; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:31:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:31:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: 10 meter Cell Experiment Conclusions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page wrote: >What do you mean by "input"? I suppose you mean the electrode nearest the >+10V supply... but why do you call that the input? I could just as easily >claim that the other electrode was the "input". This is a circuit with a >simple two terminal device. This terminology is not appropriate. >In your example where there is no fluid, the resistance is very high >(infinite?) so all of the potential difference is dropped here. This is >just basic electronics. So I still don't understand. >>(2) The coveyance of potential dV/dT mandates and is completely tied to >>the conveyance of charge dQ/dT. >Hmmm... potential is just dV (difference in voltage). I don't see >precisely what its rate of change has to do with this question. And dQ/dT? >This looks more like electrodynamics than electronics. Yes, >electromagnetic waves do propagate (to a very small extent) in an >electrolyte, but I don't see what this directly has to do with conduction. > I can see we have a major communications gap regarding the nature of potential and the propagation of potential. I seem to be alone in my view of conduction and potential because I have had a number of private correspondences with others who have similar views to yours. It seems like many people are so ingrained in electronic circuit concepts that they can not think in terms of first principle physics about the true nature of conduction and potential. Maybe I am totally wrong in my concepts of conduction. Hopefully, though, much of the problem is due to lack of ability on my part to achieve the necessary clarity of communication, and focus attention to the correct level of detail. Perhaps one source of the communication difficulty is that electronic circuits were used to attempt to examine the fundamental problem, and therefore creates the EE mind set that prevents communication between us in similar terms. Please bear with any trivialities of the following. Perhaps by trying to break the concepts down into parts a conceptual problem can be isolated. As usual I'll just let loose with the concepts as if gospel and let the corrections fall where they may. I do not think the communication problem lies with my lack of understanding of quantum mechanics, because such an understanding is not material to the issues here. A quantum of charge, regardless of the form of it's quantum wave function, regardless of the psi^2 distribution of the wave function, has a mean location on a macro level, and on an atomic level. For example, it is the separation of mean location of the nucleus and the electron cloud that provides a dipole moment in an insulator in an electrostatic field for example. The charge of a particle is inextricably linked to the mass of a particle, which also has the same mean location. The mean location of mass can not move without the mean location of charge moving, and vice versa. This is so, regardless of the QM interpretation to which you subscribe. The main difference in a classical view and a QM view of conduction is in the quantized response of the lattice to charge motion, or phonons, and the nature of the conduction pathway, i.e. the conduction band. I do not believe these differences are important to this discussion, but perhaps they are, or there are other important differences. However, from here on the discussion is assumed to be at a classical level. What is the relation of net charge Q and potential V? You can not have one without the other. Charge is simply a count of the number of units of + charged particles minus the number of - charged particles times a utilitarian constant e. In other words, Q is a sum of unbalanced charges. We do not need to deal with (sufficiently locally) balanced charges in determining Q. How do we know which charges to count to determine a Q? The charges to count are typically designated by specifying the volume in which they are located. We speak of a charge on a capacitor plate, or on the spherical terminal of a van de Graff generator. Like charges repel, so in a conductor the unbalanced charges tend to repel each other out to the surface of the conductor. When talking about a static charge in a conductor, we are for the most part talking about a surface with charge distributed upon it. It is this association of charge to a quantity of volume or surface that results in the inextricable link between charge and potential. Since charge is a net value, we are always dealing with a repulsive force in determining the potential of a of a statically charged conductor. How is the potential derived and what does it mean in a realistic sense. Two particles of unlike charge require a force to bring them together. Work is done in bringing the unlike charges from a theoretically infinite distance to some specific distance. Work is expended bringing unlike charges into proximity, thus energy is stored when unbalanced charge is in proximity. The work done compressing the charges together is a potential energy available at some later time to do work. If there is any net repulsive force on an individual particle free to move it will accelerate in the direction opposite the force. If it is not free to move in all directions, it will move in the direction, of all the possible directions it is free to move, in which the component vector of the force is largest. For this reason, in a conductor with static charge Q>0, every individual net charge has on it a net force in a direction in which the charge is not free to move, i.e. perpendicular to some barrier, such as the edge of the conductor. It is the magnitude of this unbalanced "force at a point" which is the potential of the point. Charges in a conductor, or otherwise free to move, repel each other and will expend some of their potential energy doing so, in gaining the lowest potential energy possible. The charges are like a bunch of masses connected by repelling springs. Raising a static voltage in a conductor requires "compression" of additional charges into the conductor to increase the net unbalanced force on each charge in the conductor and to rearrange the charges in the conductor to a new lowest potential energy state. For example, a van de Graff generator must carry unbalanced charges on a belt up into the terminal sphere by exerting work on the charges over the distance from the brushes to the edge of the sphere. Once taken off the belt the charges mutually repel and rearrange throughout the surface of the sphere. The amount of work to bring in an incremental charge depends on the capacity of the sphere. The larger the sphere, the more distributed the charges, the less net unbalanced force on each charge, the less the potential on the surface of the sphere for a given Q. The less the potential, the less the force on the additional particles coming up the belt, the less work to add charge. The capacity of a sphere is very small. The capacitance of a sphere of diameter d in meters is given by C = d x 5.56x10^-11 Farads. A cylinder or wire has even less capacitance per unit of area. It is for this reason the energy to bring a wire not in a circuit up to a potential is ignored in EE applications, because it is nearly zero. However, it is most important to note that it is not zero! I think a failure to understand this principle leads to all kinds of ridiculous over unity ideas regarding potential and current. More importantly, it erroneously leads to kind of amorphous ethereal concept of potential as a kind of lightspeed electrostatic field projected in space from one end of a conductor to the other. This is maybe OK as long as the charge distribution remains static. So how does a local change in potential at one end of a conductor travel from that end of the conductor to the other? Not at light speed in a vacuum! The reason for this is that charges must move in the conductor for potential to propagate. If charges move, and their associated mass is not zero, they must be accelerated. They can not instantly jump to lightspeed. The propagation rate of potential must be less than lightspeed in a conductor. An electromagnetic field can propagate through a coaxial cable or wave guide at the speed of light, but there is no permanent charge displacement involved with such a wave. A permanent change in potential requires permanent charge displacement. The rate of propagation of such a displacement propagated by a specific species of particle, such as the electron, is proportional to the acceleration rate of the charge which, for a given change in force balance, is inversely proportional to the mass associated with the charge. The propagation is dependent on a local charge moving and changing (dV/dT) the force balance on neighbors which then accelerate (dI/dT) to move and change the charge balance on more distant neighbors, etc. So what about steady state conduction? It seems logical, especially since charge is quantized, to look at steady state conduction as the repetitive constant rate of removal of charge at one end of a conductor and steady state replacement to maintain a specific potential at the other (or vice versa). In this way it is possible to break a conductor into segments and treat the segments in a manner consistent with the whole, or vice versa. A removal of a charge at one end of a segment results in a change in potential being propagated from one end of the segment to the other, which eventually results in charge demand at the other end. Since lots of these events happen simultaneously, i.e. a conductor can be divided into many segments in both series and parallel, there is a continuous and massively parallel steady state current flow through the conductor. It is interesting that according to this concept that since moving charge has mass, it must have momentum. Charge acceleration can cause the potential to overshoot the balanced potential, then fly back, and create a rippling effect as potential equalizes. It seems logical that, even in the case of a steady current, that a specific lattice would resonate at a particular frequency when charge is flowing in it, just like water flowing in a pipe makes white noise with a characteristic frequency dominant. By these concepts it is also possible for the direction of charge motion and the direction of potential to be momentarily completely opposite due to the charge momentum. This is a condition that has been referred to as negative power (-v*i). I don't see where it is any more negative than a pendulum on the upswing, but maybe it could fool a watt meter. It is novel to think of current as a fluid with mass. An good sized automobile has about a pound of electrons in it. A coulomb has 6.24x10^18 electrons each weighing 9.11x10^-31 kg, or 5.69x10-12 kg/C. So a kilogram is about 1.76x10^11 coulombs., or about 5573 amp-years. So conducting the electrons in an automobile would take about 2500 years at 1 amp. A pound of protons at an amp would take about 16 months, but the protons in the car, if they could be separated out, would still take 2500 years at an amp. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 24 06:53:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA24801; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <317cba57.37196747@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: miley X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wharton wrote: [snip] >the potential energy. After sitting and sloshing around an appropriate >amount in the insulated container it can be argued with confidence that the >potential energy of the electrolyte has relaxed to the cell inflow value >and that the energy excess is equal to the heat excess. > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 This is such a positive statement, that it would be worth doing this experiment, just to permanently put an end to this hypothesis, on all newsgroups. But then, if he's right, he's right. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 24 07:05:29 1996 Received: from mail (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA26191; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <317cbb3b.37424741@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fwd: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:16 -0700 (PDT), FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: >Electrolysis depends on current not on voltage. This electrolysis current [snip] This is true, as long as the voltage doesn't reach the point where breakdown of the dielectric takes place, leading to avalanche currents, and as long as the minimum voltage for electrolysis is reached. In short there are limits. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 24 07:07:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA26544; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: on the experiment with C magnet X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Dear Horace, > >I would like to make a note on the experiment with superconducting >ring removed from a C magnet. >For superconduction phase, there are no the current in the ring, i.e. no >usual current from point of view of classical electrodynamics, however, >there is a difference of the phases of quantum pair condensat. >When the ring is removed from the area between the poles of the C magnet >motion of the pairs of the electrons will be correspond to the current of >the classical el-dynamics. Assuming the ring is removed along x axis, we >can find that the longitudinal force is caused by the term including >dAx/dx. >Such a force should re-distribute the pair condensat inside the ring and, >therefore, cause re-distribution of the magnetic field frosen in the ring, >however, cannot change the total flux of the magnetic field crossing the >plane of the ring. >Maybe it occurs while removing of the ring, however, it is too difficult >to check out experimentally. >Second point. If we remove the ring too fast the vortex electrical fields >induced inside the ring could be sufficient to destroy superconductivity. >One must estimate account of both possible effects. > >With warm regard, >Volodya Yes. Now that you bring this up I can see that an improved technique would be to have a the ring initially surround the poles of the C magnet, but not be in the primary flux. Slow removal of the ring would then induce a permanent current in the ring purpendicular to the existing but smaller flux. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 24 07:07:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA26952; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960424075547.3797e76a@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: your biz X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 02:25 PM 4/2/96 -0800, you wrote: >--- FORWARDED --- > >From: Frank Znidarsic > >Gene Mallove has really helped me out this time. I see my picture in >Iinfinite Energy Magazine with Jed and George Miley. Nice picture it I must >say so myself. I also see an add for my Book on a Disk in Infinite Energy, >Fusion Facts, and Adventures Unlimited.. Gene also published my paper on >zero point energy and gravity. Thanks Gene, you given me the break that I >needed. >My group of potential investors grows larger. I've been contancted, >unsolisited, from a economic development authority and by Waren Myers >president of CAMCO corp. Everyone wants to get on board. My Pittsburgh >group is also developing into something serious. Hal Fox is sending a list >of some near production technologies. Reed and I are working on a business >plan. What next? >With all of this taking place, wouldn't you know it, I got a letter from a VP >at GPU stating that they want to reexamine this "sigificantly important >technology". Apparently when I shut up they had to get their info off of >network television. They saw Puthoff on the discovery channel doing some ESP >(Hal do you really do this?) Someone noted that Hal and I had exchanged >notes some years ago. Now they want to send me to Texas to see Jim Reding >again. Just two weeks ago I was told to do my work and to shut up. With so >much coming together on my own, any effort with GPU would now turn into a >massive conflict of interest. I told the VP that I wanted to keep my >personal interests separate from my work responsibilities. I now feel a >hammer above my head. Jim Torpy of GPU is spear heading the effort for GPU. > I am continuing with my plan and am partnering with a major manufacturer. > For the time being manufacturing and sales will be where the potential lies. > What can a Utility do? > >Frank Znidarsic > Frank: how is this all coming? are you set up now? working with Patterson? elsewhere? what experiments are you running? best wishes. Mitchell > > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 24 07:06:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA26985; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: 10 meter Cell Experiment Conclusions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page wrote: > >So consider a kind of transformer with one winding consisting of >copper wire, the other "winding" consisting of coiled insulating tubing >filled with an electrolyte. > > || ==============\ > -----------\ || // || > / || \\ || > electronic \ || // ionic ||(------- current probe > cicuit / || \\ circuit || > \ || // || > -----------/ || \\ || > || ==============/ > >What sort of current probe do you have in mind? A SQUID-type of device? >What sort of shielding would be necessary? I think the type of probe depends on the specific experiment or application the range of current and response time values, size of condcutor, etc., so the degrees of freedom are very large. A probe should be able to see the DC component as well as the A/C component so a clamp-on core transformer type probe (for AC) combined with a Hall Effect Device (for DC) would be good. The problem with these probes is the bigger the diameter the lower the tail off frequency. A good cheap probe to start with might be a Tektronix A622 AC/DC Current Probe ($390 US). The A622 can handle 50 mA to 100 A pk. (DC to 100 kHz) and a conductor diameter of 11.8 mm or 0.46 in. Because of the hall effect device a DC probe can not be used around magnetic influences, so the ionic circuit would have to be big enough to avoid the influence of the transformer coil. The background is easy enough to test - just unclamp the probe. There are much fancier probe systems with programmable amplifiers that provide automatic degausing and calibration and probes that resolve 20 MHz currents. About circuits to try, the following non-circuit migt be interresting: Fluid ---\ /--------------------------------------P----------------- \/\/\/ (Probe) ------ ------ /\/\/\ | | A square wave applied to the primary would result in a negative and positive spikes at the leading edges which should propagate to probe P. The separated waveform arriving at P might give an indication of the massses of the charge carrying species. It would also be interresting to try a twisted pair version of the above, and the "T in a vertical magnetic field" experiment. Maybe a T in a horizontal electrostatic field would be interresting also. Also vary the frequency at the transformer and measure the output at P vs freq. in both closed and open loops. Then there are just plain fluid equivalents of standard electron circuit elements like diodes (NP) and transistors (NPN) or (PNP) made by using membranes separating doped solutions as you suggested earlier. There is just an infinite variety of things to try. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 25 13:52:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA22321; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <317E4F76@ELAN.RDYNE.ROCKWELL.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Vtx: AC Meters X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I sent this out last week, but it hasn't appeared yet, so I'm sending it again. I'm new to the vortex-l net, and to the internet in general, so let me introduce myself. I am an electrical engineer, and work for the Rocketdyne division of Rockwell as an Iinformation scientist, working in the area of Nondestructive evaluation primarily as an instrumentation engineer and programmer. In particular I work on industrial computerized tomography and ultrasound. Rocketdyne makes rocket engines, the Space Shuttle Main Engine and the Atlas among others. I am personally quite interested in alternate energy sources, but my company is not particullarly. Nate Hoffman (the author of "A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects" reviewed by Jed Rothwell in the Vol 1, #3 1995 of Infinite Energy) also works for Rocketdyne, but I have never met him. I hope I am more open minded then he is. I have been doing my homework, reading the messages in the archives for the last year, and have one concern over some of the meter readings people are using to estimate power consumption. Ideally, one should look at all the voltage and current signals with an oscilloscope and/or an A/D converter connected to a PC, and calculate the power. There is a wide range of AC meters in use. The most common ones these days are the digital voltmeters. In their AC position, unless they are RMS meters, they usually are peak reading voltmeters. They have a scaling resistor, a diode rectifier and a capacitor across the input, and they read the dc voltage across the capacitor. The scale is multiplied by 0.707 so they give the correct RMS value when they are reading sinusoidal voltages. The problem with them comes in when the waveform they are reading is not sinusoidal. You can test the meter by connecting a diode in series with a resistor, across a small AC transformer, or even the AC mains if you're careful, and use a resistor of appropriate power rating. Take a reading with the leads connected one way, record it, and then reverse the leads. If the two readings are not almost the same, you probably have a peak reading voltmeter. The small aquarium pumps some of you are using, or the kind that periodical compress tubing may not have very sinusoidal current waveforms because of the varying load. The current readings will be in error, so the power will not equal V*I. You should beg, borrow or steal an oscilloscope, and check the waveforms if you are doing serious power measurements. The older analog meters, such as a 'Simpson' usually have a full wave rectifier on their AC positions, and multiply average DC voltage produced by 1.11 to convert it to an RMS equivalent value. Again test them by reversing the leads, and see if they read the same. If so, it may be safe to multiply V and I if the waveforms are sinusoidal but you seriously underestimate the power in a square wave with a peak reading voltmeter, and over estimate a spikey waveform. Power is the time rate of change of energy, Instantaneous power p(t) = v(t) * i(t) where v(t) is the voltage waveform, and i(t) the current. Average power is the integral of p(t) over an appropriate time period, usually a cycle if the waveforms are periodic. Pavg = 1/T*Integral(0:T, v(t)*i(t) dt) ~= 1/n * Sum(j=1:j=n, vj *ij) where vj,ij are samples of the voltage and current taken at sample index j. If T is large, or the wave forms are quite varying, it probably makes more sense to work with energy instead of power. To me, measuring resistance doesn't make much sense, unless the resistance is relatively stable. A carbon resistor, a wirewound, or film are quite stable over a wide range of voltages and currents, maintaining a constant ratio between voltage and current (Ohms law). But light bulbs, electrochemical reactions, vacuum tubes, diodes, thermistors etc. do not keep a constant ratio, and you might better just describe them by the voltage across them and the current through them. Keep up the good work, and if anyone has any experimental data collected from the Kawai, Johnson, or Takahashi Magnetic Engines I would like to see it. The Kawai engine looks very much like a stepping motor to me:-). From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 25 13:55:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA23748; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Electrolytic (MOE) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert wrote: > >Dear Horace: > >Very good work. Thanks. > >This information forms an interesting parallel to a 1979 >paper I wrote " The ..... Theory of Duality of Resonance >in Matter" Which was an attempt to explain excess heat in >an experimental NMR system. > >Also a 1986 paper "Experimental Table Top Fusion" >reporting on the use of two frequencies, one a catalyst >frequency, the other an excitation frequency to create >excess heat in a 1000ml pyrex flask. Any chance of more info regarding the articles? I do intend to construct a MOE Cell. > >I think you are on the right track Horace, just that your >frequencies are a bit off. Could you be a little more specific? > >The coulomb barrier is the key. Funny, that's a two edged sword. The coulomb barrier is also a coulomb well for the electron. But the key to falling into the coulomb well for the electron is sufficiently reducing the electron's de Broglie wavelength, which requires keV energies. Maybe the key is getting two or more condensed nuclei and some keV electrons to do a little dance and fall into the well together. It is very interresting that the Kasagi rection requires the creation of closed cell bubbles of H2 in the Al lattice *and* a minimum fluence of electrons. The minimum fluence indicates that two or more electrons might have to be simultaneously involved in such the little dance. Also, a major uncontrolled variable in most CF experiments is magnetic field strength. Every cell is exposed to the geomagnetic field, at a minimum. The strength and inclination of that field varies from place to place. Varying the strength varies the NMR resonant frequency. Most cells are exposed to 60 cycle noise, and many other frequencies which might be candidates for a perturbing frequency or some octave of one. Also, individual cell parts, especially nickel, might be magnetized to differing degrees due to exposure to magnets or degaussing fields during fabrication. The CF effect might turn on in some parts of a cell and not others, or some cells and not others, or in some parts of the country and not others, due to this uncontrolled variable. > >Good Luck! > >Robert > Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 25 13:56:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA24785; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604242008.QAA20498@lux> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Ron Peterson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: beads & calorimeter X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Has anyone else who received ersatz beads obtained any experimental results yet? Not I. Still collecting equipment, chemicals, and catalogs. Currently new tires for the car are a higher priority than platinum screen. I have a suggestion for Scott; since the surface characteristics of the cathode seems to make a difference in many CF experiments, if you find you're getting no results with the ersatz beads, why not try altering their surface? Roll them around on a super fine emery or try a quick immersion in an acid. Probably won't help much with bead flaking, but might be worth trying if you reach a dead end. Incidently, can anyone direct me to info about the work of Reed Huish anywhere on the net? The major search engines on the web haven't turned up anything. Ron RonP@sover.net From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 25 14:08:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA25829; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Electrolytic (MOE) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: thus the NMR resonant frequency should be 82 >>MHz. This means, for >>light water (proton) applications, that B must be 1.9524 >>weber/meter^2. [snip] >I think you are on the right track Horace, just that your >frequencies are a bit off. > >The coulomb barrier is the key. > >Good Luck! > >Robert > A 1.9 T magnetic field is a bit of a problem, and it would be much nicer to deal with someting around 20 MHz, so 4881 Gauss and 20.5 MHz would be a lot easier to achieve - just have to hope those 2 octave overtones will do the job. Is there some other basis for picking a design NMR frequency range? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 25 14:22:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA28593; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I3XWXREHMQ9BZB6A@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE:beads & calorimeter X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 24 Apr 1996 06:29:36 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 24 Apr 1996 06:29:36 Scott Little wrote: Subject: beads & calorimeter , >For all the experiments run >thus far, both of these calorimetric measurements have also agreed >dismayingly well with the measured input power to the cell. Maybe I'm misunderstanding or missing something but if the heat of the electrolyte equals input then wouldn't the energy stored in the O & H be excess? This could easily be recovered by combustion inside or outside the cell. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 25 14:26:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA00121; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Vortex seems to have completely died today. Try number 2: Here is an idea for a little more lively regime to investigate. The idea is to take advantage of the very long mean free path in an H2 atmosphere. Combined with this idea is continual H2 gas phase injection of a liquid cooled metal target, e.g. aluminum, alternated with electron stimulation as per the Kamada et al experiment, and the multi-resonant conditions of the MOE cell. More specifically, use a tesla coil to excite an H2 environment so that the two metal plate electrodes are alternately bombarded with H nuclei (in the y axis) and electrons at 175 keV or more. Purpendicular to the electrodes (in the z axis) place a permanent magnetic field and purpendicular to that (in the x axis) an exciter coil so that the H2 in the target is in NMR resonance with both the exciter coil and the tesla coil frequency, as with the MOE cell NMR exciter and electrolytic current A/C component frequency. The electrodes would be liquid cooled using an electrically insulating coolant like carbon tetraflouride or carbon tetrachloride. It would also be possible to use as a target a single plate at ground potential cooled with water and a point or hot wire electrode as the stimulator. The H2 would be ionized by the high voltage and high frequency of the tesla coil stimulation, and on the first phase of the cycle electrode A would be bombarded with H+ while electrode B was stimulated with electrons, and on phase 2 of the cycle vice versa. This alternates H injection with electron stimulation to achieve continuous operation. The tesla coil current and the device geometry and gas pressure should be adjusted to strive for an H fluence of 5 x 10^17 H+/cm^2-s for loading purposes, but an electron fluence of 10^19 e/cm^2-s. This might be facilitated by using a hot wire electrode, opposite the target plate, to increase the electron current. The H could be a D/T mixture. Thoughts? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 25 14:31:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA01424; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960425141429_72240.1256_EHB30-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex [I posted this in the CompuServe SCIENCE forum just to keep the pot boiling over there, and I sent it Vortex, but it never showed up. Here it is again. I apologize if some people got it twice. This is mostly old hat to the readers of this forum, but I thought you might enjoy it.] It has been a while since I reported on cold fusion (CF) in this forum. Let me describe a little background and some recent developments that I find particularly interesting. Let me start with a caveat. So much is happening in the field that it is not possible for me to follow or understand every development. I pay no attention to theory papers, which are over my head. I pay little attention to experiments devoted to the nuclear aspects of the phenomenon, like the studies of neutrons or the continuing tritium work at Los Alamos. That sort of thing is interesting to people who want to understand the physics of cold fusion. I am only interested in the technological potential of cold fusion as a source of energy. The CF effect was first reported by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989. It was subsequently confirmed by several hundred laboratories, mostly in Japan, where it is now being researched by groups in most major universities, national laboratories and major corporations. MITI's New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) formed a CF research and development consortium, and it is sponsoring the upcoming Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion in October 1996. Other major research is performed in Italy, by corporations including the Fiat Motor Company and the government's national nuclear research laboratories (INFN). CF occurs in highly loaded metal hydrides (metals with hydrogen or deuterium dissolved in them at very high concentrations). It produces heat and the transmutation of elements and isotopes. Helium and tritium are synthesized, and the host metal lattice can be transmuted in both fission and fusion reactions. CF does not produce gamma rays or intense neutrons or other signatures characteristic of plasma fusion. The reason for this remains a scientific mystery which is vigorously debated by the theory mavens. The CF effect has been seen in a number of different metal lattices, starting with Pd and Ti in 1989. It was later reported in Ni, Au, and in the high temperature superconductor (HTSC) compound Sr(CeYNb)O3. There is evidence that a supersaturated Pd or Ni hydride will superconduct, so perhaps all CF devices are also HTSC. Various techniques continue to be used to create saturated metal hydrides: electrochemistry, gas loading, proton conductors (gas electrolysis), ion beam, sparking, and injection by ultrasonic bubble collapse. As I see it, the most promising results continue to come from Ni - H (nickel loaded with natural hydrogen). The most promising techniques are gas loading and electrochemistry. Three leading researchers in Ni are Mills (HCPC, Malvern, PA), Piantelli (U. Sienna, Italy) and Patterson (CETI, Dallas, TX). Mills and Piantelli use gas loading, which I think has more technological potential than liquid electrochemistry. The best gas loading experiments have produced higher power density than electrochemistry. Mills claims the gas loaded cells "are already operating at power densities and temperatures equivalent to those of many fossil-fueled electrical generating powerplants." This remarkable performance has been observed by recent visitors to HCPC. Unfortunately, Mills remains secretive, so more widespread tests of the latest cells may not be conducted for some time. The gas loading technique is inherently cleaner (it is less subject to contamination), and it allows higher temperatures. Liquid electrochemical cells must be pressurized over 100 deg C. They require pumps to circulate the electrolyte or cooling water, to prevent overheating, and they are more subject to leaks & corrosion than the gas cells. However, liquid electrolyte does have some advantages. CETI and others have demonstrated exciting breakthroughs with this technique, so it cannot be counted out yet. In December 1995 at the Power-Gen conference, CETI demonstrated a cell with a 40 ml cathode that produced 1,300 watts for a short period with 1.4 watts of input (I*V), and 400 to 500 watts for extended periods, with only 0.1 watts of input. The CETI work has been verified by Miley (U. Illinois), Bowles (U. Missouri), and Motorola. Miley is observing both heat and nuclear effects. CETI was featured on ABC's Nightline program, on February 7, 1996. A group at NASA recently tested one of the older electrochemical cells from Mills, and confirmed 65% excess heat. See: J. M. Niedra (NYMA Inc), I. Myers, G. C. Fralick, R. Badlin (Lewis Research Center) "Replication of the Apparent Excess Heat Effect in Light Water - Potassium Carbonate - Nickel Electrolytic Cell," Technical Memorandum 107167, February 1996 Continued progress is also being made in Pd - D (palladium - deuterium) systems. In some ways, Pd remains the material of choice because it requires less preparation and less knowledge of materials. Most highly effective Ni cathodes are made of specially fabricated material, in thin film or some other configuration with a high surface area (so-called "spongy nickel"). Ordinary, off the shelf Ni samples produces no heat or heat at such low power density that with a reasonably sized cathode, convenient for a laboratory benchtop experiment, it is difficult to detect. Ni is also reportedly prone to recombination, so results lower than total input energy (I*V) cannot be trusted. This is not an issue with gas loaded cells, of course. Pd, on the other hand, can be used in a simple flat plate or rod. It has to be prepared carefully and kept scrupulously clean. There are a number of recommended methods of testing Pd cathodes in advance to determine if it will work, as well as methods of repairing it if it does not load evenly or retain hydrogen well. Edmund Storms has published an excellent paper describing these techniques: E. Storms, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect," Fusion Technology, March 1996 (I think) Contact Storms or me for a pre-print. As I said, I generally pay little attention to the nuclear aspects of CF, but several recent reports of host metal transmutations have caught my attention. "Host metal" refers to the cathode metal that the hydrogen or deuterium is loaded into. In some cases (perhaps all cases), some of this metal is transmuted into other elements and isotopes, some heavier than the host metal, and some lighter. This phenomenon might conceivably have commercial applicability in two areas: synthesizing rare elements, and remediating radioactive materials. The phenomenon has been seen with Pd, Ni and Au. How it might occur is a mystery quite beyond me, but the evidence for these changes is easy enough to understand, and the effect might have commercial applications besides energy generation, so I am interested in it. The phenomenon was first observed by K. Wolf at Texas A&M, in research sponsored by EPRI. Wolf himself has never reported these results, but fortunately, T. Passell of EPRI described them at the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF5). Short-lived radioisotopes were synthesized inside Wolf's Pd cathode. These are easy to identify even in tiny amounts because they produce characteristic gamma signatures. These signatures were confirmed by other laboratories. At ICCF5 Karabut, Kucherov et al. reported many new elements formed inside their cathodes. Bockris & Minevski recently described a number of elements created inside Pd, including Mg, Ag, Si, Cl, K, Ca, Ti, Fe, Cu, Zn and Pt. Bockris found that at a depth of 1 micron up to 68% of the Pd had been converted into these other elements. Ca, for example, went from 3.5*10^-4% in the virgin material to 19.9%. Many of these elements were not sufficiently present in contamination in the electrolyte to account for these results, and in any case they could not have penetrated to this depth during the 3-week run. Mizuno recently examined Pd cathodes used in experiments three years ago. He found Ca, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Cd, Sn, Xe, Pt and Pb. We know these cannot be impurities for three reasons: 1. Some were present in amounts 10 to 100 times greater than the total level of impurities measured in the cell; 2. A great deal of Xe was found, and Xe is not absorbed into metals during electrolysis; 3. The distribution of isotopes for most of the synthesized elements was radically different from that of naturally occurring elements. For example, natural copper is 70% Cu63, and 30% Cu65. But the copper found in the cathode was 100% Cu63, with no detectable levels of Cu65. Natural isotopic distribution varies by less than 0.001% for copper. Pd has many isotopes, so it transmutes into a confusing mixture of many different elements. Au has only one isotope which simplifies the problem by limiting outcomes. This makes it a better choice for studies of host metal transmutation. Work is now underway with Au cathodes. Host metal transmutations have also been found in Ni, but detailed information about this has not yet been released. - Jed Rothwell http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 25 14:46:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA05458; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 04/23/96 04:30 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: 28April Dear All --- Although my stance on "nuclear" energy is that (at least in the U.S.) we are losing the intellectual capacity to continue to run nuclear plants....and we should shut them all down (therefore), I have been a staunch nuclear power supporter in the past. Norman: That old arguement about nuclear plants being NET energy lost systems is just plain "anti nuclear" propaganda. I PERSONNALLY aquired some construction estimating manuals once and did some estimates of the energy "cost" of a nuclear plant, and found the ROI (return on investment) to be OVER 10,000 to 1. (Energy wise.) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 25 14:48:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA06071; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:36:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:36:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960425004310_100433.1541_BHG43-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Confused mumblings. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: (Another try at posting this) Hal Puthoff's comments on Ampere force and such started me off again. There is nowt so queer as folks, they tell me, but I reckon electromagnetism runs "folks" a close second. The more I look at it, the more confused I get. Here are a few observations which occur to me. 1. As a rule, working physicists don't really have much knowledge of the subject. As a demo of this, just give 'em the hoary old questions about the Faraday disc and see how many of them know about 1830s eperimental results. 2. That wouldn't matter so much, but most of them actually think they do have a grasp of the subject. 3. Because they don't, the weirdos can propose all manner of nonsense and get away with it - the physicists can't put their finger on the snags, which are often "obvious to the meanest intelligence" (mine). 4. Why all the fuss about the Ampere force? After all, if the Ampere Law equation is derived from observations (which it is, it's wholly empirical) and is in conflict with a field-theory based law (Lorenz), which suddenly cuts off at theta = 0 when the Ampere one does not - why, then we are believing Lorenz for no very good reason. Or am I missing something regrettably basic here? I'm hugely unsurprised that the Ampere force appears to exist, and I bet that if at the time of Lorenz somebody had pointed out the different predictions and done the experiment - Lorenz would have been sent back to the drawing board. 5. Then we have flux-cutting and flux-linking. Sheesh. 6. As Culwick points out rather forcefully, no fields are required. Well, they are, but only for anthropocentric reasons. We none of us like direct action, so we abjure it and set it behind us as spooky. And if we don't have field theory, then many theoreticians would be "reduced in circumstances" and maybe even into destitution. But fields and their "virtual photons" (snigger) appear to *me* to be violations of Ockham's Razor. 7. If, however, we have an 'active vacuum' as in ZPF theory - then we have everything we need for a coherent EM theory - I would imagine? So where's the big problem? Why have all this crazy, unnecessary and apparently just-plain-damn-wrong field stuff? 8. A lot of very very interesting experimental work was done in EM around and soon after the turn of the century. Then all experimental work seemed to Peter Out (as against Peter Graneau, it would seem). Why? Well, it seems that we knew all that stuff anyway, so no point in doing any experiments - Point One above notwithstanding. 9. I can't help noticing that if one looks at old and new textbooks on the subject, most of the awkward stuff which causes comment in the old ones seems to have disappeared from the new ones. Naturally, I do appreciate how important it is that bright young minds shouldn't be confused, and anyway all this pretty mathematics is much more significant than all those boring old experiments - innit? Oh, I dunno. I don't have any real skill with all the fancy 'rithmortic, and I propose no alternative (except that I like this active vacuum idea, it is all cuddly like the dear old aether). It may be just me, since almost everybody else seems quite happy with working out how many virtual photons can dance on the head of a pin. I wonder if I'm just too stoopid to see the light, or whether the emperor really is displaying his (hideous) nakedness? I'm not sure I care very much any more, and I may just be terminally confused. But so far I have failed to reach any meeting of the minds with my intellectual superiors in this matter. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:07:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA02246; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:59:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:59:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE:beads & calorimeter X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 04/25/96 14:21 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: RE:beads & calorimeter I'm concerned that Scott is missing a point with regard to his work. Unless he has done something MAGIC with regards instrumentation, his set up is not all that dramtically different from the other set ups used to test the Patterson beads....Therefore----doesn't this contribute to the understanding of the likelyhood of an excess artifact? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:12:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA02993; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: beads & calorimeter X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >Has anyone else who received ersatz beads obtained any experimental >results yet? > > - Scott Little Sorry, I'm not there yet. The cell has been sitting here full of beads and ready to go for a long time, but I have been dragging my feet on the calorimeter waiting for cash flow to catch up with my overzealous spending, and getting diverted by other vortex issues. Still reading up on thermometry also. Having watched your results with much interest, I have been glad for my own procrastination. It will be really nice if you have worked out the protocol to prevent flaking prior to my loading the beads. Thanks for the effort. Also, thanks much to your slave (oops, assistant) for doing that interresting work on 2 m Li2SO4 specific heat determination. Very useful information. I should be getting some values for 1 m Li2SO4 from the two loop calorimeter soon. I was surprised to see that you are using 2 molar. I was planning on 1 m because that's what the Powergen concentration was reported to be. Also, a 5oo g. bottle cost me over $100. Why use 2 m if 1 m will do? I got mine where Mitchell Jones got his because I don't like being given an "attitude check" before buying. Maybe there is a cheaper source of Li2SO4 where they also don't give you the third degree before taking your order? It's interresting the patterson patent simply calls for a salt solution. If we just had one replicatable cell we could try substituting cheaper components one at a time. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:12:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA03300; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: dacha@shentel.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: resonance with both the exciter coil and the tesla coil frequency, as with the MOE cell NMR exciter and electrolytic current A/C component frequency. -----------------End of Original Message----------------- Dear Horace, You have it seems, been able to reproduce the reasoning behind my original experiment. What a hoot! I have explained this experiment to both Scott and Chis in enough detail for them to see the connection. The last few weeks I have been tied up. Spending much time passing out data from the Chernobly accident to a few european friends in an attempt to find money for the cleanup. This project now complete and my root canal behind me, I hope to have time for my experiments. If there is time I will reconsruct the original experiment and pass on the data to all that are interested I am still waiting for the OK to pass on the data concerning the russian warm fusion cell. Robert ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 4/25/96 Time: 6:23:00 PM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:15:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA03518; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960426001308_72240.1256_EHB118-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Please keep line length under 80 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Will contributors to this forum please keep message line length less than 80 charactors? Otherwise the lines get broken and the messages are very hard to read. I do not know about other interfaces, but the e-mail readers for CompuServe and Delphi automatically break lines over 80 characters long, and I cannot find an option to override that. Here is what happens to longer lines (an example from Henry Scudder): I have been doing my homework, reading the messages in the archives for the last year, and have one concern over some of the meter readings people are using to estimate power - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:15:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA03739; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:05:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:05:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960425211301_382941677@emout18.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Lewisarons@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Fantastic Free Offer I found on the net X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Fantastic Free Offer I found on the net Date: 96-04-25 18:48:53 EDT From: Lewisarons To: Lewisarons To: internet.announcement.service@r1.f64.n8769.z303.fidonet.org -----> NOTE: Please first read my note which appears below the "Request for more info Form." Then, to get more info, just fill out the "Request for More Info" form completely and *FAX* or *SMAIL* it back to the company. You will get a quick reply via email within 1 business day of receipt of the info request form below. IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR THOSE FAXING IN THEIR REPLY: Please make sure you return *only* the below form and *no part* of this message other than the actual form below. If you do not know how to cut and paste the below form onto a fresh clean blank page for faxing, then you may re-type the below form, as long as you copy it line for line *exactly.* This is necessary in order for them to be able to process the tremendous number of replies that they get daily. Your fax goes directly onto their 4.2 gigabyte computer hard drive, not paper, and all incoming fax calls are set-up to be *auto-terminated* and/or *auto-deleted* from the incoming queue of faxes to be read, if your fax: 1. has a cover page; 2. is more than one page 3. is sent more than one time 4. does not begin with the "cut here/begin" line from the below form 5. does not end with the "cut here/end" line from the below form. 6. has any handwritten info. on it (info must must be filled out *only* with your computer keyboard or typewriter keyboard). This last provision re: no handwriting on the form applies to requests sent in via smail also. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOTE: Their fax line is open 24 hrs. per day / 7 days per week. However, if you have trouble getting through due to the high volume of overseas faxes coming in during the early morning and late night hours, please note that the best time to get through to their fax is Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm EST (New York Time). If you have trouble getting through to their fax, or do not have a fax machine at work or at home, just drop the below form to them via smail (airmail or first class mail). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *------------cut here/begin-------------------------------------------* REQUEST FOR MORE INFO: please return *only* this section (with no cover page) via 1-page fax to: 718-967-1550 in the USA or via smail (first class mail or airmail) to: Magazine Club Inquiry Center Att. FREE Catalogue-by-email Dept. PO Box 990 Staten Island NY 10312-0990 Sorry, but incomplete forms *will not* be acknowledged. If you do not have an email address, or access to one, they will not be able to help you until you do have one. If you saw this message, then you should have one. :) ---> SORRY, BUT NO HANDWRITTEN FORMS WILL BE ACKNOWLEDGED. MUST BE TYPED-OUT ON YOUR COMPUTER OR TYPEWRITER. <--- Name: Internet email address: Smail home address: City-State-Zip: Country: Work Tel. #: Work Fax #: Home Tel. #: Home Fax #: How did you hear about us (name of person who referred you or the area of the internet that you saw us mentioned in): Referral by: Lewis Arons. 040896-l-ifo Name of USA mags you currently get on the newsstand or in the store: Name of USA mags you currently get on the newsstand or in the store: Name of USA mags you currently get on a subscription basis, through the mail: Name of USA mags you would like price quotes on when we call you: Catalogue format desired (list "1," "2," "3" or "4"): *------------cut here/end--------------------------------------------* Catalogue Format Options: 1. 19-Part email- can be read by EVERYONE (~525 K Total). 2. For more advanced computer users: attached text file ~525K - you must know how to download an attached text file and then be able to open it with your word processor. If in doubt, don't ask for this version. This isn't for internet *newbies.* Better to order option 1 and spend a few minutes pasting them into one whole text document with your word processor, than to waste hours trying to figure how to deal with this option. 3. For more advanced Macintosh computer users: compressed attached text file, created with a Stuffit(tm) self-extracting archive (.sea), ~133K. Can be decompressed by any Macintosh computer user; no special expansion software or knowledge of Stuffit (tm) needed. You just double-click on the file icon and it automatically expands (unstuffs). This is for more advanced mac computer users only, as you still have to know how to deal with an attached file. It will cut your download time by 75%. Expands out to the same ~525K file in option #2. See option #2 for more info on what you will need to be able to do. 4. For expert computer users: compressed attached text file, created with Stuffit(tm), ~114K. Can be decompressed by any computer user who has expansion software to decompress (expand) Stuffit(tm) (.sit) files. This is for more advanced computer users only and will cut your download time by 78%. Expands out to the same ~525K file in option #2. See option #2 for more info on what you will need to be able to do. Hi fellow 'netters, My name is Lewis Arons and I recently started using a magazine subscription club in the USA that has a FREE 1 yr. magazine subscription deal with your first paid order- and I have been very pleased with them. They have over 1,500 different USA titles that they can ship to any country on a subscription basis. As for computer magazines from the USA, they more of a selection than I ever knew even existed. They have magazines for most every area of interest in their list of 1,500 titles. Within the USA, for their USA members, they are cheaper than all their competitors and even the publishers themselves. This is their price guarantee. Overseas, on the average, they are generally around one-fourth to one-half of what the newsstands overseas charge locally for USA magazines. On some titles they are as little as one-tenth of what the newsstands charge. They feel that mgazines should not be a luxury overseas. In the USA, people buy magazines and then toss them after reading them for just a few minutes or hours. They are so cheap in the USA! Well, this company would like to make it the same way for their overseas members. They are also cheaper than all their competitors in the USA and overseas, including the publishers themselves! This is their price guarantee. Around one-half their business comes from overseas, so they are very patient with new members who only speak limited English as a 2nd language. Their prices are so cheap because they deal direct with each publisher and cut-out all the middlemen. They will send you their DELUXE EMAIL CATALOGUE (around 525K-big and juicey) !)...if you completely fill out the form above. It has lists of all the freebies, lists of all the titles they sell, titles broken down by categories and detailed descriptions on nearly 1,200 of the titles that they sell. Please do not email me as I am just a happy customer and a *busy* student. I don't have time to even complete my thesis in time, let alone run my part-time software business! Please fill out the above form and carefully follow the intructions above to get it to them via fax or smail. They guarantee to beat all their competitors' prices. Sometimes they are less than half of the next best deal I have been able to find and other times, just a little cheaper - but I have never found a lower rate yet. They assured me that if I ever do, they will beat it. They have been very helpful and helped me with all my address changes as I haved moved from one country to another. They have a deal where you can get a free 1 yr. sub to a new magazine from a special list of over 295 popular titles published in the USA. They will give you this free 1 yr. sub when you place your first paid order with them to a renewal or new subscription to any of the over 1,500 different popular USA titles they sell. They can arrange delivery to virtually any country and I think they have clients in around 45 or 46 countries now. Outside the USA there is a charge for FPH (foreign postage and handling) (on both paid and freebie subs) that varies from magazine to magazine. I have found their staff to be very friendly and courteous. They even helped me with an address change when I moved from one country to another. The owner thinks of his service as a "club" and his clients as "members" (even though there is no extra fee to become a member - your first purchase automatically makes you a member) and he is real picky about who he accepts as a new member. When he sets you up as a new member, he himself calls you personally on the phone to explain how he works his deal, or sometimes he has one of his assistants call. He is kind of quirky sometimes - he insists on setting up new members by phone so he can say hi to everyone (I sure wouldn't want to have his phone bills!), but you can place future orders (after your first order) via E-mail. He has some really friendly young ladies working for him, who seem to know just as much as he does about this magazine stuff. If you live overseas, he will even call you there, as long as you are interested, but I think he still makes all his overseas calls on the weekends, I guess cause the long distance rates are cheaper then. He only likes to take new members from referrals from satisfied existing members and he does virtually no advertising. When I got set-up, they had a 2-3 week waiting list for new members to be called back so that they could join up. (Once you are an existing member, they help you immediately when you call. ) I think they are able to get back to prospective new members the same day or within a few days now, as they have increased their staff. I am not sure about this.........but if you email the above form to them, that is the way to get started! They will send you their DELUXE EMAIL CATALOGUE (around 525K-big and juicey) !)...if you completely fill out the form above. It has lists of all the freebies, lists of all the titles they sell, titles broken down by categories and detailed descriptions on nearly 1,200 of the titles that they sell. They then send you email that outlines how his club works and the list of free choices that you can choose from, as well as the entire list of what he sells; and then they will give you a quick (3-5 minute) friendly, no-pressure no-obligation call to explain everything to you personally and answer all your questions. Once you get in, you'll love them. I do. Sincerely, Lewis Arons From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:16:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA03964; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960425220953_280865504@emout09.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: RMCarrell@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris, you warm my heart. I'm doing a book review of the Newman machine for Gene. Any insights? I find curious parallels to Alfven's electrodynamical cosmology, Osamu Ide's paper mentioned in a recent IE, and Bearden's most interesting paper in the last IE. I'm mumbling confusedly to myself. As an EE, I find myself curously in a position much like the spf vipers pawing at the PowerGen demo. There is a pony in there somewhere (do you know the joke to which that phrase is the punch line?), but Newman's book is a poor guide to teasing it out. And I am apalled at the explanatory papers Hastings wrote. For a PhD in a senior position to show as a formal analysis someting which has such confused terminology and sloppy address to basics is, well, #$%&@*. It's as bad as some of the SPF stuff. By the way, that's a private opinion. I will be much more polite in my review, letting quotations speak for themselves. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:22:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA04352; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604260251.TAA04870@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: beads & calorimeter X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:44 PM 4/25/96 -0700, you wrote: >>Has anyone else who received ersatz beads obtained any experimental results yet? > >Not I. Still collecting equipment, chemicals, and catalogs. Currently >new tires for the car are a higher priority than platinum screen. > >I have a suggestion for Scott; since the surface characteristics of the >cathode seems to make a difference in many CF experiments, if you >find you're getting no results with the ersatz beads, why not try >altering their surface? Roll them around on a super fine emery or try a >quick immersion in an acid. Probably won't help much with bead flaking, but >might be worth trying if you reach a dead end. > >Incidently, can anyone direct me to info about the work of Reed Huish >anywhere on the net? The major search engines on the web haven't >turned up anything. > > Ron > > RonP@sover.net > contact Reed Huish at 602-814-7865 ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:25:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA05088; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604260314.UAA08245@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I think the reason why I like your writing is that you keep reminding myself of myself. At 02:36 PM 4/25/96 -0700, you wrote: > >(Another try at posting this) > >Hal Puthoff's comments on Ampere force and such started me off again. >There is nowt so queer as folks, they tell me, but I reckon >electromagnetism runs "folks" a close second. The more I look at it, >the more confused I get. Here are a few observations which occur to me. > >1. As a rule, working physicists don't really have much knowledge of >the subject. As a demo of this, just give 'em the hoary old questions >about the Faraday disc and see how many of them know about 1830s >eperimental results. > >2. That wouldn't matter so much, but most of them actually think they >do have a grasp of the subject. > >3. Because they don't, the weirdos can propose all manner of nonsense >and get away with it - the physicists can't put their finger on the >snags, which are often "obvious to the meanest intelligence" (mine). Part of the problem is the difference in scalar analysis vs vector analysis, dealing with global magnitudes versus with dealing with the distribution of energy in space and time. Inferences made from global summaries of phenomenon/energy don't necessarily mean nothin in any particular space and time. That is why quantum per se, divorced from geometrical considerations, ain't ever gonna catch up with the weilu master. The weilu master IS the dance of space and timing timing timing timing is the dance. > >4. Why all the fuss about the Ampere force? After all, if the Ampere >Law equation is derived from observations (which it is, it's wholly >empirical) and is in conflict with a field-theory based law (Lorenz), >which suddenly cuts off at theta = 0 when the Ampere one does not - why, >then we are believing Lorenz for no very good reason. Or am I missing >something regrettably basic here? I'm hugely unsurprised that the >Ampere force appears to exist, and I bet that if at the time of Lorenz >somebody had pointed out the different predictions and done the >experiment - Lorenz would have been sent back to the drawing board. > >5. Then we have flux-cutting and flux-linking. Sheesh. > >6. As Culwick points out rather forcefully, no fields are required. >Well, they are, but only for anthropocentric reasons. We none of us >like direct action, so we abjure it and set it behind us as spooky. And >if we don't have field theory, then many theoreticians would be "reduced >in circumstances" and maybe even into destitution. But fields and their >"virtual photons" (snigger) appear to *me* to be violations of Ockham's Razor. I have that strange feeling about most of modern physics. > >7. If, however, we have an 'active vacuum' as in ZPF theory - then we >have everything we need for a coherent EM theory - I would imagine? So >where's the big problem? Why have all this crazy, unnecessary and >apparently just-plain-damn-wrong field stuff? > >8. A lot of very very interesting experimental work was done in EM >around and soon after the turn of the century. Then all experimental >work seemed to Peter Out (as against Peter Graneau, it would seem). >Why? Well, it seems that we knew all that stuff anyway, so no point in >doing any experiments - Point One above notwithstanding. > >9. I can't help noticing that if one looks at old and new textbooks on >the subject, most of the awkward stuff which causes comment in the old >ones seems to have disappeared from the new ones. Naturally, I do >appreciate how important it is that bright young minds shouldn't be >confused, and anyway all this pretty mathematics is much more >significant than all those boring old experiments - innit? the awkward stuff drags people into the realm of philosophy, heavens forbid, which asks people to consider the true nature of the world, experience, perception, and who and what you are. numbers are so nicely neatly impersonal and antiseptic, perfect for the world of bureauscience created by the nationalization of certain academic disciplines during the era of fascist take-overs. > >Oh, I dunno. I don't have any real skill with all the fancy >'rithmortic, and I propose no alternative (except that I like this >active vacuum idea, it is all cuddly like the dear old aether). It may >be just me, since almost everybody else seems quite happy with working >out how many virtual photons can dance on the head of a pin. I wonder >if I'm just too stoopid to see the light, or whether the emperor really >is displaying his (hideous) nakedness? I'm not sure I care very much >any more, and I may just be terminally confused. > But so far I have >failed to reach any meeting of the minds with my intellectual superiors >in this matter. > me neither >Chris > > Have you heard of the Muller motor/generator or dynamo as it is being called now? Whether or not, I will rely new information to you shortly. I am convinced that the ou (pronounced ooooAAHH) reported in magnetic motors is partly based on a weilu master timing trick. Muller seems to have it down to the level that stoopid people like us can follow the argument. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:26:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA05891; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: More on MOG Cell design X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >From a much earlier discussion on vortex regarding condensed charge Hal Puthoff wrote: >Mitchell Swartz raised the issue that overcoming the Coulomb barrier in a >two-body collision might be difficult, but once a multi-body calculation was >done perhaps that would make it easier. I have myself carried out just such >calculations of electron-electron collisions using standard van der Waals >theory and was surprised to find that although van de Waals attractive forces >will not appreciably help to overcome Coulomb repulsion in two-body >collisions, when one takes a look at an N-body situation (where N is very >large - 10^something), electrons can indeed snuggle up on the basis of van >der Waals attractive forces - just as Mitchell suggests. > >The above is being submitted to Phys. Rev. Although specifically derived for >electron rather than nuclear interactions, I would imagine the same >principles would apply. > >Hal Puthoff The Kamada et al experiments indicate an electron fluence of 10^19 e/cm^2-s or more is required to trigger the massive heat release. This probably means that either (1) a reaction involving two or more electrons simultaneously is involved or (2) a large N-body environment is required to create the conditions. It seems to me that (2) is more likely. Based on the ability of like charges to associate under N-body conditions, perhaps it is even more likely that a strongly attractive enironment would be generated for a mixed charge N-body situation. Robin van Spaandonk has suggested that CF might be a condensed charge triggered or catalysed phenomenon. It seems the Kamada experiment is evidence pointing in that direction. The loading conditions in the Kamada D2 heat generating experiment was 10^22 molecules/cm^3, 60 cm^3/mol, and 54.5 MPa pressure. The peak loading density occurred at about 80 nm below the Al surface. There were occurences of H2 bubbles and also some bubbles were connected by tunnel structures (TS). The tunnel structures are thought to fill with H2 and reduce the bubble pressure. The fluence of the implanted deuterons was chosen to be high enough to maximize loading but low enough to avoid tunnel structure formation. It is reasonable that an AC loading and bombardment scheme would distribute the H over a wider depth range due to the spread if implanting voltages, thus larger fluences could be used. Also, with continual loading, H2 escapement is less of a problem. The voltage of 175 keV was used in the Kamada et al experiments to prevent radiation damage to the Al. With continual loading and no need for obseravtion for experimental purposes, this voltage should be much higher, as radiation damage is not a major concern if loading occurs fast enough. It is an interresting question as to whether the 54 MPa pressure is significant to the Kamada reaction. This is because it might be possible to get similar or better results bombarding a water or hydrocarbon surface if loading pressure is not important. At least the H density would be high Since water is a semiconductor, doping with lots of ions should establish extensive conduction bands creating a near metal-like environment in that regard. LiOH, or even NaOH, sound like fairly benign choices for that pupose. It is a curious thought that if bombarding water were effective, it might not be necessary to bombard at all. The electrolyte could simply be the secondary coil of an RF transformer where the primary is ultra high voltage. The fluence of 10^19 e/cm^2-s is 1.6 A/cm^2 not too tough, but a wattage problem at HV. The main problem is getting the electrons up to speed. Maybe a drip electrode could be used. Maybe a higher fluence in an electrolyte would eliminate the need for the keV voltages. Most important in this regard is establishing that electrolytes conduct electrons at all, but I think we have pretty much established that. Lots of degrees of freedom to investigate here. Just some ideas. Thoughts? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:27:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA06294; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:16:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:16:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: Kamada et al experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The following is from a post I made to s.p.f, but it might help clarify some of the discussions here. I believe that I misused the term "fluence" in an earlier post. Keep in mind that there were two experiments referenced. (There may be others published but I am not aware of them.) Here are the recipies: The 1992 (kamada) results showed 1.3 MeV or greater 4He (about 80 percent) and 0.4 MeV or greater P (about 20 percent) tracks using Al loaded with *either* H or D. The electron beam energy used was 200 and 400 keV. H3+ or D3+ ions were implanted with an energy of 90 keV into Al films. The implantation was done at a fluence of 10^17 (H+ or D+)/cm^2 using a Cockcroft Walton type accelerator. The Al foil used was would pass 200 keV electrons. It was bombarded in a HITACHI HU-500 with a beam current of 300 to 400 nA with a beam size of roughly 4x10^-5 cm^2, or (4-6)x1016 e/cm^2/s flux electron beam. The area the beam passedthrough was roughly 2x10^-3 cm^2. Total bombarding time was 40 m. The Al target was a 5 mm dia. disk 1 mm thick, but chemically thinned. The particle detectors were 10 mm x 15 mm x 1 mm CR-39 polymer plastic detectors supplied by Tokuyama Soda Co. Ltd. Great care was taken to avoid radon gas exposure. Detectors were set horizontally on either side of the beam 20 mm above the target and two were set vertically one above the other 20 mm to the side of the target but starting at the elevation of the target and going upward (beam source upward from target). The detectors were etched with 6N KOH at 70 deg. C for 2 h. at a rate of 2.7 um/h. Energies and species were determined by comparison of traces by optical microscope with traces of known origin. Traces on the backsides of the detectors were found to be at background level. Background was determined by runing the experiment with Al films not loaded with H or D. Four succesive repititions of the experiment at the 200 keV level were run to confirm the reproducibiliy of the experiment. There was a roughly 100 count above background in each detector, or 1340 total estimated per run for the H-H reaction. A slightly higher rate was indicated for the D-D reaction. This is a rate of 5x10-15 events per electron, or 2x10^14 electrons per event. However, the fusion events per hydrogen pair in the target is 2.8x10^12 events/H-H pair. The events per collision based on the stimulation energy was calculated to be 10-12 to 10-26 times less than the observed events. The 1996 results (Kamada, Kinoshita, Takahashi) involved similar proceedures but bombardment was at 175 keV using a TEM which simulataneously was used for taking images of the target. Transformed (melted) regions with linear dimensions of about 100 nm were observed that indicated heat evolvement of 160 MeV for each transformed region. The (energy evolved) / (beam energy) for each region is about 10^5. Implantation of H was done at 25 keV to a depth of about 100 nm. at a fluence of 5x10^17 H+/cm^2. Bubbles of "molecular coagulations" of H were formed at pressures of 7 GPa. At a depth of 60 nm H density was measured by ERD to be 2x10^22 atoms/cm^3. Immediately after implantation molecular density was 1x10^22 mol./cm^3, Molar volume was 60 cm^3/mol and pressure 54.5 MPa. The targets were 5 mm dia 0.1mm thick polished using a TENUPOLE chemical polishing machine to a thickness of 1 uM over an area of 1 mm and a small hole of 0.1 mm dia. in the central part. A HITACHI H-700 TEM was used. The beam was 50 nA on an area of about 1 um dia. giving flux of 4x10^19 e/(cm^2*s). The area is first examined with the beam not fully focused and the spots are not there. The beam is focused and the spots appear (photographed) within about 10 s. for D2, not at all with H2. The experiment was repeated over 30 times!. To reliably reproduce the result two conditions must be met: (1) The microstructure must be optimum, meaning there must be a minimum of tunnel structures connecting the implanted bubbles. (This is insured by limiting the fluence of the implanting beam to 5x10^17 H+/cm^2.) (2) The intensity of the electron beam must be roughly 1x10^19 electrons/(cm^2*s). Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:29:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA07070; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms has published an excellent paper describing these techniques: > > E. Storms, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect," Fusion > Technology, March 1996 (I think) > > Contact Storms or me for a pre-print. The exact reference is Fusion Technol. 29 (1996) 261, March indeed. So don't ask for a preprint, ask for a reprint. The paper is in the bibliography. I don't usually advertise but you can see all my biblio files at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~britz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:30:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA07783; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960426073733_100060.173_JHB85-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: OU concept X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark, >> the energy "cost" of a nuclear plant, and found the ROI (return on investment) to be OVER 10,000 to 1. (Energy wise.) << That's very interesting. So, overall, nuclear power generation is hugely OU! >> (at least in the U.S.) we are losing the intellectual capacity to continue to run nuclear plants....and we should shut them all down (therefore) << My feeling is that it is the loss of political will rather than intellectual capacity. The fear which has been engendered in the lay public by so-called "green" activists for anything nuclear is, in my view, completely unwarranted. The change from NMR to MRI nomenclature is one of the more stupid politically correct changes, just because of the fear of the word nuclear. The same might be aimed at CF when it starts to be commercialized and referred to as CNF by the oil lobby. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:31:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA08117; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Vtx: AC Meters X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The subject of power measurement in the presence of fluctuations comes up periodically. People appear to think that maybe the excess heat (power) comes from errors due to this, i.e. due to the perhaps erroneous use of current times mean cell voltage as a measure of the power going into the cell. I have argued (and no doubt will continue to have to argue) that this is not an issue. Most of these "cold fusion" cells are run at constant current, and we electro- chemists know how to get a constant current. It happens that F&P made a small error in their instrumentation, but it turns out it didn't matter. If you have constant current, then no matter how much the cell voltage jumps up and down, current times mean voltage is the true power. Spikes etc do not matter, you do not need an rms meter (for the pedants, note that cell voltage will never cross zero). The only potential trap is insufficiently frequent cell voltage sampling, and again, most of us know all about this. Cell voltage fluctuations cannot explain excess heat. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:34:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA08432; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:27:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:27:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604261132.HAA06593@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. wrote: >... Norman: That old >arguement about nuclear plants being NET energy lost systems is just plain >"anti nuclear" propaganda. I PERSONNALLY aquired some construction estimating >manuals once and did some estimates of the energy "cost" of a nuclear plant, >and found the ROI (return on investment) to be OVER 10,000 to 1. (Energy >wise.) Since there seems to rather little of interest in recent reports on "CF" research on vortex and at the risk of perpetuating an endless emotional argument pro- and anti-nuclear, I offer the following comments: No, Mark, you are wrong. I think you need to learn more about the concept of energy "cost". About 20 years ago I worked for the Candaian Statistical Agency in mathematical modelling. We developed detailed energy accounting models, dealing with all the direct + indirect energy embodied in the goods required to construct a nuclear power plant [Well specifically, a CANDU plant, of course, but the results are not too different for other commercial power plant designs. There is a significant difference with many military designs, but this are not used commercially.] These calculations require the solution of a very large system of linear equations (on the order of 1000 variables) in order to get the indirect effects (the energy embodied in the steel used to make the construction machinery to mine the ore to produce the steel ... etc.). At the time, it was a sort of "leading edge" type of calculation - rather routine today. The calculations showed that over the expected life time of a typical plant, there is a net energy LOSS when considered from the point of view of the economy as a whole. Of course, there is a kind of "conversion" of energies from one form to another - which may be useful in itself, but in this case, one could have taken all the fossil fuels used in the construction of the plant and burnt them in an existing fossil fuel powered plant and obtained more useful electricity then what is possible going the nuclear route. Similar studies of the Canadian tar sands development showed that this was also a net energy loser. [It is fairly simple to extrapolate this to the American oil shales development.] In both cases, the authorities (Canadian government agencies) were not impressed with these studies because it failed to support the existing policies (exactly the opposite in fact) - so you know how widely these studies were circulated (the waste basket comes to mind). Similar studies have been done in other countries. Our studies were done at a time when an enormous growth in the construction of nuclear plants in Canada was planned. In the mean time, all new construction has been cancelled. We are told that new plants are "no longer needed because of conservation efforts" - yah, sure, like not building any more nuclear plants, eh? And now the Canadian government's policy is exclusively to export this technology to developing countries! .. sorry, I guess you can see where I stand on these issues! Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:36:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA09129; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I have had the following and other discussions with a person who appears to be a university student, based on the eamil address. He prefers to remain comfortably anonymous, but OK'ed posting the following in the hopes of getting some suggestions: > Dear H., > > > I am hoping I too have the concept correct regarding this force. >I propose a simple experiment .... which I will be happy to perform. >Please let me know if the concept is correct, and I will do the experiment. > > 1) CRT with long neck is used. > 2) Deflection plates or coils are >not used, removed or disconnected, as is appropos. > 3) CRT is fitted with long form factor solenoid so that a >reasonably symmetrical longitundinal field or either direction can be >made .... solenoid fits on neck. > 4) Electron beam current is fixed. > 5) Photodetector "looks" at spot .... > 6) If there is such a force the spot intensity should change. > > > Will that do it? > > This is a clever idea for a quick cheap experiment (I like that). However, the beam intensity should increase in your experiment regardless of whether Marinov's force exists or not. This is because the field extends into the gun itself. A longitudinal field will cause electrons that normally would not make it through the gun, i.e. that hit the mask or baffles instead of making it through the hole, beacuse they twist. The beam is then like a candy cane, with a core of longitudinally moving electrons surrounded by a swirling helix of electrons that would have been out of focus. The angle of the twist and radius of twist depend on the field strength B and the initial error angle of the electron and the electron's inital velocity when ejected at the filament. Another problem is that spot brightness is complex. I would think it is a more a function of current than of voltage and very much affected by how the beam is spread out. If the beam is concentrated it seems like you would get less lumens/amp because at some density electrons would tent to strike already stimulated atoms before they went back to ground state. Here is an idea you might want to consider. Many universities have oscilloscope type tubes with internal parallel plates separated by distance l, through which the beam travels parallel to the plates, that are used to divert the beam based upon electrostatic deflection. Most universities have surplus storage. You may find such a tube and electronics there. Often these are used in lecture demonstrations. If an electron beam is passed through an electrostatic field (dV/dl) and a purpendicular magnetic field (B), only electrons of a specific velocity will pass through. You can determine the velocity of electrons in a beam by passing it through such orthogonal fields and adjusting the electrostatic plate voltage (and/or B) to center the beam. If there is a Marinov's force due to parallel to B motion, you should be able to impose the kind of solenoid field you suggest, parallel to beam motion, on a scope in balanced orthogonal B vs dV/dl condition, and deflect the beam. If there is a Marinov's force due to motion through an orthogonal field then your balancing field B provides just the field to test. To check this out simply increase B across a range and measure the corresponding voltage V required for balanced deflection. Do the same for an increased velocity electron beam. If there is no Marinov's force, the relationship of B/V should be constant throughout the range of B for both beam velocities. Do you mind if I post this to vortex? Other people may have other ideas about this. It is good to get a range of opinions. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:37:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA09274; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604261839.NAA01232@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 14:11 4/25/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >Here is an idea for a little more lively regime to investigate. The idea >is to take advantage of the very long mean free path in an H2 atmosphere. What is the mean free path in H2 at 1 atm? Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 16:40:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA09433; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >1. As a rule, working physicists don't really have much knowledge of >the subject. As a demo of this, just give 'em the hoary old questions >about the Faraday disc and see how many of them know about 1830s >eperimental results. > [snip] > >4. Why all the fuss about the Ampere force? After all, if the Ampere >Law equation is derived from observations (which it is, it's wholly >empirical) and is in conflict with a field-theory based law (Lorenz), >which suddenly cuts off at theta = 0 when the Ampere one does not - why, >then we are believing Lorenz for no very good reason. Or am I missing >something regrettably basic here? I'm hugely unsurprised that the >Ampere force appears to exist, and I bet that if at the time of Lorenz >somebody had pointed out the different predictions and done the >experiment - Lorenz would have been sent back to the drawing board. > [snip] > >Chris Chris, Your knowledge of these things would make for an excellent book. These things should not be lost. The university library in Anchorage is relatively new, so all the books are new. It is just not possible to find the interresting, and more understandable, stuff of the past, and as you indicate, all the interresting little things that have been swept under the carpet. Last year I bought about 50 lbs. of discarded reference books, mostly handbooks, from the library for 25 - 50 cents a piece. They were only 10 years old! You certainly have my have piqued my curiosity. Would you possibly be willing to discuss the issues of the Fraday disc or the experimental results regarding Ampere vs Lorenz in a simple and tutorial way for the benefit of students new (though maybe up in years) to physics like me? To get eduacated a bit about the QM theory of conduction, I was just reading a used book I recently bought, "Solid State Physics" by H. E. Hall. (I see I could have maybe used the term "relaxation" instead of EMF propagation and communicated better, but that is another story.) He poses a paradox. Suppose you have an electron tethered by a string of length r tethered to a point on the axis of a long superconducting solenoid carrying current i. You raise the temperature so the superconduction stops and the field collapses. The particle is therefore accelerated around a circle of radius r getting angular momentum mvr. Where did the angular momentum come from? I think his answer is amazing! To conserve angular momentum, a charged particle at rest in a magnetic field must already have the angular momentum mvr. He goes through a series of calculations involving the fact that B = curl A and discovers mv = eA. So, to preserve angular momentum, the momentum formula for a charged particle in a magnetic field must be adjusted to have two components, i.e. p = mv + eA When at rest, all the angular momentum is stored in eA. When the field collapse is complete, the angular momentum is all in the kinetic motion, mv. Well, now, this certainly does seem to have a relationship to Marinov's force. More importantly, it seems to be a very strong indicator of the veracity of Bohm's concepts of charge and mass being distributed in the wave function. How can angular momentum be induced upon or stored in a point! What I think is notable is the derived equation is one of pure momentum, not angular momentum. There also seems to be a nice kinetic energy storage medium here. So why is there not major energy absorbtion from low mu materials when placed in an oscillating magnetic field? The charge (both + and -)is there, the momentum must be there. Could it be a cancellation effect? Positive and negative energy? So! Here is a scheme to contemplate. Bring un-ionized low mu matter into field B. No force required, just momentum. Ionize it. Shoot ionized matter out of B. Matter gains longitudinal momentum from eA component, thus v, thus more kinetic energy than required to shoot it out of B. Collect ejected matter and repeat. Flaws? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From billb@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 21:48:12 1996 Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA06866 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id VAA28105; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:48:07 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: vtx: History of the Patterson Cell, Part 4 (IV) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: 22 Apr 1996 20:11:20 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Subject: History of the Patterson Cell, Part 4 (IV) From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: History of the Patterson Cell, Part 4 (IV) - So on the 17,18,19 of March, 1995 Leon S. and I found ourselves in Jim Redding's apartment in a suburb of Dallas, TX, attempting to install a 16 channel, LabTech Notebook (TM) run PC based data gathering system on the Patterson Power Cell. - Over those three days, we DID succeed in installing the data gathering system, which was subsequently allowed to "gather dust" due to the aforementioned problem with Dennis Craven's deep seated and abiding and overiding fear of computers. - Despite this difficulty, this was an opportunity for Leon and I to work with the Patterson cell HANDS ON. During our time in TX we managed to: 1. See the Patterson beads be taken out of and put back in the cell. 2. See fresh LiSO4, approximately 1 molar be made up for use in the experiment. 3. Measure the input to the cell with our own VOM's and precision resistors. 4. Observe evidence of the cell producing 5 watts out for .3 watts input. - Now we DID experience an experimental difficulty while we were there, which (alledgely) was addressed by Dennis Cravens promptly and before the demonstration was brought to France. I.e., we discovered a "cross talk" between the electrolysis and the thermistors and the thermocouples. - Dennis was rather surprised by this "cross talk" and claimed not to have seen it prior to meeting with us at Redding's apartment. His claim on this is probably CORRECT! Because he personally had installed the thermistors and thermocouples some days before and attempted to isolate them from the flow by coating them with epoxy. We noticed the "cross talk" getting worse with time, and in point of fact by the time Sunday rolled around on us (the third day) it was pronounced enough to make the thermistor and thermocouple readings worthless when the electrolysis was on. - One could ask then, why is it Mr. Sojka and I are so sure there is "something" to be interested in, in the PPC? - We need to drop back slightly on this to figure this out. We need to note that on the second day Leon and I had gotten the computer data gathering system totally functional and we went into a calibration mode. That's when we noticed the "cross talk" between the electrolysis and the TC's and thermistors. We could put two graphs of the deltaT up on the computer screen and watch the values go to "heck" when we turned on the electrolysis power. - We agonized about this for a couple hours and then said, "HEY, we aren't here to work on the CF experiment, we are here to install data gathering. The RESISTANCE calibration heater is sufficient for us..!!" So that's what we did. We spent the rest of the second day and the morning of the third day running between 2 watts input to 8 watts input and calibrating everything on an absolute basis. - Thus we came to the point where by the afternoon of that Sunday, the third day,we felt that we had a 2 to 8 watt thermal calorimeter which was accurate to within an easy +/- 5% absolute value. - We noticed that at for example the 5 watt level, which for our about 15ml/min flow generated a 5 degree C deltaT, the temperature as measured by the precision thermistors and the thermocouples agreed with each other within about .1 degrees C. - The final and most important observation came after we were quite confident in the measurements made using the calibration resistor and we decided one last time to check the device during electrolysis. As soon as we transistioned from about 5 watts into the calibration resistor to the electrolysis we observed (again) the values from the thermistors and the TC's diverged completely and went "way out" (in different directions) Fortunately we became distracted and left the electrolysis on for about a 1/2 hour. Then even more fortunately we turned off the electrolysis WITHOUT turning off the computer data gathering. To our surprise the TC and Thermistor values immediately JUMPED to about 5 degrees C each, again agreeing within about .1 degree C each. We subsequently cycled the electrolysis on and off several times and watched the system for about 45 minutes. - We were dragged slowly and surely to the conclusion that for .3 watts input we were watching a system which could heat a 15 ml/min flow 5 degrees C consistantly, with just the barest perceptable drop in the deltaT during the "electrolysis off" observations. We KNEW this behavior was dramatically different from the resistance calibration runs where 10 minutes of stabalization time accomplished 80% of a change from one power level deltaT to another power level deltaT. (Something we had spend a day and 1/2 watching in the preceeding days.) - At that time (about 5:30 PM on that Sunday) we needed to leave to catch our planes home. And Leon S. and I left feeling that there was a GOOD reason to believe Patterson/Redding/Cravens had something. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:46:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26508; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9604270155.AA12618@ arnold.math.ucla.edu.ucsd.edu > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: barry@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott wrote: > Horace wrote: > The idea is to take advantage of the very long mean free path in > an H2 atmosphere. >>What is the mean free path in H2 at 1 atm? Well, its obviously microscopic or fluid theory would not accurately describe the motion of air. Roulghy, mfp = 1/(n sigma) n= number density ~ 10 mole/m^3 ~ 10^25/m^3 sigma = atomic cross secion ~ (bohr radius squared) ~ 10^-20 m^2 => mfp ~ 10^-5 meters = 10 microns. Not what I'd call long.... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:46:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26546; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9604270201.AA12627@ arnold.math.ucla.edu.ucsd.edu > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: barry@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Nuclear plants X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page wrote: ---- The calculations showed that over the expected life time of a typical plant, there is a net energy LOSS when considered from the point of view of the economy as a whole.... one could have taken all the fossil fuels used in the construction of the plant and burnt them in an existing fossil fuel powered plant and obtained more useful electricity then what is possible going the nuclear route. ---- Yes, but that is cheating. You need to include the energy cost of creating, maintaining and fueling that fossil fuel plant as well. Undoubtedly then the nuclear route comes out as giving you a better energy return, since a kg of coal contains more energy in the form of fissile isotopes than in does in chemical energy, if I recall correctly. But that point aside, I find your study interesting---were these results published anywhere? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:50:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26703; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 14:11 4/25/96 -0700, Horace wrote: > >>Here is an idea for a little more lively regime to investigate. The idea >>is to take advantage of the very long mean free path in an H2 atmosphere. > >What is the mean free path in H2 at 1 atm? > >Scott Little >EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA >512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > At 0C it is 16.00 cm, at 20C it is 17.44 cm. Very hot atmospheric pressure H2 is almost a vacuum as far as acceleration of ions due to electric field gradients. The low mass H ions ionize easily and accelerate very fast compared to O or N. For this reason HV used in H2 is much more of an x-ray hazard than in air. Also of interest is the high average velocity of thermal H2 molecules: 1755 cm/sec at 20 C. Lots more surface interactions at a given temperature in H2 than in an air environment. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:51:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26847; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > >Here is an idea for a little more lively regime to investigate. The idea > >is to take advantage of the very long mean free path in an H2 atmosphere. > > What is the mean free path in H2 at 1 atm? I don't know what it is for H2, but for air, it is 0.000004 inches and each molecule undergoes roughly 4,500,000,000 collisions per second. I imagine H2 is within a couple orders of magnitude of those. -- - 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@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:50:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27626; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960427043648_72240.1256_EHB31-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Fission energy economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Bill Page posted interesting comments about the economics of fission power reactors. He says "The calculations showed that over the expected life time of a typical plant, there is a net energy LOSS when considered from the point of view of the economy as a whole." I have never heard that about fission. That's surprising. I have seen studies of oil shale showing the same conclusion, as Bill mentions. Some thoughts about this: One of the big expenses of running CANDU reactors is refining the heavy water used as the moderator. This requires a gigantic industrial plant. There was an interesting lecture about that at ICCF5. (It was off the subject but I found it interesting.) Contrary to Nate Hoffman's claims, they do not sell the used moderator water to cold fusion experimenters. They use it to brew Molsen Ale and make those glow-in-the-dark toys. :-} Bill: did this study take into account decommissioning costs? If not, the picture is even worse. That will take a lot of energy. In large, complex projects of this nature, statistical analysis and modeling are essential. Intuition is no guide. A hard-headed, experienced businessman will be cautious about any project, no matter how rosy it might appear. He will say "Hey, wait, are we *sure* this thing will pay? Do we really know this is the way to go?" If he is smart, he will commission a scientific study of the problem. Many stupid mistakes have been made on a colossal scale in industry and business. In the 1980s the major U.S. airline companies revamped their facilities and equipment for "spoke and hub" operations, which was cheaper and more convenient for them. "Them" the airlines, I mean, not the customers. The customers found it was an expensive pain in the butt. It turns out people are not Federal Express freight. Small airlines & start up airlines soon realized this, and they clobbered the larger carriers by offering direct flights from A to B without changing planes in Atlanta. The new competition, combined with overcapacity, caused the big airlines to lose more money in a few years than all of their previous profits combined, going back to 1903. There are many similar war stories in the back pages of the business section. I collect them, it is one of my hobbies. Downtown Atlanta and New York City are studded with large, impressive office buildings which cost hundreds of millions and which will never earn enough rent to pay the interest, let alone make a profit. During the Japanese bubble economy, Japanese investors bought scads of such properties because they were so cheap compared to downtown Tokyo. Is the logic of that clear? You invest two or three times more than you can earn back, because if you were in Tokyo, you would have to pay ten times more than you could earn back. It is a better deal: you go bankrupt slower. I know many tales of gross stupidity in product development and marketing too, but I will bore the audience here with just a few. This one has not happened yet, but I hereby predict it. In conjunction with the Olympics, the credit card companies here in Atlanta are gearing up all over the city to introduce pre-paid electronic cards of $20, $50 and $100 denominations. You zap them through specially designed machines at fast food restaurants and grocery stores. You buy a hamburger for $2, zap a $20 card through, and the card comes out worth $18. Okay, what exactly is the point? I mean, why does anyone ever use a credit card, and why is this one better? You use a card so that you will not have to carry around cash, and you don't carry cash because you can lose it or have it stolen. And these cards, of course . . . um . . . If you lose them, the money is g-o-n-e -- same as cash. The billboards and advertisements plastered everywhere say the cards are "as fast as cash" and "you don't have to worry about change." As fast as? No faster? Do you worry about change? When the cashier hands you change from a $20 bill, do you agonize over what to do with it?!? And when you have 40 cents left on an electronic card, can you borrow a dime from your friend to pay for a 50 cent newspaper? Nope! You have to go back to the bank and trade the card in. What we have here, folks, is a product that combines all of the disadvantages of both cash and credit cards, with none of the advantages of either. Millions of dollars worth of equipment is being installed, and millions being spent advertising this product, yet as far as I can tell it serves no useful purpose. It is technology for its own sake, with no thought to the needs of the customer. It reminds me of those pocket organizer computers that Apple, Radio Shack, AT&T and others lost a fortune on a few years ago. They were machines costing $500 to $1000 that were almost but not quite as useful as a $1 pocket notebook. I predict the cash cards will disappear without a trace by next April. You heard it from me first! Goodness, I have wandered far away from the forum topic. Oh, well. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:50:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27693; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: Patterson History, Part Deux (II, or 2) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: 22 Apr 1996 19:17:19 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Subject: Patterson History, Part Deux (II, or 2) From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Patterson History, Part Deux (II, or 2) - Some of the data, however, even if one presumed the "excess" was coming from the shifted thermal balance, was giving over 100% output based on straight DeltaT*mdot*Cp for the output, and V*I for the input (i.e. neglecting the D2 and O2 gas/energy loss factor). - For this reason, I felt that Patterson may indeed have a viable Cold Fusion device. - At this time the question came up of how to improve matters, and I recommended Dennis Cravens to Patterson's group. - Dennis and Patterson got together over the phone, and within a couple weeks, Dennis flew to Sarasota Florida, met Patterson, and ended up going back to his home in Texas with a cell in hand. - Now I have to approach Dennis carefully. He is a good experimentor, and no fool. But he does has his excentricities. Too of his prime excentricities are that he eschews the use of computers AND the use of chart recorders for gathering data. - This makes him terribly dependent upon "hands on" observations recorded in a notebook. Nothing wrong with this approach, over all. After all, Rutherford elucidated the size of the nucleus with hand recorded data collected over a year's time. And his conclusions stand to this day. However, there is a slight problem with regard to the pace of technical development as any college physics student who runs Rutherford's experiment in one or two days and analyses the data in a day using computers, would quickly point out. - Despite these minor glitches, Dennis was quickly able to improve the Patterson results by putting the Patterson cell in a Dewar, and getting about an 87% recovery in the "calibration" mode. - After doing this Dennis performed the heavy water work and in essense obtained the 20-50% excess level for the 7-10 watt input... - This was about Jan of '95, or last year. - Then Dennis realized, "It would be nice to run a 'control' for this experiment!" Not a bad idea, and of course, the control concept was to use H2O and LiSO4. - So that's where we get into the really weird stuff!!!! - See "History of the PPC, Part III" From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:50:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27821; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: BOOF! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:49:42 -0700 From: Michael T Huffman To: Multiple recipients of list , Bill Page Subject: BOOF! Hey you BOOF! Get off the phone and give me a call!! And some TOAST TOO! From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:55:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27955; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: 28 April (should be 29 April) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---FORWARDED--- Date: 22 Apr 96 13:01:25 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Mail Subject: 28 April (should be 29 April) Jed, Hi - you still here!! >> Most of the cold fusion scientists do not want publicity. That is why Reding forced Miley to cancel the April 29 meeting. << Were back to your old beef - and I still fail to understand why, if they all have CI patents (as opposed to CF), they are so shy of publicity. After all, if M or any of the chipmongers gets another 20% speed or compression into one of their chips they go mad with the advance publicity - issue unofficial leaks - anything to boost potential sales. The other thing is the complete failure of anyone outside the "inner circle" to get even 1% ou with supposed copies of the cells. You would expect some degree of success with all the variations which our dedicated and knowledgeable vortexians have built, but nada. The only item which gives me real hope for commercialisation is the YT magnet, and that is probably not ou but very very efficient. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:58:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27999; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: Re: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:05:15 -0400 From: Larry Wharton To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: 28April >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: 28April . . . >----ah shoot, it just ain't worth the time... Bye! Mark, Your first hand observations are invaluable. They are very important and posting them is very much worth the time. You may be waisting your time with some one who thinks your are a liar, a fool, or an incompetent but such a description does not apply to the majority of the people here. I myself believe that your observations of a working 20 watt cell was valid and see no possiblity that you were lying or were making some incompetent error. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:51:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA28037; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604270523.AAA19138@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: excess artifact? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:59 PM 4/26/96 -0700, Mark H wrote: >I'm concerned that Scott is missing a point ....Therefore----doesn't this >contribute to the understanding of the likelyhood of an excess artifact? You lost me on this one, Mark. Are you saying that my results indicate that it is likely that the excess heat reported on Patterson cells is an artifact...i.e. not real? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:53:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA28128; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stephan Marinov E&M force detection X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here's a theory thought for you regarding longitudinal force. If p= mv + eA (p, v, A and B vectors and B = curl A) then you should get different results depending on whether the electron (1) starts from within a strong B and exits, or (2) starts outside B and traverses through it, or (3) stays totally within a constant B. In case (1) You should get a clear indication of a longitudinal force due to the potential energy eA being converted into kinetic momentum as B dimininshes. In case (2) the total apparent velocity should appear diminished as the particle slows down converting some mv into eA while transiting the field, but then it should speed back up when reversing the process on exit. The total elapsed time would indicate a lower average speed. In case (3) there should be a constant mv as predicted by classical theory. People accurately testing in a case (1) scenario would see what appears to be an immediate violation of conservation of energy and a definite indication of a longitudinal force. That's my guess. The dimpled ring experiment I did fell somewhere between category (2) and (3), thus a null result could be expected. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 26 23:54:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA28210; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604270605.BAA20779@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Jed's CF update X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jed, I really liked your recent CF update. The overall perspective is rather compelling. I have some constructive criticism. I have studied the NASA paper you mentioned (by Niedra, Myers, etc) about the Mills cell. When you mentioned it, you left out a word. You said, "A group at NASA...confirmed 65% excess heat". You left out "apparent"....and I'm afraid that it is critically important. It is somewhat difficult to extract this information from the long and detailed paper but, in the conclusion, the authors state, "Although our data admits the existence of an unusual source of heat within the cell, it falls short of being compelling". A bit later they conclude (regarding their own experiment), "Following the principle of simplest explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination becomes the explanation of choice". They do go on to state, "But even perfect recombination can not account for all the apparent exceess heat in those Mills cells usually operated in a pulsed current mode and reported to produce a thermal output solidly exceeding the VI power input to the cell." But this last statement refers to experiments NOT done by them. Jed, I am not trying to pick a fight here at all, just to improve your already excellent reporting. The paper clearly indicates that there is an "unexpected" heat coming from the cell...but they also clearly indicate that it could well be due to recombination within the cell. In fact, they give a reference, J. E. Jones et al, who have claimed that such recombination is indeed possible in light water cells with Ni and Pt electrodes. In short, this NASA study did not confirm ANY excess heat. Just between us girls, the paper is curiously short on actual data and tediously long on data analysis. Their calibration is based upon only two data points and they make a case for the linearity of the calibration by observing that these two points line up well with the origin...but there is a third point that strongly suggests a curved response which they just ignore because "this droop was thought to be the onset of more rapid water vaporization at the 43C temperature of the 125W point". A rather weak excuse I think. More likely is that vaporization gradually increases with temperature resulting in a curved thermal response to input power. Such a curve would noticeably decrease their apparent excess heat results. Further, they missed a golden opportunity to find out what was really happening in the cell by NOT measuring the evolution of gas from the cell. This is a simple measurement and it would have neatly resolved the recombination issue. - Waiting to see Excess Heat in Texas - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 10:25:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA17684; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604270718.CAA00538@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: H mean free path X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:39 PM 4/26/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >At 0C it is 16.00 cm, at 20C it is 17.44 cm. Very hot atmospheric pressure >H2 is almost a vacuum as far as acceleration of ions due to electric field >gradients. Wow, where did you find this data? Barry?...John?...your estimates seem more reasonable...could Horace's data be correct? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 10:27:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA18670; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3181c533.28794101@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:17:53 -0700 (PDT), Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] >Pd has many isotopes, so it transmutes into a confusing mixture of many >different elements. Au has only one isotope which simplifies the problem by >limiting outcomes. This makes it a better choice for studies of host metal Al is also composed of 1 isotope (Al27), and is cheaper than Gold to work with. It has the added advantage, that the positive ion is 3+. I suspect thus that Al2(SO4)3 might make a very interesting electrolyte in Patterson type cells. If I say why 3+ is an advantage, you won't believe me, so I will keep that to myself, until the cell is tested. BTW I suspect that with heavy water this reaction may produce primarily neutrons. >transmutation. Work is now underway with Au cathodes. Host metal >transmutations >have also been found in Ni, but detailed information about this has not yet >been released. > >- Jed Rothwell > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 10:29:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA19203; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Scott wrote: > >> Horace wrote: > >> The idea is to take advantage of the very long mean free path in > >> an H2 atmosphere. > >>>What is the mean free path in H2 at 1 atm? > >Well, its obviously microscopic or fluid theory would not >accurately describe the motion of air. > > >Roulghy, mfp = 1/(n sigma) > >n= number density ~ 10 mole/m^3 ~ 10^25/m^3 > >sigma = atomic cross secion ~ (bohr radius squared) ~ 10^-20 m^2 > >=> mfp ~ 10^-5 meters = 10 microns. Not what I'd call long.... Right you are, wrong am I! I wrote: "At 0C it is 16.00 cm, at 20C it is 17.44 cm. Very hot atmospheric pressure H2 is almost a vacuum as far as acceleration of ions due to electric field gradients. The low mass H ions ionize easily and accelerate very fast compared to O or N. For this reason HV used in H2 is much more of an x-ray hazard than in air. Also of interest is the high average velocity of thermal H2 molecules: 1755 cm/sec at 20 C. Lots more surface interactions at a given temperature in H2 than in an air environment." That should read: "At 0C it is 16.00x10^-6 cm, at 20C it is 17.44x10^-6 cm." I misread the table. It bothers me that I remember reading about the hazards of HV in H2 somewhere, but now I don't see the reason for it. Maybe it's because an an HV electron collision with an H2 molecule doesn't take a lot out of it's momentum on average? Maybe the cross section is much smaller than the Bohr radius. Maybe an impinging electron tends to usually pass through the electron cloud without a significant momentum dividing collision? If so, this would be good, large electron flux compared to H+ flux. This doesn't seem very realistic though. Anyone know the H2 cross section to electron collision? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 10:33:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA19838; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604271638.MAA21161@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Nuclear plants X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > >Bill Page wrote: > >---- >The calculations showed that over the expected life time of a typical >plant, there is a net energy LOSS when considered from the point of >view of the economy as a whole.... > one could have taken all the fossil fuels used in >the construction of the plant and burnt them in an existing fossil >fuel powered plant and obtained more useful electricity then what is >possible going the nuclear route. >---- > > >Yes, but that is cheating. You need to include the energy cost of >creating, maintaining and fueling that fossil fuel plant as well. > True, but the energy cost of fossil fuel plants is significantly less. >Undoubtedly then the nuclear route comes out as giving you a better >energy return, since a kg of coal contains more energy in the >form of fissile isotopes than in does in chemical energy, if >I recall correctly. Note that it is also necessary to consider the full energy cost of the preparation and delivery of the fuel (refined fossil fuel and equivalently, prepared fuel rods) to the plant. > >But that point aside, I find your study interesting---were these >results published anywhere? > I am really not sure, I think some of it was. I do, however know who to ask since he is still very much involved in the development of such models. If anyone is seriously interested, I can provide an address privately. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 10:34:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA20221; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960427102424_100060.173_JHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page said; >> The calculations showed that over the expected life time of a typical plant, there is a net energy LOSS when considered from the point of view of the economy as a whole. Of course, there is a kind of "conversion" of energies from one form to another - which may be useful in itself, but in this case, one could have taken all the fossil fuels used in the construction of the plant and burnt them in an existing fossil fuel powered plant and obtained more useful electricity then what is possible going the nuclear route. << Well, well !! So my memory is not so lousy after all folks Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 10:38:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA20992; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3181f6be.1545479@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: 28 April (should be 29 April) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:46:34 -0700 (PDT), William Beaty wrote: > > >---FORWARDED--- > > >Date: 22 Apr 96 13:01:25 EDT >From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@CompuServe.COM> >To: Vortex Mail >Subject: 28 April (should be 29 April) > >Jed, > >Hi - you still here!! > >>> Most of the cold fusion scientists do not want publicity. That is why Reding >forced Miley to cancel the April 29 meeting. << > >Were back to your old beef - and I still fail to understand why, if they all >have CI patents (as opposed to CF), they are so shy of publicity. After all, >if M or any of the chipmongers gets another 20% speed or compression into one of >their chips they go mad with the advance publicity - issue unofficial leaks - >anything to boost potential sales. > >The other thing is the complete failure of anyone outside the "inner circle" to >get even 1% ou with supposed copies of the cells. You would expect some degree >of success with all the variations which our dedicated and knowledgeable >vortexians have built, but nada. Perhaps this has something to do with what Jed mentioned in another post: "spongy nickel". The ersatz beads aren't, CETI's maybe. Is "spongy nickel" body-centered cubic perhaps (ISO fcc)? > >The only item which gives me real hope for commercialisation is the YT magnet, >and that is probably not ou but very very efficient. > >Norman > > > > Perhaps CETI are having problems creating beads with reproducible properties. I.e. maybe some work better than others. This would make mass manufacture rather difficult (and probably expensive). If I were in their shoes, in such a case, then I too would be sitting quietly on the side-lines, working furiously behind the scenes, to improve the product first. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 10:40:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21440; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604271505.LAA20573@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission energy economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jed wrote: > >Bill Page posted interesting comments about the economics of fission power >reactors. He says "The calculations showed that over the expected life time of >a typical plant, there is a net energy LOSS when considered from the point of >view of the economy as a whole." I have never heard that about fission. That's >surprising. I have seen studies of oil shale showing the same conclusion, as >Bill mentions. Some thoughts about this: > >One of the big expenses of running CANDU reactors is refining the heavy water >used as the moderator. This requires a gigantic industrial plant. There was an >interesting lecture about that at ICCF5. (It was off the subject but I found >it interesting.) Contrary to Nate Hoffman's claims, they do not sell the used >moderator water to cold fusion experimenters. They use it to brew Molsen Ale >and make those glow-in-the-dark toys. :-} Yes, the energy cost of producing the CANDU moderator is quite high. Interestingly, perhaps, this is a cost that must also be paid for "CF" systems that require D2O. > >Bill: did this study take into account decommissioning costs? If not, the >picture is even worse. That will take a lot of energy. Yes, although in retrospect, I think the estimates of these costs that we used then may have been on the low side. The whole problem of long term decommissioning of nuclear plants has no real good solution yet as far as I know and so far there hasn't been much experiance to base estimates on. Everyone knows how expensive (money-wise at least) it has been to safely de-commission the well known problem cases (Three Mile Island, Cernobyl) but these hopefully are not typical. > >In large, complex projects of this nature, statistical analysis and modeling >are essential. Intuition is no guide. A hard-headed, experienced businessman >will be cautious about any project, no matter how rosy it might appear. He >will say "Hey, wait, are we *sure* this thing will pay? Do we really know this >is the way to go?" If he is smart, he will commission a scientific study of >the problem. Yes, I agree, this is true in principle, but I know some of the people who I used to work with at that time, who have attempted to commercialize their investment in the computer systems and databases that were used for these studies, and I know that they have had (and mostly continue to have) a very difficult time "selling" these tools and this type of analysis to both government agencies and large commercial corporations, alike. Although I said that nuclear energy represents a net energy loss, it is important to realize that this is really only important to us in the long term. In the short term, there may be all kinds of what seem like good *financial* reasons for going ahead with such mega-projects. Basically for the same reasons that a serious war is good for the economy ... but most people don't seriously argue that therefore inciting a war is a good economic policy. But I also digress... Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 12:00:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07954; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > That should read: "At 0C it is 16.00x10^-6 cm, at 20C it is 17.44x10^-6 > cm." > > It bothers me that I remember reading about the hazards of HV in H2 > somewhere, but now I don't see the reason for it. Of course, a singly ionized H+ is very very small. The mean free path of H+ is probably substantially greater than the mean free path of H2. -- - 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@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 12:01:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA08165; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: H mean free path X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 11:39 PM 4/26/96 -0700, Horace wrote: > >>At 0C it is 16.00 cm, at 20C it is 17.44 cm. Very hot atmospheric pressure >>H2 is almost a vacuum as far as acceleration of ions due to electric field >>gradients. > >Wow, where did you find this data? Barry?...John?...your estimates seem >more reasonable...could Horace's data be correct? > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) Sorry for the excitement. Just another blunder on my part due to failure to apply common sense. It still bothers me not knowing how "transparent" H2 molecles are to HV electrons, i.e. how much average momentum is lost by the HV electron upon penetrating an H2 obital. It sounds like it is necessary to evacuate to get both the necessary i/cm^2 and voltage in gas phase due to cascading and momentum loss. It might be just as effective to pulse a weak electrolyte, or even pure H2O with HV and attempt to develop the large differential at the solution/electrode interface. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 12:03:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA08344; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 12:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 12:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: History of the World (Excuse, PPC) Part III X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:53:47 -0700 (PDT), Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: > So where is part 1? I've been waiting for ages, and haven't received > it yet. I'm beginning to suspect I never will.:( I have all the parts up for view on my web page, url below. -- - 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@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 14:08:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA00183; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:04:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:04:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604272101.RAA23444@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >... So, to preserve angular momentum, >the momentum formula for a charged particle in a magnetic field must be >adjusted to have two components, i.e. > >p = mv + eA > >When at rest, all the angular momentum is stored in eA. When the field >collapse is complete, the angular momentum is all in the kinetic motion, >mv. > >Well, now, this certainly does seem to have a relationship to Marinov's >force. More importantly, it seems to be a very strong indicator of the >veracity of Bohm's concepts of charge and mass being distributed in the >wave function. How can angular momentum be induced upon or stored in a >point! >... No, Horace, Bohm's interpretation of QM does not include the "concepts of charge and mass being distributed in the wave function". Bohm's interpret- ation includes *both* point-particles and wavefunctions. The wavefunction is to be thought of as a new field similar to (but certainly not identical to) an electromagnetic field. All of the mass and the charge is associated only with the point-particles - just as in classical electrodynamics. The motions of the particles are affected by both the classical potentials that result from the charge as well as a new "quantum potential" that is only related to the curvature of the wavefunction evaluated at the exact co-ordinates where a specific particle is located. The proper quantum mechanical treatment of particles in magnetic fields really requires a relativistically correct version of quantum mechanics - though there are some relativistic "corrections" available that are good approximations. In Bohm and Hiley's book "The Undivided Universe" there is an interesting presentation of the implications of relativistic treatments of QM with respect to particle motion. The conclusion is that particles do not move in straight lines! Instead, they execute a very tight helical "screw" type motion. It is this helical motion that corresponds to the particle's "spin" and provides the connection between spin and angular momentum... though I am not sure if this is directly relevant to your question above. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 14:07:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA00235; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604272101.RAA23447@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: 10 meter Cell Experiment Conclusions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >... >I can see we have a major communications gap regarding the nature of >potential and the propagation of potential. I seem to be alone in my view >of conduction and potential because I have had a number of private >correspondences with others who have similar views to yours. It seems like >many people are so ingrained in electronic circuit concepts that they can >not think in terms of first principle physics about the true nature of >conduction and potential. Maybe I am totally wrong in my concepts of >conduction. Hopefully, though, much of the problem is due to lack of >ability on my part to achieve the necessary clarity of communication, and >focus attention to the correct level of detail. No, I don't think so, Horace. I don't see any conflict between "electronic circuit concepts" and "first principle physics". And as to "the true nature" of conduction and potential - I think that has to be the domain of the natural philosophers and outside the range of what is usually meant by "physics". Physics is more pragmatic about the nature of things. > Perhaps one source of the >communication difficulty is that electronic circuits were used to attempt >to examine the fundamental problem, and therefore creates the EE mind set >that prevents communication between us in similar terms. > ... I appreciate your effort to explain your ideas more clearly. I think, however, that I would prefer not to respond in detail to your comments. Rather, I think it is important to relate such ideas to the very large body of theoretical physics that has been devoted to the representation of the solid state properties of matter. I know at least two good references on this. First, a standard text book on solid state physics is "Introduction to Solid State Physics" by Charles Kittel, John Wiley &Sons, 1986 (6th edition). A more advanced and I think also a more readable treatment (although the edition I have suffers from some rather bad typographical problems) is: "Solid State Physics" by Gerald Burns, Academic Press 1985. I especially liked Burns final chapter on "Artificial Structures" which includes dimensional effects in layered semiconductor and *metal* structures. I see this as directly applicable to "CF" electrodes like Patterson's beads. I also think that electrochemistry can benefit by applying the "solid state" approach to the conductivity of electrolytes. To a limited degree, I guess this has been done, but my point is that much more is possible. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 14:38:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA04742; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960427213048_72240.1256_EHB96-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: NASA report questioned X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex In my "Cold Fusion update" message, I mentioned the NASA report by Niedra, Myers et al. This was a test of a cell from Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation. I confess I have not read the entire report, I have only received a summary of it. I have been trying to get the entire paper. Anyway, Scott Little, who has read it all, informs me that it has a number of serious deficiencies. Scott quotes the paper: "Although our data admits the existence of an unusual source of heat within the cell, it falls short of being compelling". . . . and the conclusion: "Following the principle of simplest explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination becomes the explanation of choice". Yet Scott says they *did not check for recombination*! This a misuse of the Ockham's principle, but they may be right anyway. It is plausible. Right or wrong it is sloppy, fifth rate science. When you propose a simple hypothesis which you can easily check, it behooves you to go ahead and check it. This reminds me of Droege's report on the Griggs machine in which he hypothesized that the machine was affecting the performance of the thermocouples, but he did not bother to check the thermocouple readings after the machine was turned off. Before you claim there is an elephant in your garden you should take a moment to look out of the window. Scott quotes the paper again: "But even perfect recombination can not account for all the apparent excess heat in those Mills cells usually operated in a pulsed current mode and reported to produce a thermal output solidly exceeding the VI power input to the cell." But, Scott warns, "this last statement refers to experiments NOT done by them." The mind boggles. Scott says the paper is short on data, long on analysis, and the calibration is based on only two data points. Yuch! Well, next time I will read the paper before listing it. I usually do, y'know. I got caught this time. I don't know what it is about Ockham's razor. People seem to think it is a rule that goes like this: "If you think up a trivial explanation for a phonomenon, that means you don't have to check for it. It can be farfetched or a couple of orders of magnitude wrong, but you're off the hook. Signed, Bob Ockham - Chief Scientist" - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 15:17:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA10995; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 15:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 15:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604272158.QAA14068@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 10:27 AM 4/27/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >It bothers me that I remember reading about the hazards of HV in H2 >somewhere, but now I don't see the reason for it. >From personal experience with He, I can speculate that the problem they were warning about is the very low dielectric strength of light gases at atmospheric pressure. Circuit board traces 0.2" apart are perfectly good for 1000 volts in air but in He, it's instant FIREWORKS! - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 17:11:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA06170; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 17:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 17:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Bill Page wrote: > >No, Horace, Bohm's interpretation of QM does not include the "concepts of >charge and mass being distributed in the wave function". Bohm's interpret- >ation includes *both* point-particles and wavefunctions. The wavefunction >is to be thought of as a new field similar to (but certainly not identical >to) an electromagnetic field. All of the mass and the charge is associated >only with the point-particles - just as in classical electrodynamics. The >motions of the particles are affected by both the classical potentials that >result from the charge as well as a new "quantum potential" that is >only related to the curvature of the wavefunction evaluated at the >exact co-ordinates where a specific particle is located. > >The proper quantum mechanical treatment of particles in magnetic fields >really requires a relativistically correct version of quantum mechanics - >though there are some relativistic "corrections" available that are >good approximations. In Bohm and Hiley's book "The Undivided Universe" >there is an interesting presentation of the implications of relativistic >treatments of QM with respect to particle motion. The conclusion is that >particles do not move in straight lines! Instead, they execute a very >tight helical "screw" type motion. It is this helical motion that >corresponds to the particle's "spin" and provides the connection between >spin and angular momentum... though I am not sure if this is directly >relevant to your question above. > >Cheers, >Bill Page. Interresting, but disturbing. It is distressing to have such a bad memory. I felt sure it was Bohm. Any idea who's interpetation that is, mass and charge actually distributed in/as the wavefunction? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 17:58:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA17349; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 17:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 17:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: The message bouncing error *might* be fixed! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Bob Dinse, the owner of Eskimo North, Inc., says that the "catmail" error, which has been causing weeks of massive message-bounce errors for all eskimo.com discussion lists, is now fixed. I know how frustruating this has been. If it's any consolation, I just received a long message from eskimo.com about the many dead ends the staff encountered in trying to fix the mail problems. So they haven't been ignoring us, just not communicating. It's Saturday, 5:45pm PST right now. Let's see if the bug is really gone. Anyone getting a bounced "error 14" message from vortex-L after today, could you contact me? ...................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