From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 00:12:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA09660; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 00:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 00:08:59 -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: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > With the Casimir effect you can clearly exchange energy between > 'reality' and the zpf. You can extract energy from 'nowhere' and > put it back afterwards. That has been shown to be an exact analogy > with the way boats in close proximity get pushed/pulled together. > > I wonder if there is a trick one could dream up which would give *demonstrable* > net energy from the waves in the sea - in the sense of > using some derivation of the boat idea - which would be translatable > into zpf terms. That would be - er - quite a nice little trick. > Prizes are available for doing this experimentally. > > Chris > (I take 10% for suggesting the approach) This is feasible. I read somewhere recently (New Scientist? Nature? Science?) that it has been confirmed by theory that two ships close to each other at sea are attracted to each other by wave action. This is a sort of macroscopic Casimir Effect. OK, now put pistons between the two ships and let the coming together of the ships do some work, to generate power somewhere. The trouble is, of course, that you can do this just once. Same as the Casimir thing, I guess. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 1 00:47:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12838; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 00:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 00:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960701073208_100433.1541_BHG95-2@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: Re: [Fwd: 1913 paper on X3 by JJ Thomson] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Richard, > I looked up this letter by J.J. Thomson at LANL in Nature, > February 13, 1913, pages 645-7, "On the Appearance of Helium and > Neon in Vacuum Tubes". Wonderful are the delusions of the human mind (mine, anyway). I read that, and I kept staring and thinking, "J J never worked at LANL, did he?" Yes, I can see that Dieter's explanation may have value, but I would also suggest that the X3 may have been DH from the *glass vessel*. > It would be easy to replicate Thomson's three main experiments, > and determine the sources of any X3, helium, mass 10, and neon > found. Please let us know what if anything transpires from all this. I must admit I'd be rather pleased if by some strange chance my browsings in the hinterlands of science turned out to be of some use somewhere. And I would love it if JJ (my big hero) made one final strike from The Great Lab-Bench In The Sky! One thing - I bet the procedures used back in '13 would drive the average 1990s lab safety officer into shock. All that boiling lead, those Kathode Rays heating metal samples red-hot for hours. Sheesh. Dieter was showing some interest in this paper? Any comments from Darkest Aarhus? Chris From billb@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 01:08:53 1996 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA15269 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 01:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id EAA05723; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 04:08:21 -0400 Date: 01 Jul 96 04:05:24 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Re: Silly idea. Message-ID: <960701080524_100433.1541_BHG65-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: RO X-Status: Dieter, > This is feasible. I read somewhere recently (New Scientist? > Nature? Science?) that it has been confirmed by theory that two > ships close to each other at sea are attracted to each other by > wave action. This is a sort of macroscopic Casimir Effect. Sorry, didn't I mention all this here - New Scientist, 8 June 1996, P17. By Paul Guinnessy: "Physics unpicks a sailor's yarn." Of course, it is yet another non-photon analysis of a 'virtual photon' effect.... What I'm suggesting here is that it may be a great deal easier for most people to think in terms of this macroscopic version of the effect, than to try to dream up a method down at the micro level. > The trouble is, of course, that you can do this just once. Same > as the Casimir thing, I guess. Of course. But problems are meant to be a challenge. I'm not suggesting that this approach has any merit, only that it's another way of looking at the problem. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 02:19:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA19482; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 02:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 02:10:25 -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: Re: Horace on ball-lightning X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Good stuff, Horace! This will take some thought. The capacitor jolt >sounds doable if we could match your input to my output! > >Frank Stenger I have the stuff to make some very large copper cables. Oddly enough, I would cannibalize the copper strands from IBM 360/370 channel cables - heavy giants formerly used to carry information! Wow, did IBM ever use overkill on it's hardware design. Maybe this would be a good time to go to private discussion regarding this. I misread Volodya, who still has some interest in some drawings, etc., so I'll stop shuttling the messages there as well. Give this group a break from tedium. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 02:30:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20579; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 02:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 02:26:03 -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: [Fwd: 1913 paper on X3 by JJ Thomson] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Please let us know what if anything transpires from all this. I must > admit I'd be rather pleased if by some strange chance my browsings in the > hinterlands of science turned out to be of some use somewhere. And I would love > it if JJ (my big hero) made one final strike from The Great > Lab-Bench In The Sky! > > One thing - I bet the procedures used back in '13 would drive the > average 1990s lab safety officer into shock. All that boiling lead, > those Kathode Rays heating metal samples red-hot for hours. Sheesh. > > Dieter was showing some interest in this paper? Any comments from > Darkest Aarhus? Er, haven't looked it up yet but will; a bit busy right now. Those were exciting days. I'm just reading "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes, who spreads himself nicely on the early nuclear physics people. Good reading, one of those books that make you want to read other books to fill in, and Rhodes explains complicated stuff so that I have at least the feeling that I understand some of it, in principle. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 1 04:43:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA29901; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 04:39:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 04:39:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607011135.AA16067@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: Re: Calorimeters X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jed wrote: > Barry Merriman, Scott Little and Kirk Shanahan have described fine > calorimeters. Sorry, but I don't have a calorimeter setup. That's why I sent beads to Scott...:-) Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's} From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 04:57:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA01146; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 04:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 04:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607011150.GAA05327@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: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 16:42 6/30/96 -0700, Chris wrote: >Hey? The Casimir effect isn't - er - 'transverse', it's longitudinal. What use >is anything which moves transverse to the waves? OK, OK! You're absolutely right. on second thought...hmmm!,.....tacking on the Casimir winds.....? >Wholly off topic, but you know all the tabloid flak they (with a lot of >justification) hand out to the Brit Royals? I saw one comment which makes up >for a lot (in my humble opinion). Apparently the present incumbent showed fair >talent as a mechanic in the army towards the end of WWII. So much so that when >recently there was a crisis with a busted lavatory, she was the only one around >who could fix it. I like that in a woman - especially since I hate plumbing. Reminds me of: "Her majesty's a pretty nice girl, Someday I'm gonna make her mine". the Beatles Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 04:58:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA01169; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 04:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 04:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607011150.GAA05330@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: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 17:11 6/30/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >Along those lines, it seems like it might be possible to manufacture a chip >with very thin very small piezoelectric crystals on the surface connected >to integrated fullwave diode bridges. The output of all the tiny bridges >would be collected together. Then place the chip into a gas of the >heavyest possible gas, maybe radon? Such a device seems valid but it also seems to me that it would cool the gas that struck it (i.e. remove K.E. from the molecules) and thus it would be a normal heat engine. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 05:09:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA01217; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 04:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 04:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607011150.GAA05334@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: KS beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 17:30 6/30/96 -0700, Mark wrote: >Scott, I know we are trying to be really helpful here. But are these beads >from Kirk S. then? I would like to know that! MDH The beads are from Kirk Shanahan, aka Kirk S., aka KS. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 05:29:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA04501; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 05:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 05:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31d514c1.46714176@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: The Experiment on the Neutron X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:27:02 -0700 (PDT), Elio Conte wrote: >Dear Vortexians, >thank you very much for the consideration to the experiment on >the neutron.Please,consider that we must obtain REPRODUCIBLE >Results.The result in itself is so important that we cannot permit >to ourselfes to obtain questionable results.Also having an adeguate >laboratory of nuclear physics in our Institute,we have had some difficulty >to detect neutrons indirectly(alpha measurements and other...).We need >to have results with unquestionable discrimination and so the only way >is to use neutron detectors as we have made.Please,consider that we=20 >have used BF3 detectors connected to a multichannel analyzer since we >have intended to study also the energetic spectrum of the emitted neutrons, >but,repeating the experiment,I see that a multichannel analyzer is not an >instrument easy to find in any laboratory and so also a rate meter may be >sufficient. >Finally,please debate the results.Sincerely.Elio Conte > =20 >--- >Prof Elio Conte >Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia >Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia > > Dear Professor, I am not really in a position to criticise your work, however you do ask for serious debate. Therefore I would like to ask two questions. 1) How reliable is your BF3 detector? I ask this because if memory serves me correctly, much of the early CF criticism was centred around the unreliability of these devices. However, I have no personal experience with them. 2) Is it possible that your experiment was generating alpha particles rather than neutrons? I ask this only because consideration of various CF reports, leads me to think along these lines. 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 Mon Jul 1 05:39:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA05887; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 05:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 05:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31d76c5f.25137669@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: the remining fields X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 30 Jun 1996 06:57:37 -0700 (PDT), Francis J. Stenger wrote: [snip] >Forgive me, John, but I get all emotional where ball-lightning is >concerned! >There are classical solutions to standard electromagnetic equations >that show that toroidal current fields, very much like Paul K. proposes, >*can* exist inside of a diamagnetic pressure sphere. For example, a >suitable pressure vessel might be a superconducting spherical shell. >Circulating wall currents would automatically restrain the toroidal >current and its associated magnetic field to the inside of the sphere. >If I had a scanner I could show a picture of this solution - which looks >very much like the inner portion of Paul's plasmoid. >However, even though the toroidal current is force-free, the containing >sphere is not! >A magnetic field, B, contains an energy density, um, given by: > > um = 6.522 B^2 joules/cubic inch (I like inches, darn it!) > for B given in teslas. > >A 0.5 tesla (5000 gauss) magnetic field has an equivalent "pressure" >of about 14.4 psi - about atmospheric pressure. This is about the >strength of field that could be supported by a vacuum bubble in the >atmosphere. >The energy density of a 0.5 tesla field is (from my equation) about >1.63 joules/cubic inch. A cubic foot of 0.5 tesla magnetic field >(1728 cubic inches) would, thus, contain about 2817 joules of energy - >a pretty good chunk of energy at that! But**, it's still not enough >to explain many of the reported ball-lightning sightings. You appear to have skipped over the thermal energy contained in the plasma. I can't do the math myself, but if the pressure within the torus can be higher than atmospheric, and the temperature much higher, then there should be a fair amount of hot "gas" (in plasma form) crammed in there. When the ball breaks down, and this hot plasma mixes with the surrounding air, there could be a nice little "explosion". Especially if the surrounding air contains rain drops. [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 Mon Jul 1 05:40:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA05911; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 05:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 05:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31d76f33.25861653@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: Other experiments for Scott's beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott, Given that: 1) You use a glass substrate to allow high temperatures. 2) Your Piantelli experiment is sitting on a shelf. I suggest that you try replacing the nickel rod in the Piantelli experiment with some of your beads. If my previous suggestion re. the thickness of the metal plating (poor man's laser) has any merit at all, then the plating on everyone's beads is much too thin for room temperatures. However a plating of that thickness would stand a much better chance of working at much higher temperatures, such as those used in the Piantelli experiment. BTW has anyone calculated the actual amount of expansion that soda lime glass undergoes when heated from room temperature to 50 C? Is it enough to crack the metal coating, and does the plastic substrate used by Patterson/Cravens, have a lower thermal expansion coefficient? 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 Mon Jul 1 05:44:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA05965; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 05:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 05:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31d774c0.27282340@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: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 30 Jun 1996 11:55:26 -0700 (PDT), Scott Little wrote: [snip] >OK, Chris: The sea-wave device is simply a float attached to the input arm >of generator. The arm is equipped with a ratchet so it will freewheel in >one direction. Waves come along and raise the float which turns the >generator. When the wave passes, the arm ratchets allowing the float to >drop without turning the generator backwards. > >The key element here, as far as tapping the sea wave energy goes, is the >ratchet. If we had a similar device that could allow us to ratchet Casimir >plates back apart again without fighting the zpf, we'd be golden! >Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to turn off the Casimir force on an >object. > >An electrical ratchet: If one could produce a diode with virtually zero >forward drop, wouldn't zpf induced fluctuations in the electrons cause them >to flow in the "forward" direction (damn you, Ben Franklin) in a circuit >containing such a diode? The other critical aspect of any such converter lies in the fact that it doesn't move, while the waves do (usually beacuse it's anchored in some way). In other words, at the very minimum it must get out of phase with the waves. The problem with the ZPF, is that you're "floating on the ocean", so it's very hard to get out of sync. However even something floating can get out of sync, if it has a "built in" resonant frequency of its own, that doesn't match that of the "ocean". Therefore it would appear that ANY device capable of tapping the ZPE, must in one way or another, rely upon some form of resonance to achieve its goal. One other point I would make. While the ZPE may exist over a whole range of frequencies, it is obvious that the most energy resides in the higher frequencies. Therefore it would seem that the higher the frequncy that one can "tap", the more powerful the device. While none of this is directly useful, it does set forth a couple of paramaters as a guide, albeit weak ones. > >Another approach: I keep thinking there should be some kind of antenna >structure that will absorb high energy photons from the zpf, convert some of >their energy into usable form, and the radiate "waste energy" as low energy >photons. In other words a photon engine that works a bit like a heat engine. e.g. as does an antenna. [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 Mon Jul 1 07:13:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA19279; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 07:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 07:06:23 -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: New Transmutation Site Operational in Boston X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 06/30/96 17:33 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: New Transmutation Site Operational in Boston I might be the source of the "collecting" idea. It has occurred to me that some of Joe C's "transmutation" methods seem an awful lot like various extractive metallurgy techniques. There should be held open the possibility that Joe's work is real, but that it involves extracting values that are already there. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 07:13:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA19359; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 07:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 07:06:46 -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: Re: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 17:11 6/30/96 -0700, Horace wrote: > >>Along those lines, it seems like it might be possible to manufacture a chip >>with very thin very small piezoelectric crystals on the surface connected >>to integrated fullwave diode bridges. The output of all the tiny bridges >>would be collected together. Then place the chip into a gas of the >>heavyest possible gas, maybe radon? > >Such a device seems valid but it also seems to me that it would cool the gas >that struck it (i.e. remove K.E. from the molecules) and thus it would be a >normal heat engine. > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. But that's *my* point exactly! That's what I am saying. It's a gadget that can take a closed isolated system of two equal temperature connected compartments and make their temperatures unequal. However, this is not a normal heat engine. It is not a direct violation of the first law, but is a direct violation of the second. There goes entropy, here comes perpetual motion. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 09:11:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA12234; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607011511.IAA15879@mom.hooked.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Russ George" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neutron detection cheaply? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Steve Jones an expert you must be kidding. Only he claims this to be so the evidence speaks otherwise. There are several simple and inexpensive ways to count neutrons. The simpliest is to buy a neutron dosimeter such as the Neutron Bubble detectors invented by the folks at Chalk River in Canada and sold by Seimens Dosimetry division. These have a gell like material in a short test tube like container. As neutrons pass through they leave a bubble behind. You simply count the bubbles as they grow in. There are a varitey of other dosimters available. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 09:13:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA12333; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960701111925_146643414@emout09.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: the remining fields X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank, With regard to force-free toroidal field models for ball lightning, does the so-called Beltrami force-free cylinder solution (J X B = 0) wrapped into a torus form help? Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 09:22:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA12517; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607011530.IAA26221@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: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:08 PM 6/30/96 -0700, you wrote: >In a message dated 96-06-30 13:09:09 EDT, Chris Tinsley wrote: > ><< I wonder if there is a trick one could dream up which would give >*demonstrable* > net energy from the waves in the sea - in the sense of > using some derivation of the boat idea - which would be translatable > into zpf terms. That would be - er - quite a nice little trick. > Prizes are available for doing this experimentally. >> > >I don't remember the details, but there have been a number of proposals for >extracting energy from the sea, ranging from locks at the Bay of Fundy to >systems of floats linked together to extract energy from waves. There have >also been proposals for trubines to extract energy from the temperature >difference between the surface of the the ocean and a few tens of feet down. > actual pilot plants have been built off the big island of Hawaii >Chris's silly ideas, as usual, aren't so silly. > >Mike Carrell > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 09:16:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA12643; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607011531.LAA22438@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan said: > So there is a gradient induced by drilling the hole, but it is > very small due to the aggregate influence of all the other nearby > charges. I always assumed that the idea was to place the sample in the hole, making it part of the surface of the sphere, and thus subject to both the charge gradient and electron depletion... Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 10:11:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21815; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 10:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 10:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9607011923.AA01675@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: The Experiment on the Neutron X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 05:26:21 -0700 (PDT) >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: The Experiment on the Neutron >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas > >On Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:27:02 -0700 (PDT), Elio Conte wrote: > >>Dear Vortexians, >>thank you very much for the consideration to the experiment on >>the neutron.Please,consider that we must obtain REPRODUCIBLE >>Results.The result in itself is so important that we cannot permit >>to ourselfes to obtain questionable results.Also having an adeguate >>laboratory of nuclear physics in our Institute,we have had some difficulty >>to detect neutrons indirectly(alpha measurements and other...).We need >>to have results with unquestionable discrimination and so the only way >>is to use neutron detectors as we have made.Please,consider that we=3D20 >>have used BF3 detectors connected to a multichannel analyzer since we >>have intended to study also the energetic spectrum of the emitted= neutrons, >>but,repeating the experiment,I see that a multichannel analyzer is not an >>instrument easy to find in any laboratory and so also a rate meter may be >>sufficient. >>Finally,please debate the results.Sincerely.Elio Conte >> =3D20 >>--- >>Prof Elio Conte >>Centro Studi Radioattivit=3DE0 e Radioecologia >>Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia >> >> >Dear Professor, > >I am not really in a position to criticise your work, however you do >ask for serious debate. Therefore I would like to ask two questions. > >1) How reliable is your BF3 detector? I ask this because if memory >serves me correctly, much of the early CF criticism was centred around >the unreliability of these devices. However, I have no personal >experience with them. > >2) Is it possible that your experiment was generating alpha particles >rather than neutrons? I ask this only because consideration of various >CF reports, leads me to think along these lines. > > >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. >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* BF3 detectors,as it is known,is one of the commonly used detectors for neutrons and only neutrons,obviously.Only some gamma interference could be,in principle,possible.We measured only true neutrons and no alpha particles!In addition,all the experimental arrangement including the neutron detector were shielded from other perturbing sources.In particular, note that the experiment was executed with and withouth the presence of the incoming electrons:both the cases were analyzed with the neutron system of analysis in condition to recorder the presence of neutrons.Only in the case of the presence of the electrons we obtained 100 neutrons/h and the complete fusion of the Al catode.Finally,consider also that we obtained also the energetic spectrum of the emitted neutrons and this date was=20 enable for us to exclude any occasional and external component.No,I have no doubts on the use of BF3 detectors and on the possible existence of occasional external factors. Sincerely.Elio Conte --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 11:37:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA16940; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31D80654.46E2@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > >At 17:11 6/30/96 -0700, Horace wrote: > > > >>Along those lines, it seems like it might be possible to manufacture a chip > >>with very thin very small piezoelectric crystals on the surface connected > >>to integrated fullwave diode bridges. The output of all the tiny bridges > >>would be collected together. Then place the chip into a gas of the > >>heavyest possible gas, maybe radon? > > > >Such a device seems valid but it also seems to me that it would cool the gas > >that struck it (i.e. remove K.E. from the molecules) and thus it would be a > >normal heat engine. > > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. > > But that's *my* point exactly! That's what I am saying. It's a gadget that > can take a closed isolated system of two equal temperature connected > compartments and make their temperatures unequal. However, this is not a > normal heat engine. It is not a direct violation of the first law, but is a > direct violation of the second. There goes entropy, here comes perpetual > motion. > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Hey guys! Don't forget Brownian movement! Here you have a random, thermally-induced movement of particles that you can see in liquid with a good optical microscope! Get to work on those little piezoelectric-diode generators! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 11:47:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA17394; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:31:55 -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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > John Logajan said: > > > So there is a gradient induced by drilling the hole, but it is > > very small due to the aggregate influence of all the other nearby > > charges. > > I always assumed that the idea was to place the sample in the hole, >making it part of the surface of the sphere, and thus subject to both >the charge gradient and electron depletion... > > > Robert I. Eachus We, living on the surface of the earth, are continually but variably exposed to just those conditions due to the interaction of the earth and solar wind, especially in the polar regions. For this reason, radioactive isotope ratios should be shifted downward toward the decay chain ends for minerals in the magnetic polar regions, if this theory is true. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 11:39:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA17632; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31D8102F.69B6@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > Snip: > You appear to have skipped over the thermal energy contained in the > plasma. I can't do the math myself, but if the pressure within the > torus can be higher than atmospheric, and the temperature much higher, > then there should be a fair amount of hot "gas" (in plasma form) > crammed in there. When the ball breaks down, and this hot plasma mixes > with the surrounding air, there could be a nice little "explosion". > Especially if the surrounding air contains rain drops. > [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. > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*Robin: My old reference (The Nature of Ball Lightning, by Singer, 1971) refers (page 134) to the lifetime of radiation from a 1 kton nuclear explosion as being about 10 sec. Also indicates a 11 X 10^6 joule ball (big ball lightning size) would only have a thermal life of about .01 sec. Now, all these estimates are limited by CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS via the very fundamental "virial theorem", which, to my limited understanding, just says that any (flywheels, springs, gas pressure tanks, rubber bands, induction coils, etc.) macroscopic energy-storage device is limited by the strength of its structure. The reason I am in an anomalous science discussion group is that I think there is some kind of loophole in the "virial theorem" and that ball lightning may point the way to it. Hey! I like CF and OU too! In othe words, the whole point is that CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS says that the pressure within the torus can't be higher than atmospheric! Welcome to my anomalous science project! Thanks for the comments, Robin - they were good ones. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 11:40:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA17925; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31D815BA.334B@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields, Hal X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > > Frank, > > With regard to force-free toroidal field models for ball lightning, does the > so-called Beltrami force-free cylinder solution (J X B = 0) wrapped into a > torus form help? > > Hal Puthoff Hi Hal. That's what I thought when I first got into force-free coils! (For general info, helical solutions are available for force-free, infinite cylinders.) My understanding now, Hal, is that if you close the infinite cylinders into a thin torus, the local stresses at a spot in the torus can be very low. But, it seems that the hoop stress will still fail the coil much like a low pressure gas tank (say at 10 psi) might fail if the wall were thin enough. (See a lot of literature on large superconducting induction coils for electric power load-leveling, EPRI, etc.) You know, I still "feel" that a few extra helical turns should make this idea work, but I can't show it with the math! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 11:50:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18106; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607011823.NAA01094@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: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:06 7/1/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >But that's *my* point exactly! That's what I am saying. It's a gadget that >can take a closed isolated system of two equal temperature connected >compartments and make their temperatures unequal. However, this is not a >normal heat engine. It is not a direct violation of the first law, but is a >direct violation of the second. There goes entropy, here comes perpetual >motion. OK, I see where you're going. Assuming you HAVEN'T invented a way to violate the 2nd law (safe for the moment, I believe), it must be that there is something fundamentally unworkable about a piezo that is small enuf to respond with volts of output from a single molecule striking it. Perhaps one could calculate how much voltage an imaginary stack of piezoelectric ceramic molecules would produce when struck by a single gas molecule.... Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 13:54:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA13052; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:35:53 -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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > I always assumed that the idea was to place the sample in the hole, > making it part of the surface of the sphere, and thus subject to both > the charge gradient and electron depletion... The only point I'm making is that there isn't much difference in the fields whether the sample is in a small hole on the surface or just stuck on the surface provided that the "bump" doesn't become a significant fraction of the diameter of the sphere. "Roughness" on the sphere is tolerable as long as it is small relative to the diameter of the sphere. But once it becomes significant, it becomes a site of higher gradient than the surrounding smoother surface and the sphere cannot reach as high a voltage without experiencing breakdown conditions at the "sharp" point. So burying the sample into the sphere would help prevent high gradients, but I think you could just place the sample inside the sphere without the need for the hole, as most of these spheres are removable. -- - 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 Mon Jul 1 13:52:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA13242; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607011850.OAA24628@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner (hheffner@anc.ak.net) said: > We, living on the surface of the earth, are continually but variably > exposed to just those conditions due to the interaction of the earth and > solar wind, especially in the polar regions. For this reason, radioactive > isotope ratios should be shifted downward toward the decay chain ends for > minerals in the magnetic polar regions, if this theory is true. Huh? 1) The active regions of the ionosphere are lower near the magnetic poles, but any interaction with the solar wind is not near the ground. 2) Due to continental drift, nutation, and reversal of the earth's magnetic field, the whole planet has been subjected to such phenomena if one square foot has. 3) Summer thundestorms would probably create more of such an effect for exposed minerals in non-polar areas. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 13:51:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA13555; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:38:13 -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: The Experiment on the Neutron X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/01/96 10:11 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: The Experiment on the Neutron What you are describing, Dr. Conte, sounds VERY interesting. Complete "fusion" of the Al cathode, if I am understanding correctly, refers to haveing the Al cathode melt and resolidify under very minor energy input conditions. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 13:51:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA13848; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:39:21 -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: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 07:06 7/1/96 -0700, Horace wrote: > >>But that's *my* point exactly! That's what I am saying. It's a gadget that >>can take a closed isolated system of two equal temperature connected >>compartments and make their temperatures unequal. However, this is not a >>normal heat engine. It is not a direct violation of the first law, but is a >>direct violation of the second. There goes entropy, here comes perpetual >>motion. > >OK, I see where you're going. Assuming you HAVEN'T invented a way to >violate the 2nd law (safe for the moment, I believe), it must be that there >is something fundamentally unworkable about a piezo that is small enuf to >respond with volts of output from a single molecule striking it. > >Perhaps one could calculate how much voltage an imaginary stack of >piezoelectric ceramic molecules would produce when struck by a single gas >molecule.... > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Agreed, however, I feel reasonably certain this is a workable idea, based on something I read a long time ago, and I don't know where. It was an article bout the limits of miniaturization. One limit was power density, but another was the fact that molecules bouncing off the chip produced electric pulses. The fact that the electric pulses can be significant means that the molecules must be able to generate voltages in excess of the minimum to exceed the bias. Also, maybe bridges are not necessary. A lateral shock on a crystal matrix should generate a longitudinal voltage as well as lateral. This should apply to a doped as well as non-doped lattice. If these assumptions are true, then it should be possible to construct the chip out of lots of diodes in parallel laying on their sides. Alternately, they could be built vertically, by building layers. If they are built vertically an insulating material would have to be formed around the diode across which the top conductor would lie, with a short narrow lead to the next diode. Each diode would "rectify" it's own pulse. One problem, though, a single short and the chip is kaput. For this reason, it might be better to put a number of diodes in series to make a "node". If one node fails those remaining should hold back the flood. Even better would be to form the diodes into an array. Then the chip would be almost failsafe. However, the collision rate must then be sufficient that the reverse leakage does not leak away an accumulated charge between diodes between hits, on average, otherwise the cumulative forward bias will not be exceeded. A higher pressure environment would be better also - more hits per second. There is a much more important issue here, though, and that is hope. If the Second Law is dead, there is then solid hope for "the" solution. A very small scale demonstration would be of very great scientific value. It'll get all those skeptics off their duffs and working on something meaningful. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 13:52:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA14070; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607011959.OAA08436@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: Pb sample X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Joe, I'm just covered up at work right now....and can't call you. I don't care what elements you created in this sample, I just want to do two things: 1. confirm the presence of the supposedly created elements.\ 2. confirm that the isotopic ratios for these elements is unnatural. Just tell me what you expect to have created in this sample. If this sample is a "test gone awry", then send me a sample from a test that did not go awry. My main sample requirement is that the concentration of created elements be as high as possible, say 1% or so. Thanks. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 13:57:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA14191; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:40:53 -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: Re: the remining fields, Hal X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >You know, I still "feel" that a few extra helical turns should make this >idea work, but I can't show it with the math! > >Frank Stenger Try considering that the inside of the torus is a near vacuum. It is swept out by the centrifugal force. If it expands via extension of the torus major diameter, work must be done. If it expands it increases the resistance thus decreases the current and thus the EM expansion force. Also, if it expands it elongates the field lines on the inside of the torus going around the major axis, which requires work. I think there is every reason to believe the pressure is less than atmospheric inside the torus. As for the unexplained radiated energy - yes, indeed, that's why all the interest in ball lightning. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 15:33:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA04637; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31D84067.77BB@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: SWC's-Joe Flynn X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com wrote: > > >Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 10:54:26 > >From: Francis J. Stenger > > >The Faraday disk dynamo works just fine if an electromagnet is > used > >rather than a permanent magnet. > > Seems like you might have missed the point. A *coil* of wire > *would* > replace the permanent magnet just fine, that was my point, they > are > the same! Try replacing the disk with copper wire wrapped in a > coil. > Tell me what happens? > > To identify the field I speak of, take a piece of cardboard and > a three > foot piece of copper wire and a battery and iron filings. Run > the wire > thru the center of the cardboard put some iron filings on the > cardboard > close to the wire. Hook the ends of the wire to the battery > (quickly, > the wire will heat up) tap the cardboard to align the fillings, > observe > the circular field. Put a compass next to the wire. No matter > where > you place it. it will point in the direction of the circular > field, determined > by the direction of the current flow. > > The field of a straight wire conductor is utilized in squirrel > cage motors. > Just read up on these motors or a good book on Electromagnetics > and you won't have to bother Mr. Maxwell. Most Physics books > also will refer to SWC's, and how their circular field forms > the field > of a permanet magnet when wrapped into a coil. > > I have no preference of permanent over electromagnets except > when > I need the field of a SWC for a motor design, as many have > utilized > before me. > > Joe FlynnJoe, I think my posting was long on "quick" and short on "thought"! I did not mean to say that the field around a normal, real world, straight conductor section was not pretty much as you describe. I only meant that if the circuit were a simple flat, loop-type circuit, and you looked at it with very high precision, you would be able to see a slight distortion in the circles caused by the return current flow in the adjacent part of the loop. The larger the loop, the smaller the effect. As I mentioned, if you consider the straight conductor as the center conductor in a coaxial cable, then the flux lines are exact circles and my snoopy microscope would show that! I was also askew on my comments on the electromagnet field for a Faraday disk dynamo. But, you bring up an interesting point! The disk dynamo I used as a flux meter consisted of an aluminum disk on a small motor shaft with one brush on the motor shaft and the other brush contacting the machined rim of the disk. Now, are you saying that if I replace the central part of the disk with a flat sprial coil of wire, contacting the shaft at one end and a commutation ring at the outer rim - that I should get a different voltage than with the solid disk? If this is the right idea, let me know because this might make a great experiment! My guess is that the open circuit voltage would be the same! What do you think? One-who-hopes-to-know-10%-of-what-he-talks-about, Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 15:34:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA04955; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607012114.OAA17872@nz1.netzone.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Joe Champion To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Pb sample X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:40 PM 7/1/96 -0700, you wrote: >1. confirm the presence of the supposedly created elements.\ > >2. confirm that the isotopic ratios for these elements is unnatural. > >Just tell me what you expect to have created in this sample. > >If this sample is a "test gone awry", then send me a sample from a test that >did not go awry. Awry is OK, for it produced a large amount Mg, Sr, Ca and Mo. All in the percent (or near percent level). Each has multiple isotopes so anomalies should exist in all. The sample you have proves more than some of our precious metal production. The ESM samples are a snap. You have a true before and after. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 15:45:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA05052; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607012136.RAA26511@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan said: > The only point I'm making is that there isn't much difference in the > fields whether the sample is in a small hole on the surface or just > stuck on the surface provided that the "bump" doesn't become a > significant fraction of the diameter of the sphere. "Roughness" > on the sphere is tolerable as long as it is small relative to the > diameter of the sphere. But once it becomes significant, it becomes a site > of higher gradient than the surrounding smoother surface and the sphere > cannot reach as high a voltage without experiencing breakdown > conditions at the "sharp" point. > So burying the sample into the sphere would help prevent high gradients, > but I think you could just place the sample inside the sphere without the > need for the hole, as most of these spheres are removable. No, no, no! The idea AFIAK is to subject the sample to the non-linear fields and electron deficit, which are all on the OUTER surface of sphere at the top. Even a 1/4" inch in from the surface should see nothing. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 15:41:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA05290; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:31:03 -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: Wither the Vortexian Commentary on Correa**2? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Wither the Vortexian Commentary on Correa**2? - Hey, I thought there would be MUCH more comment on the Correa claims. Is the alledged practicallity of the device too scary for people to deal with? - Is there anyone (like me) that thinks the ZPE stuff is non-sense, but that Correa**2 might still have something, even if it is a CF from He4 and Al, or perhaps a way of charging NiCads which stimulates some sort of CF (or cold fission maybe) reaction in the NiCads? - Will Linda Marry Tony? Will Robert come out of the closet? Does the Rev. Tomb- stone really spend THAT much time on the Internet playing peekaboo? Does anyone care? (Tune in next week for the continuing episodes of, "As the World Burns") From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 17:49:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA03279; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31D85A9B.5E3E@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields, Hal X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > > > >You know, I still "feel" that a few extra helical turns should make this > >idea work, but I can't show it with the math! > > > >Frank Stenger > > Try considering that the inside of the torus is a near vacuum. It is swept > out by the centrifugal force. If it expands via extension of the torus > major diameter, work must be done. If it expands it increases the > resistance thus decreases the current and thus the EM expansion force. > Also, if it expands it elongates the field lines on the inside of the torus > going around the major axis, which requires work. > > I think there is every reason to believe the pressure is less than > atmospheric inside the torus. > > As for the unexplained radiated energy - yes, indeed, that's why all the > interest in ball lightning. > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 OK, but keep in mind that the MAINSTREAM PHYSICS GUY will give us the point that there may be a vacuum in ball lightning. They will then impose the atmospheric pressure limit on the energy density - which is too small for the reported energy. There is also a STABILITY problem, Horace. What kind of rotation can you come up with that produces exactly the right counter-force to fight the J X B forces - in a toroidal configuration? Note that in my comments to Hal, I was really thinking of toroidal, "air-core" energy storage coils. I really don't know the complete answers to any of these detailed questions about toroidal current fields. They are bad enough for static, solid conductor systems! I'm really in the woods in the case a magnetohydrodynamic toroidal plasma system. (call in the Princeton Plasma Physics guys!) Lost in the flux, Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 17:52:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA03469; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:44:24 -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: Listserv: Soc. for Sci. Explo. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hey, the Society for Scientific Exploration has a little-known, little-used listserv! Roger Nelson says that many SSE members are on it, so vortex-L people may want to check out another audience for Anomalies discussion. ....................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 SSE-L SSE-L (or sse-l) originated as a private, unmoderated email list for Full Members of the Society of Scientific Exploration. It is now being opened for broader participation from the community of individuals and groups interested in a range of scientific anomalies. It is intended to further the aims of the Society by providing a forum on the internet where SSE members and others may conveniently discuss topics or issues of current interest by posting (usually) short notes to the mailing list's group address (sse-l@jsasoc.com). Your message will automatically be forwarded to all list members including many scientists who are actively engaged in research on a broad spectrum of anomalous phenomena. The default "reply-to" address for public messages (identified in the message header as emanating from SSE-L) is the group's address. This means that when you read a message from the group and type "reply" at your terminal, your reply will go the group as a whole. The following are the most frequently used listserv commands that SSE-L members may wish to know. All of these commands should be sent as regular e-mail messages to the listserv address (LISTSERV@JSASOC.COM), but NOT to the address of the group as a whole (SSE-L@JSASOC.COM). In each case leave the subject line of the message blank and include no extraneous text, as commands will be read and processed by the listserv program rather than a person. To join the group send the message: ----------------------------------------- ********---> NOTE: use the address LISTSERV@JSASOC.COM *********** for all commands and queries _________________________________________ SUBSCRIBE SSE-L For example: SUBSCRIBE SSE-L John Smith To cancel your subscription send the message: UNSUBSCRIBE SSE-L To post a public message to the group as a whole simply send it as regular e-mail to the group's address (SSE-L@JSASOC.COM). To receive your mail in digest format (one message per day consisting of the whole day's posts bundled together) send the message: SET SSE-L MAIL DIGEST To change your subscription from digest format back to one-at-a-time delivery send the message: SET SSE-L MAIL ACK For a brief overview of list server commands, send the message: HELP to listserv@jsasoc.com Special thanks to James Spottiswoode for providing both technical and intellectual support for SSE-L. Comments and suggestions concerning this list should be sent to the Listowner: rdnelson@princeton.edu Roger D. Nelson, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) C-131 E-Quad, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 voice: 609 258-5370 fax: 609 258-1993 email: rdnelson@.princeton.edu From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 19:03:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA21111; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960702003328_75110.3417_CHK41-1@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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Guys, >> 2) Due to continental drift, nutation, and reversal of the earth's magnetic field, the whole planet has been subjected to such phenomena if one square foot has. 3) Summer thunderstorms would probably create more of such an effect for exposed minerals in non-polar areas. << I don't know if you're aware of this, but I. Velikovsky proposed that the Earth has been subjected to a few super-lightning discharges which permanently altered (induced fast decay) the radioactivity of all materials in the Earth's crust. I don't know where Velikovsky got the idea that very high voltage discharges would alter radio-decay rates. His books were written in the 40's and early 50's. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 20:22:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06040; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 20:15:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 20:15:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fields, Reluctant Torus EM Expert X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vor, For any of you following this thread, a request ... and an offer. On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > > > >I-want-what-Horace-is-having, Frank Stenger > "I am standing here beside myself" is a line adapted from the movie "Short > Circuit". I felt like jumping up and down, but didn't want to stop typing. > Since we share an interest in ball lightning, I think you'll understand my > > Since you are one of the EM experts/experimenters here I was hoping you > might have something a little more specific in your critique. You keep'n > something up your sleeve, or just trying to be nice? I have several > > Looking-for-input-even-the-conventional-kind, Horace Heffner SO: Q: [request] simple blow by blow, about the torus thing. offer: We will build one here at the institute. We have bucked, pinched and pushed fields for a long time. We can easily push a few kilo amp/turns, time variant into some torous. JHS From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 20:21:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06109; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 20:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 20:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neutron detection cheaply? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, williams michael j wrote: > Horace, wrap several G-M tubes with silver foil and mount them in a > polyethylene block as a moderator. It is a standard silver-activation > counter method of measuring pulsed neutrons. Shades of the old "oratron" . JHS > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 21:31:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA17916; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:18:42 -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: WARNING: about sse-L X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I must strongly recommend proper nettiquette regarding the sse-L discussion list. Their Welcome message indicates that until recently it has been a (low traffic) list for Full Members of the SSE. Anyone joining sse-L should 'lurk' there for a good long while before sending messages. Get an idea about who's there and what the current discussions may be. If half of vortex-L suddenly invades their space with twenty new conversation threads, they might wish to return to less liberal membership requirements. So, watch and listen first, OK? ....................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 Mon Jul 1 21:55:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA23964; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607020444.VAA04824@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: Hydrogen/Oxygen Reactions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 12:46 PM 6/28/96 -0700, you wrote: > >At risk of further propagation of this thread, when hydrogen and oxygen gas >react in a closed volume to form water, energy is released. If energy is >released, the temperature of the gases go up and the pressure goes up. >This is why people talk about an explosion. Now, if all the H2 and O2 >react to form water and the resulting HOT water vapor condenses on cold >walls, clearly the pressure will go back down. I think you would need to >look at phase diagrams to determine the exact final state of the system. >So, first it explodes, then the water can condense on the cold walls and >the final pressure can be less than that of the initial H2 and O2 that you >started with. If you want to call the whole process an "implosion" I guess >you can. > >-bob- > > bob, I think a thought experiment is useful here. this word explode is not a useful word. neither maybe is implode. the words mask a lot of complex behaviour, as you are getting at here. the real question is what are the behaviours of the atoms/molecule? i am too tired at the moment to finish this but let's think about how to model this metaphorically in a thought experiment. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 21:56:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA24139; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607020444.VAA04834@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: Transmutations X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:20 PM 6/28/96 -0700, you wrote: >There's something curiously refreshing about Joe Champion's writing, and his >general approach and candour. Somebody else here today said much the same thing >(my apologies for my bad memory, put it down to old age). > >That story about the process not scaling up - oh, I dunno, but it sort of >sounded right. I too have been more than dubious about the reality of this >transmutation stuff - outside a Mizuno cell haha, that there Mizuno guy seems >pretty impressive, first with his proton conductors and now this cathode >transmutation paper in IE#7. > >Now I'm just dubious. I await with considerable interest - and now maybe even >with hope - for the results of the lab tests. > >And I hope Joe will go on posting here. > >Chris > >PS Since the Mizuno paper pretty much settles this low-energy nuclear stuff for >me, it does raise a rather terrifying prospect. Clearly the whole business is >monstrously complex compared with normal nuclear physics. I'd hate to have to >try to untangle that puzzle. Or do things always look like this before the >ground rules are discovered? > > > Make sure to tune into Bockris in the fall, a pointy-headed birdie with robe told me. He may be able to lay out some of the ground rules for the new chemsics, or maybe just confound us with even stranger phenomenon. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 21:58:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA24269; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607020444.VAA04838@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: Transmutations X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:54 PM 6/28/96 -0700, you wrote: >Chris Tinsley wrote: > >>>> "And I hope Joe will go on posting here." > >I do too. But doesn't it make you a little suspicious that for all the candor >and such, there's still an ingredient "X" (the catalyst), and other details >that mask the true nature of the process? Isotope reports would be nice, but >duplicability, by someone like Scott Little or others - even _you_ Chris if >there's room in your basement to set up a kiln or reactor or whatever it's >called, would be really fine. > >And I'm still a little vague on this point too Joe - what exactly is your end >in this? Are you selling reactors, formulas, or interest shares? > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > I believe that Joe has much bigger fish he is frying. I have believed transmutation of precious metals to be ocurring for several years in secrecy. But now it is an open secret. So open that it is not going to make hardly anyone really wealthy except those who are already on the very front edge. The one thing I have observed about Joe is his consistency. He allows people to slowly tune into the complexity of his strategy. The strategy does not change, it just progressively unfolds into larger and larger dimensions. This guy is three steps ahead of the field. What he is telling us here is that transmutation of precious metals is an open secret and is being pursued by many people and groups. He did once sell books, but good data is posted now freely at his web site. Joe reports that there is enough data there to make you an alchemist. I have good reason to believe him and take him at face value, because I no longer have a doubt about the phenomeon. He is in his way trying to point to the fundamentals of a new reality which everyone is going to wake up into very soon. Since there is no longer any possibility of controlling this technology or maintaining the price of precious metals in the long term, he is leveling it out to everybody with a few brains who wants to participate. No doubt all kinds of professional activities will open up in this new field. So get into the basics if it appeals to you. But don't expect that it will make you King of the Mountain. The InterNet, as the ultimate leveler, is an ideal means for sharing the information, legitimizing the field, achieving widespread recognition and acceptance, opening the door to the new realities of new principles of cosmos. By this means Joe prepares for himself his own next stage of activity. I do not speak for the man, but I suspect he will be sharing information about that fairly soon. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 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 VAA24375; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607020444.VAA04842@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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:24 AM 6/29/96 -0700, you wrote: >On Thu, 27 Jun 1996 06:26:13 -0700 (PDT), Scott Little wrote: >[snip] >>However, we did perform a series of experiments in which we placed an Am-241 >>source inside the top sphere of a Van de Graff generator on several >>occasions for several hours each time over a period of two months and we >>could detect no change in the source's activity. We maintained a 2nd source > >But was the sample placed near the wall of the dome, and was there a >small hole in the wall? > >[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. >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > I believe that Robin is asking, did you use the set-up described in Barker's patent? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 22:01:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA24421; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607020444.VAA04848@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: Transmutations X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:55 AM 6/29/96 -0700, you wrote: >Chris writes: >> Right, so if the samples are screwy that way - and the various labs/methods >> confirm their screwiness - then the only possibility is that they had been >> prepared at vast expense. > >I don't have the book handy, but the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics >says that isotopic ratios vary depending upon what part of the world the >minerals were originally extracted. That is to say, the mixing is not >homogenous. > >So the values given in the CRC represent averages, but the actual ratios >can vary from sample to sample. > >-- > - 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 - > > every location is going to have a difference, the question is, what is the standard deviation? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 21:57:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA24503; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607020444.VAA04844@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: Brown gas for car fuel X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:38 AM 6/29/96 -0700, you wrote: >2) Much is not known of how the BG generator works or how it is constructed. >Very little independent research in the new electrolysis mechanism has been >done. There is speculation that a unique way of charging the water, that >once the electrolysis starts it continues for prolong periods of time >without further input current. Could the water act as a gate to tapping ZPE, >ether, space energy? In my hydrolysis research unit I noticed anomalies >that are not found in conventional electrolyzers. > >3) The design in Brown's patent and the Rhodes/Hene's patents are >multi-layered of metal and water, similar to Reichs multi-layered orgone >accumulators of metal and organic material. The water could act as the >organic material and the the device as a water orgone accumulator tapping >into the orgone energy as a source of the electrolysis current. The orgone >blanket I made, worked for my headaches and muscle aches while a standard >blanket or Bayer aspirin didn't work. Little is known where it comes from >and what the orgone energy is- chi, the life force, bioenergy? Maybe a >"water accumulator" could tap into this energy as an energy source. > >Cheers > >Michael Randall > > Well, I hate raining on parades, but the unit we experimented with ra pretty much exactly as you would expect, it works when you turn it one, it stops when you turn it off. The construction is very simple, very basic, two series of interleaved plates to provide lots of electrode surface. It does have a clever failsafe mechanism. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 21:59:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA24605; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607020444.VAA04855@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: Transmutations X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:06 PM 6/29/96 -0700, you wrote: >In a message dated 96-06-28 21:21:29 EDT, Chris wrote: > ><< PS Since the Mizuno paper pretty much settles this low-energy nuclear >stuff for > me, it does raise a rather terrifying prospect. Clearly the whole business >is > monstrously complex compared with normal nuclear physics. I'd hate to have >to > try to untangle that puzzle. Or do things always look like this before the > ground rules are discovered? > >> > >Since when did you expect the world to be simple? The world is simple only >in carefully constructed experiments which isolate one factor in a linear >approximation of the real world. In that simple, reductionist world the >superposition theorm applies and the rules are the same with time running >forward and backward. The macroscopic world is nonlinear and recursive, so >the "simple" rules conspire to create monstrously complex things like >Mandelbrot sets and ant colonies, not to mention people. >See Hofsteder (Godel, Escher, Bach) or Coveny & Highfield (Frontiers of >Complexity) > >It rather appears we are confronted with nuclear chemistry -- which would be >a good umbrella term if it were't already used in another sense by the >nuclear industry. You cram metal lattices with enough surplus protons and Lo! >stuff happens. All kinds of stuff. Surprise, surprise! Toss chemicals in a >vat, and anything that can happen, will happen. The job of the chemical >engineer is to maximize what you want and filter out the junk. We should not >be surprised at the long delay between confirmation of excess heat and >emergence of commercial devices. The researchers are probably up to their >eyeballs with puzzles. > >Mike Carrell > > since the name alchemy is bound to be controversial, maybe we should call it chemsics. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 21:59:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA24771; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607020445.VAA04877@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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:59 PM 7/1/96 -0700, you wrote: >Hi Guys, > >>> 2) Due to continental drift, nutation, and reversal of >the earth's magnetic field, the whole planet has been subjected to >such phenomena if one square foot has. 3) Summer thunderstorms would >probably create more of such an effect for exposed minerals in >non-polar areas. << > >I don't know if you're aware of this, but I. Velikovsky proposed that the Earth >has been subjected to a few super-lightning discharges which permanently altered >(induced fast decay) the radioactivity of all materials in the Earth's crust. I >don't know where Velikovsky got the idea that very high voltage discharges would >alter radio-decay rates. His books were written in the 40's and early 50's. > > Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) > > thanks for the memory. i had totally forgotten. yeah, it is a really good question. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 1 23:41:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA10888; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 23:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 23:33:52 -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: Announce: Natural Philosophy Alliance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A New Scholarly Scientific Society Challenging Popular Dogmas=20 ********** A N N O U N C E M E N T=20 The Natural Philosophy Alliance The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) was organized in 1994 by a few dozen physical scientists and other scholars who had gathered in June of that year in San Francisco, in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Several special sessions were organized on the theme "Problems in Contemporary Views in Physics and Astronomy". The NPA has since organized further meetings, including two in 1995; in Norman, Oklahoma in May, in Vancouver, B.C. in June, along with the Southwestern and Rocky Mountain (SWARM) and Pacific Divisions of the AAAS, respectively. This latter meeting, held in Flagstaff on the campus of the University of Northern Arizona in June of 1996, was focused upon "New Frontiers in Physics and Cosmology" (more about this most recent meeting below). The NPA has tried to organize symposia for the much larger and more prominent AAAS national meetings, but has so far been denied this opportunity, being opposed by the adherents of scientific concepts which NPA members are generally critical of (such as "relativity" and the "Big Bang" cosmological theories). The NPA has also held a few small local meetings, and has encouraged participation by its members at recent international meetings, in Russia and in Italy. Also, the NPA has plans to publish a Proceedings from its various meetings.=20 Foremost among the guidelines by which the NPA operates is a wide-ranging tolerance of a great variety of ideas -- of course assuming a certain level of scientific competence on the part of those offering the ideas. We insist on avoiding the narrow and dogmatic approach that prevails in academic physics, and instead wish to emulate the more open-minded and diverse scholarship in such fields as geology and biology. We also heavily discourage political, religious, ethnic, and racial bias. We are quick to point out, for example, that our criticisms of special and general relativity do not involve criticism of Einstein as a person, or of his social or philosophical ideas, or at least in most cases, of the bulk of his wide-ranging scientific work. "Natural Philosophy" is the name by which "physics" was known in the time of Isaac Newton, and well into the 19th century. We return to it mainly in order to emphasize that a deeper, more profound, more philosophical approach to studying nature needs to be revived, to help escape and to move beyond today's errors. Many such errors are based on explicit contempt for philosophy, in favor of a "scientism" that has tried to apply the scientific approach beyond its legitimate range -- such as in the attempt to monopolize the understanding of time and space, which are present in every field. HOW WILL THE WORLD BE BETTER IF WE ACHIEVE OUR AIMS? Besides restoring a proper measure of realizm, objectivity and validity to physical science, and of tolerance to the way its work is done, we believe that major practical applications of science, thus far only glimpsed in limited ways, will be made possible -- rather than mythical applications such as nuclear energy, which in reality does not depend on relativity theory. Physics has been at an impasse for most of the 20th centiry, as even a few frank critics within its midst -- e.g., Joseph Schwartz and Rob Oldershaw -- have argued. Once this is overcome, new technology, such as new energy sources that depend largely on the electromagnetic aether that today's relativists deny exists, can help to meet the pressing human needs. We might also go beyond our current very limited knowledge of the nature of electricity, magnetism, and gravity, perhaps enabling us to develop new, more varied and effective, means of transportation. The possibilities are immense. Maybe even more important, once the flaws in special relativity (SR) are revealed, the relativism and associated subjectivism that has spread so widely throughout the world of ideas, from Nietzsche's iconoclasm to Derrida's recent "deconstructionism", will lose its most impressive scientific support -- as SR is despite not being well understood in most disciplines. Thenceforth it will be more difficult to maintain that truth and values are not absolute, objective, eternal, and/or rationally based; even as remote as it seems from physics, ethical relativsm will be weakened, and the concept of lasting moral standards will be strengthened.= =20 (This is not to say, of course, that any particular set of moral standards will thereby be supported.) Also once the emptiness of big bang cosmology is revealed, those religious sects who have been offering it as proof of some part of their own theology -- as it never really was -- will have to depend again on the strength of that theology itself; and concede that science and religion each have their own realms, religion dealing with issues extending well beyond what science can learn. -- John E. Chappell, Jr. (1996) ********** The Natural Philosophy Alliance is composed of over 100 scientific and scholarly members from 14 nations. At the recent Flagstaff NPA meeting, hosted by the Southwestern and Rocky Mountain (SWARM) Division of the AAAS in Flagstaff, Arizona, there were 81 papers presented; 47 in direct connection with the official meeting, and 34 in independent sessions. Among the current theories being questioned by NPA members are the big bang theory and special relativity theory (SR). Most NPA members maintain that no evidence cited on behalf of either theory is more than equivocal in meaning, and that the meanings now taught often result from invalid logic and math. SR is only one of many types of relativism that have flourished throughout academia in the 20th century. As those other relativisms imply, the evidence claimed for SR can be interpreted differently, depending upon the viewpoint of the interpreter. In his famous analysis of change in scientific thought, Thomas Kuhn shows that even in hard science, choice of paradigm often depends on such varying views -- often non-scientific ones.= =20 In physics, the motivating bias seems to be a preference for bizarre and irrational ideas, while distaining common sense and philosophy, including basic logic. Many NPA members also strongly support a resurection of the older idea of aether, which was prematurely discarded, on questionable experimental grounds. Thus, the fact that nearly all academic physicsts support SR proves nothing about its validity, but only that a clique of "true believers" has had enough power to keep its critics at bay through unrelenting intolerance: doubting students are forced into other majors, dissident papers are excluded from mainline journals and meetings, etc. As part of the NPA program, there are regular special sessions on "Suppression of Innovative Thought" in academia, citing other disciplines as well as physics. Here are a few of the presenters at the recent Flagstaff meeting: Grote Reber -- the principal founder of the science of radio astronomy, who built the world's first radiotelescope. Long a critic of big bang theory, he came from Australia to speak. Ron Hatch -- internationally honored expert on the GPS satellite system. Domina Eberle Spencer -- Univ. of Connecticut mathematician and most widely published living critic of today's electromagnetic theory. Half Fox and Dan Davidson, leading representatives of the "new energy" movement, discussing practical examples of new energy sources which depend upon the idea of an energetic aether. Francisco M=FCller -- NPA President, who has produced experimental evidence contradicting SR. Meetings of this type began in Europe in the 1980s, and some have been much larger than the Flagstaff meeting. Two weeks of dissident physics sessions will be held in Sept. 1996 in St. Petersburg, Russia (for details, ask Neil Munch, address below). ********** For more information about the Natural Philosophy Alliance, contact any one of the individuals below. Or, become a supporter and member of the NPA now, and send your check of $15 membership dues (made out to "Natural Philosophy Alliance"): - Lee Shimmin (NPA Membership Chairman), 7110 Tickner St., Houston, TX 770= 55 email: lee_shimmin@msn.com - Neil Munch (NPA Assistant Director), 9400 Five Logs Way, Gaithersburg, MD= =20 email: 70047.2123@compuserve.com - John Chappell (NPA Director), 1212 Drake Circle, San Luis Obispo, CA 936= 05 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 00:23:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA16133; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960702070116_100060.173_JHB75-1@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: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dieter said: >> it has been confirmed by theory that two ships close to each other at sea are attracted to each other by wave action. This is a sort of macroscopic Casimir Effect. << Do you mean in addition to Bernoulli or is this a static effect at very small separations? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 00:19:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA16207; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:14:33 -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: Neutron detection cheaply? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Russ George wrote: > Steve Jones an expert you must be kidding. Only he claims this to be > so the evidence speaks otherwise. > > There are several simple and inexpensive ways to count neutrons. > The simpliest is to buy a neutron dosimeter such as the Neutron > Bubble detectors invented by the folks at Chalk River in Canada and > sold by Seimens Dosimetry division. These have a gell like material > in a short test tube like container. As neutrons pass through they > leave a bubble behind. You simply count the bubbles as they grow in. > There are a varitey of other dosimters available. Are you unable to give the man his due? He may be the bete noir for cold fusion enthusiasts but he knows a thing or three, and neutron counting is one of them. I thought we were talking about low levels of neutrons, not massive fluxes? This has been the problem with CNF: low low levels, which is why it is hard to get convincing results, clearly set off from the background. Let's be reasonable here, please. I suggest that for a scientist, the attitude "If you're not with me, you're a total idiot" is inappropriate. We are here for the science, are we not? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 2 00:31:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA17837; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960702071656.006b2650@bahnhof.se> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: David Jonsson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >This is feasible. I read somewhere recently (New Scientist? Nature? Science?) >that it has been confirmed by theory that two ships close to each other at sea >are attracted to each other by wave action. This is a sort of macroscopic >Casimir Effect. OK, now put pistons between the two ships and let the coming >together of the ships do some work, to generate power somewhere. The trouble >is, of course, that you can do this just once. Same as the Casimir thing, I >guess. What about sinking the attracted ships below the surface where there are no waves and separate them there and then let them rise to the surface and get attracted again. Maybe someone is capable of translating this to the ZPE vacuum. Has anyone done any analysis to find the spectre of seawaves and the physical principles behind their creation? David David Jonsson Phone +46-18-24 51 52 Fax +46-8-681 20 66 Cellular GSM +46-706-339487 E-mail david@bahnhof.se Uppsala, Sweden Web: http://bahnhof.se/~david Postgiro 499 40 54-7 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 00:40:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18652; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Steve Ekwall To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Michael Mandeville wrote: > Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:56:03 -0700 (PDT) > From: Michael Mandeville > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Neutralizing Radioactivity > > At 06:59 PM 7/1/96 -0700, you wrote: > >Hi Guys, > > > >>> 2) Due to continental drift, nutation, and reversal of > >the earth's magnetic field, the whole planet has been subjected to > >such phenomena if one square foot has. 3) Summer thunderstorms would > >probably create more of such an effect for exposed minerals in > >non-polar areas. << > > > >I don't know if you're aware of this, but I. Velikovsky proposed that the Earth > >has been subjected to a few super-lightning discharges which permanently > altered > >(induced fast decay) the radioactivity of all materials in the Earth's > crust. I > >don't know where Velikovsky got the idea that very high voltage discharges > would > >alter radio-decay rates. His books were written in the 40's and early 50's. > > > > Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) > > > > > > thanks for the memory. i had totally forgotten. yeah, it is a really good > question. > great now there's a can of worms if the above is 'scientifically based..' Wouldn't this open up the 'Bible-thumpers' "see I Tole You So...", about the earths age and the creation vs evolution debate.. (no duh?..!But..) Before one tries to grasp at straws that this couldhave/mighthave occurred.. "why" can't it be duplicated?? .. Would this lead to the ozone hold rebuilding itself to a point of collaspe and we back were it started (as I presume).... Does not the earth itself go through cycles of RECHARGING '&' DISCHARGING... I suggest paying closer attention to the ice core drillings and sampling the 'rings-of-time'. -=se=- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 00:53:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA19370; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:38:45 -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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Dean Miller wrote: > (induced fast decay) the radioactivity of all materials in the Earth's crust. I > don't know where Velikovsky got the idea that very high voltage discharges would > alter radio-decay rates. His books were written in the 40's and early 50's. I have a theory, which I call the "Zap Theory". Today's magic involves, for many people, highvoltages, especially sparks (zaps), and words like "toroidal". A lot of "cold fusion" experiments have tried to zap matter, without any real idea of why zapping should do anything; it's just, you know, powerful (magic). No doubt Velikovsky had the same awe of high voltage zaps. Another magic word is "magnetic", and magnetic fields have also been invoked for doing powerful things. Before y'all bucket this with counter examples, I am aware of at least some of them. Sure, the Graneau's know why they expect zap-currents to produce effects, they do have a real physical model, the pinch effect. And high voltage ion beam experimenters have a model too. But sparks, as Dufour, or Wada & Nishizawa used? Or magnetic fields, or gamma radiation, or high currents sent through Pd rods? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 2 00:47:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA20097; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:45:28 -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: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Norman Horwood wrote: > Dieter said: > > >> it has been confirmed by theory that two ships close to each other at sea > are attracted to each other by wave action. This is a sort of macroscopic > Casimir Effect. << > > Do you mean in addition to Bernoulli or is this a static effect at very small > separations? I was just quoting from memory, a dangerous thing, my wife would say. If I remember rightly, the effect comes in when the ship-ship distance is somewhat smaller than their lengths. How large the effect is, I have no idea. If on my next library day I find this again, I'll let you know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 2 02:09:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA26512; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 01:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 01:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960702085031_100433.1541_BHG168-1@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: Re: Announce: Natural Philosophy Alliance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Bill, Thanks very much for posting the NPA stuff. Excuse my saying so, but typo enthusiasts like myself will love that "Half Fox". I'm at once delighted and despairing. I found myself nodding and smiling at much of it (just as well nobody could see me), but it seems to me that we have here another group who have made up their minds just as firmly as others have. No Big Bang, no relativity, but we gotta have an aether. We are also - it seems - going to end up here with a bunch of people who are essentially combative, who want to attack rather than to build. That doesn't work, the wagons will just circle tighter. Not quite true, of course. Certainly I accept that a clear demo against relativity would be of value - but who will listen? Nobody, that's who. And the reaction to that will be to concentrate on *arguing* with the relativists, instead of shrugging and saying, "OK, so we'd better try to find yet another thing to hit them with." Think of Newman, who has spent all his energy on fighting with the Patent Office and others, instead of working on his devices - whether they be good or bad, I dunno. One must think *positively*, and I suspect these guys (from what they say) are negativists. I don't mean negativists in the sense of opposing relativity or the Big Bang - that is fine, you do not actually need to give an alternative theory. I mean negativists in their mind-set, committed to controversy rather than progress. Another thing. Can people PLEASE PLEASE stop cutting and pasting just about the whole of somebody's message and then doing a one-liner comment at the end? Or even a big comment at the end? It's driving me batty, and I just end up deleting the whole thing unread. Please, everybody? It's just sheer damn laziness. If I may say so, Jed and I try quite hard to quote only where necessary, and so a few others; but many just pull in the whole message - right down to and including the sign-off line!! PLEASE STOP DOING THIS. And one more thing, while I'm lashing out at everybody. Dieter says: "I suggest that for a scientist, the attitude "If you're not with me, you're a total idiot" is inappropriate. We are here for the science, are we not?" Yes, exactly. We *all* get annoyed by people who we may feel have not behaved correctly, or who simply disagree forcefully with us. I got into an argument with dear Richard Blue *again* (will I never learn?) and got that usual sense of gibbering frustration. But in fact it's better to remember that such as he and I have more in common than either of us have with quite a few people. Gotta be positive, somehow we have *all* gotta be positive. And if some people are wholly negative towards us, it's no good responding in kind. It's increasingly obvious to us (Jed Rothwell, Gene Mallove and I) that the bulk of the problem lies in the court of the anomalists rather than with the 'conventionalist' opposition. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 03:03:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA01414; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 02:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 02:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlagarde@cyberaccess.fr (Jean_de_Lagarde) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wither the Vortexian Commentary on Correa**2? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Mark Hugo wrote >Hey, I thought there would be MUCH more comment on the Correa claims. Is >the alledged practicallity of the device too scary for people to deal with? >- >Is there anyone (like me) that thinks the ZPE stuff is non-sense, but that >Correa**2 might still have something, even if it is a CF from He4 and Al, >or perhaps a way of charging NiCads which stimulates some sort of CF >(or cold fission maybe) reaction in the NiCads? >- >Will Linda Marry Tony? Will Robert come out of the closet? Does the Rev. Tomb- >stone really spend THAT much time on the Internet playing peekaboo? Does >anyone care? (Tune in next week for the continuing episodes of, "As the >World Burns") I could not agree more. I do not believe in ZPE and I think this Correa device must be investigated quickly. They have an address and a home page (http://www.padrak.com/ine/CANADBT.html) and apparentlly, nothing could be easier to thoroughly test and check Jean de Lagarde From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 02:58:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA01474; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 02:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 02:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlagarde@cyberaccess.fr (Jean_de_Lagarde) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Yoshiaki Arata Pd-black work. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Two days ago, I posted a message which apparently got lost, to thank Ron McFee for the info and Prof Arata's address. Since then, I saw more info from Dieter Britz and Russ George'remark on the non reproductibility of Arata's experiment, but I nevertheless insist on it because I have been told of transmutations similar to the ones claimed by CETI or indicated in Mizuno's paper. If such transmutations are found to be regularly linked to substantial deliveries of energy, this would be a much better criteria than calorimetry and maybe a better way towards understanding the process at work in CF. Jean de Lagarde From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 04:06:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA06077; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 03:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 03:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Steve Ekwall To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Announce: Natural Philosophy Alliance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Thanks very much for posting the NPA stuff. Excuse my saying so, but > typo enthusiasts like myself will love that "Half Fox". > > I'm at once delighted and despairing. I found myself nodding and > One must think *positively*, and I suspect these guys (from what they > say) are negativists. I don't mean negativists in the sense of opposing > Another thing. Can people PLEASE PLEASE stop cutting and pasting just > about the whole of somebody's message and then doing a one-liner comment > at the end? > PLEASE STOP DOING THIS. > And one more thing, while I'm lashing out at everybody. Dieter says: > "I suggest that for a scientist, the attitude "If you're not with > me, you're a total idiot" is inappropriate. We are here for the > science, are we not?" YES.,amen! I made a personnal apoligy to -jed earlier that HE can CALL me on at any time, and now I offer it to THE group here.. personally, I DO read all of these messages for the enlightenment of the anomalies of science questions that abound.... hopefully, you won't hear from me until (about 25 years), I'm half-ass learned'd (sic/sp:)) as to the questions I seek.. PLEASE everybody stay ON-LINE! -=se=- bye=-. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 04:18:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA07374; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 04:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 04:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9607021401.AA05990@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: the Experiment on the Neutron X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: please,I have to add three comments to your manner to debate the problem: --the use of bubble detectors is unappropriate owing their low sensitivity,they are often used for radiation protection purposes,in fact; the same limit occurs for dosimeters used by thermoluminescence. It occurs a true neutron detector as the BF3 we used. --dr.Dieter Britz,it does not appear to me that also this time we have the same limit that we had for other CF experiments and regarding the too low number of emitted neutrons and to be detected. We used an Al catode of 1mm .1mm,the number of the formed neutrons should be proportinal to the dimensions of the catode and to the number of the incoming electrons.Only radioprotection problems are present as you may well see. --please,it appears to me that a new promising aspect of the experiment, important as well as the fact that a neutron was formed at confirmation of the biquaternion quantum mechanics,is the complete fusion of the catode. Do we debate this important aspect of the experiment?,do we examine also its perspectives in addition to the origin of this phenomenon?Do you agree with me that this anomalous production of heath was due to the liberation of energy during the formation of the neutron(about 80 kev for each fusion)? or do you hypothize some other chemical effect?Please, remember that,as I remember kamada results,also this author found anomalous production of heath during the bombardment with electrons and also this author,uncorrectly,hypothized a like electron capture from the proton to clear his results.Sincerely.Elio Conte --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 04:23:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA07935; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 04:14:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 04:14:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9607021401.AA05999@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: Neutralizing Radioactivity 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: Konfusion Korrected > >>To: mwm@aa.net >>From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) >>Subject: Re: Konfusion Korrected >> >>>Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:23:35 -0700 (PDT) >>>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: Konfusion Korrected >>>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >>> >>>At 11:09 PM 6/26/96 -0700, you wrote: >>>>Hi Michael, >>>> >>>>>ah yes, well, er, check out http://www.aa.net/~mwm/dexmrad1.html >>>>> >>>>>Scott Little has a complete copy of my log book an that: "Experimental >>>>>Methods For Neutralizing Radioactivity" >>>>>____________________________________ >>>>>MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >>>>>Michael Mandeville, publisher >>>>>mwm@aa.net >>>>>http://www.aa.net/~mwm >>>> >>>>Good research work! Any responce from any of the radiation disposal >>>>companies to try out the methods for neutralizing radioactivity? >>>> >>>>Michael Randall >>>> >>>> >>> >>>no. I believe that they consider it too much trouble to check out= because >>>they a priori are pretty certain it won't work. I gave up marketing the= idea >>>quite a while ago. I offered it to the U.W. Physics department, who told= me >>>that point blank. Recently, a friend of mine made the claims on behalf of >>>Keller to a European group which is soliciting proposals for handling >>>radioactive wastes in the Ukraine. three word response from Ph.d. in >>>charge: no way possible. >>> >>>In the meantime, I have to earn a buck so after awhile, the negative >>>reinforcement gets to even a usually patient, perservering man. Things= may >>>be changing though, and recently there is a California University= department >>>which has expressed interest in doing some experiments, and if so, they >>>could legitimize this whole field, so I am sending them my logbook. I am >>>not into doing it professionally, I just wanted evidence to support a= patent >>>claim by Keller...which is in limbo along with the cold fusion claims. = When >>>this stuff finally is institutionally legit, and the patent system has to >>>bow, I think inventors all over the place should hit the U.S. government= for >>>a trillion dollar class action suit. It just isn't their position to= decide >>>which group of scientists is more knowledgeable about what is going on. >>>____________________________________ >>>MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >>>Michael Mandeville, publisher >>>mwm@aa.net >>>http://www.aa.net/~mwm >>> >>Dear M.Mandeville, >>please,may you inform me in detail on your "experimental methods....for=20 neutrali- >>zing radioactivity"?.May you inform me on your theoretical basis if you=20 formulated >>it? >>I must say that from many years it is well known in quantum mechanics that= the >>halftime of a radioactive source may be modified if one accounts for the= =20 action of >>the measuring apparatus on the radioctive source itself.Calculations,as=20 example,have been performed accounting for the action of the electron cloud= in=20 >>atoms in the case of the beta decay and also for alpha decay;still,it is= =20 well known >>in nuclear astrophysics that radioactive nuclei do not decay with the same= =20 features >>as on the earth,as example,since in astrophysical conditions we have true= =20 ionized >>radioactive elements instead of radioactived atoms.Also hypothizing the=20 role of a >>measuring apparatus that performs continous measurements on a radioactive= =20 source,one arrives in quantum mechanics to the so called Zeno paradox that >>accounts for the break of the decay for the considered radioactive= source.For >>completness,we must add that often the Zeno paradox has been obtained by= no >>truly ortodox quantum mechanical formulations.However,we may consider that= the >>question is posed on the theoretical ground:also at experimental level,in= =20 the past, >>verifications were performed with positive results,starting with Emilio=20 Segr=E9 a nobel >>physicist of E. Fermi group.So,It is of regard to know your experimental= =20 ideas to this purpose and we are interested as research field in our=20 institute.Unfortunately, >>I have not followed previous discussions on vortex-l on this subject since= =20 i did not receive the messages,so I should appreciate if you could inform= =20 me in detail on the >>theoretical and experimental ideas. Sincerely.Elio Conte >> > --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 04:43:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA09993; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 04:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 04:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960702112642_100433.1541_BHG122-1@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: Re: Wither the Vortexian Commentary on C X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jean writes: > I could not agree more. I do not believe in ZPE and I think this > Correa device must be investigated quickly. They have an address > and a home page (http://www.padrak.com/ine/CANADBT.html) and > apparentlly, nothing could be easier to thoroughly test and check And the Correa device is one of those at the top of our list to check. You say 'nothing could be easier', technically that is true, but you neglect the main issues. The first of these is whether the Correas would be able or willing to provide access for testing - and I am not for a moment suggesting that they would make it difficult. The second is M O N E Y. I have rising hopes that such visits/investigations will become more practicable for our group in the near future. Until then, unless others can come forward, there is little more we can do. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 04:49:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA11197; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 04:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 04:46:42 -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: Announce: Natural Philosophy Alliance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Steve Ekwall wrote: [...] > > Another thing. Can people PLEASE PLEASE stop cutting and pasting just > > about the whole of somebody's message and then doing a one-liner comment > > at the end? > > PLEASE STOP DOING THIS. Agreed fully; but Steve, there are people out there who don't know how to do it properly, who have not come to grips with their computer system. You have to learn to live with this. I notice that your email address is apparently almost the same as mine; how does this happen? As far as I know, we are not in the same building. For me at least, it says you are @com.kemi.aau.dk, not an address I can mail to. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 2 05:43:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA17865; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 05:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 05:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thank you M. Mandeville for bringing a clear note to this sometimes cloudy discussion and sometimes cloudy attempts and verification on Barker's work. The best suggestion to anyone who wants to be in the front line on this is : Get the patent. On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Michael Mandeville wrote: > At 01:24 AM 6/29/96 -0700, you wrote: > >On Thu, 27 Jun 1996 06:26:13 -0700 (PDT), Scott Little wrote: > >[snip] > >>However, we did perform a series of experiments in which we placed an Am-241 > >>source inside the top sphere of a Van de Graff generator on several > >>occasions for several hours each time over a period of two months and we > >>could detect no change in the source's activity. We maintained a 2nd source > > > >But was the sample placed near the wall of the dome, and was there a > >small hole in the wall? > > > >[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. > >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > > > I believe that Robin is asking, did you use the set-up described in Barker's > patent? > > ****In Barker's patent this is a ONE TIME exposure. It is over 10 hours, usually, it is in a specific physical set up and it is polarity sensitive. ********* Get the patent. JHS From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 06:50:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA28674; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 06:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 06:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960702093535_229471261@emout07.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: MichaelUK1@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Natural Philosophy Alliance are they S.C.? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 02/07/96 08:58:28, Chris Tinsley Wrote: Re: NPA >I'm at once delighted and despairing. I found myself nodding and >smiling at much of it (just as well nobody could see me), but it seems >to me that we have here another group who have made up their minds just >as firmly as others have. No Big Bang, no relativity, but we gotta have >an aether. We are also - it seems - going to end up here with a bunch >of people who are essentially combative, who want to attack rather than >to build. That doesn't work, the wagons will just circle tighter. My feelings also, however the reality is that there is at least one absolute truth and to argue otherwise is self-contradictory gibberish. The question is: are the ones being propagated above true? Quite often it is not the theories that are the problem but; are the holders of that theory SC ? (Scientifically Correct). We poke fun at the politically correct brigade but have our own equivalents. Like each of us, the above group like has got inescapable "religiously" held positions i.e. ones that starts off with an unprovable presupposition, the question is how consistent can they be whilst holding on to their presuppositions? Your mission should you decide to accept it - Destroy Anomalous Events! In all our theorising about anomalous events our ultimate quest is to get rid of them. i.e. come up with models of reality that are able to predict future outcomes and thus help to rationalise our investigations. The mark of a valid theory is it's consistency and If this were not the case; what use theory? So, rather than looking at attacks by people in a negative light, at the very least they should surely force us to sharpen up our arguments, they may even cause us to reexamine our own presuppositions possibly leading to the modification or even abandonment of long cherished views. However the key expression I guess Chris used (is the nature of this group) "essentially combative"? If that turns out to be the case, from past experience I've found that a lot of time can be wasted dealing with these types of people/groups. Mike Butcher. The Alcuin Foundation From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 09:53:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA10718; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:41:21 -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: Wither the Vortexian Commentary on Correa**2? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A device with striking similarities to Correas' is in NOT YOUR AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/coldfiss.txt Perrault's "Radiant Energy" tube to me appears to be an unconventional battery based on electrical discharge within a gas. He claims o/u operation, yet also says that the electrode materials are consumed and must be periodically replaced. He drives the thing with HV pulses, then extracts a high current pulse output. Sound familiar? Note: I've been told that Perrault has NOT built the device illustrated in the coldfiss.txt article, that his real, successful device uses other materials which he's keeping secret, and the illustrated device does not work. (Another discovery well on its way to obscurity, killed by secrecy and the inventor's disease.) ....................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 Figure 1 - Cold Fission generator layout _______ Antenna==> \ / \ / ____________________________| | | | | | | _____________ | ___|___ | | | | | | | | Prime | | |_____| | | Source | | | | | |___________| | | | | | + plus | | | | ------------------*----------------| | |<==Radiant | ______|______ | | Energy | | | | | Tube | | Tube |__________ | | | | Ionizer | | |_____| | |___________| | | | | | | |_____| | | | | | __________________| | | | | | |__________|____ | | ___|___ 250KV pulse | ___ | | _____ | / | | | ___ |____|/|____| | _ | /| | | ACin \ | / | |------ | -----------/ | Variable | / \ / \ _____________________| Capacitor | __ / \ __| greater / / | (+) \ / (-) turns * * <== few turns coil | \ / coil ==>\ \_________________________________| | bridge rect. / |---------------------\ <=== Transformer ACin ______________________________________________________________________________ | File Name : COLDFISS.ASC | Online Date : 12/15/95 | | Contributed by : Bruce Perrault | Dir Category : ENERGY | | From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 | | KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 | | A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences | | InterNet email keelynet@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Decker) | | Files also available at Bill Beaty's http://www.eskimo.com/~billb | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| The following file is the most fascinating information that has come out in dozens of years with respect to some of Henry Morays' experiments with the production of electrical energy using cold cathode chemical reactions. To get up to speed about Moray's work, please refer to the files MORAY1.ASC through MORAY4.ASC on KeelyNet. If you contact Bruce Perrault based on information specified in this document, please mention you got it from the KeelyNet file COLDFISS. Bruce is looking for confirmations and people serious about not only duplicating the tube but EXPANDING the power output. Thanks!! Bruce Perrault has been experimenting with what he calls COLD FISSION for several years. His experiments were first brought to the attention of the International Tesla Society which led to a one hour interview by ITS President J. W. McGinnis. The following is how Bruce's work came to the attention of KeelyNet; From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 09:55:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA10869; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:41:58 -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: Silly idea - some first calcs X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I posted this yesterday, but it did not show up, so here it is again: For a rough first cut at this let's assume an operating temp of 300 K. Since 1 eV = 11,600 K, at 300 K the typical particle in a gas will have an energy of 300/11,600 eV = .026 eV = .026 * (1.602 x 10^-19 J/eV) = 4.166 x 10^-21 J. Let's assume we want to charge a capacitor to .3 V. Since E = .5(C)V^2 we get C = 2E/V^2 = 2*(4.166 x 10^-21 J)/.09 F = 9.76 x 10^-20 F. Now C = Ke (A/w) (8.85 x 10^-12 F) where Ke is the dielectric constant, A is the plate area in m, and w is the thickness of the capacitor in m. For the sake of simplicity and to get scale, let's assume A = w^2, and Ke = 4, so C = 3.54 x 10^-11 F/m * w. So now w = (9.76 x 10^-20 F)/(3.54 x 10^-11 F/m) = 2.76 x 10^-9 m. The structure size for the device should be in the range of about 27.6 Angstroms. The atomic radii of Si, O, and Au are 1.46 A, .65 A, and 1.79 A respectively. So 27 A represents a structure about 7-10 atoms across. However, this assumes a perfectly non-elastic collision every time (estimate optimistic), yet the kinetic energy of a gas is a distribution, so many collisions will be more energetic, some much more so (estimate pessimistic). So, what does this say? If I haven't made an error, which is a very good possibility, it says this should be looked at much more closely. It is very marginal. If nothing else, it may serve as a gedanken. What about power? If such a device can be built that works at all, then there is a very good potential for significant energy production. This is because, assuming some of the generated energy is returned to stir the gas, a very large percentage of the molecules will connect with the sides of the container per second. This means a significant portion of the specific heat of the gas could be drained off per second. One problem with the chip might be maintaining balance, not cooling the compartment so much the energy is not transferred and yet not overheating the chip. But those are much easier problems. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 10:08:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14624; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Other experiments for Scott's beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >BTW has anyone calculated the actual amount of expansion that soda >lime glass undergoes when heated from room temperature to 50 C? Is it >enough to crack the metal coating, and does the plastic substrate used >by Patterson/Cravens, have a lower thermal expansion coefficient? Glass expands less than most metals. This complicates eg. glass-metal joints. Vacuum tubes, light bulbs, etc. use metal alloys for the feedthrough leads and/or special glasses whose expansions match. Plastics expand much more than metals. 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 Jul 2 10:10:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14700; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The problem is that you all assume that an "ideal diode" can be built. Conventional thermodynamics says that such is impossible, and no one has found a way around this bottle neck. Real diodes look like resistors for small voltage and current excursions about zero. 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 Jul 2 10:31:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA19139; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:23:19 -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: Re: Silly idea simplified X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is about simplifying the Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN). The idea is to use local charge fluctuations, thus indirectly heat, in an electrolyte to drive the chip. The method is to build the chip out of vertical diodes separated, i.e. surrounded by, a lattice of insulating material. Two type of chips could be built, positve exposed end (PEE) and negative exposed end (NEE) diodes. The diodes would have one end based on a shared conducting plane, the other end exposed to the elctrolyte. Except for the conducting plane shared in common, the diodes would be electrically isolated from each other except through the electrolyte. Such a chip could be manufactured by building a thin layer diode above a conductive base, cutting a lattice of grooves leaving a matrix of small independent diodes, and then filling the arry with an insulating material. A PEE type array and a NEE type array would then be placed in an electrolyte. As the random motion of the liquid would bring charges close, and then move them away, the induced field in the diodes would cause current to flow, but primarily in accord with the diode polarity. Moving the charges away from the exposed diode ends would reduce the kinetic energy of the electrolyte. A charge would be build up on the exposed end of the diode which would eventually attract an ion that would be neutralized. Electrolysis would result. This brings the diode back to a neutral positon to recycle. Three good thing happen: the electrolyte cools, current is available, and you get electrolysis. Flaws? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 10:32:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA19340; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:24:33 -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: Announce: Natural Philosophy Alliance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Another thing. Can people PLEASE PLEASE stop cutting and pasting just > about the whole of somebody's message and then doing a one-liner comment > at the end? Or even a big comment at the end? It's driving me batty, > and I just end up deleting the whole thing unread. Please, everybody? > It's just sheer damn laziness. If I may say so, Jed and I try quite > hard to quote only where necessary, and so a few others; but many just > pull in the whole message - right down to and including the sign-off > line!! PLEASE STOP DOING THIS. Yes, Vortex-L subscribers should obey the rules (see below.) Maybe rule 4 should be reworded? VORTEX-L RULES .. 4. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: when you reply to a message DON'T include the ENTIRE message in your reply. Always edit it a bit and delete something. The entire message should only be included if: (A) you are replying to a message that is many days old, or (B) you are doing a point-by-point reply to many parts of a message. Many vortex users must pay by the kilobyte for receiving message traffic, and large amounts of redundant messages are irritating and expensive. So, when including a quoted message in your reply, ALWAYS DELETE SOMETHING, the more the better. ....................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 Jul 2 11:55:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA05184; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 11:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 11:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Some comments on "ball" plasmas: Paul Koloc's plasma configuration is commonly called a "spheromak" in plasma physics. My memory is vague that far back, but Koloc might have invented the concept before the paper that became mainstream on the subject coined present name, "spheromak". A few spheromaks have been built and studied. The main difficulty is a practical one of finding a method to sustain the plasma in a way that will not severely reduce its ability plasma confinement capability. The spheromak magnetic field is nearly force-free (J x B = 0) within the plasma. However, no static magnetic field configuration can be EVERYWHERE force free; somewhere a force must be applied by an extermal (to the magnetic field itself) component. This is the conclusion of a very general virial theorem. The theorem starts from physical input describing the behavior of a static magnetic field (curl B = mu J and divergence B = 0) and applies logic (mathematics). The only way you can beat the conclusion is to either change the physics of the magnetic field (which this list is prone to do, but which in practice requires new experimental data) or change mathematics (even harder to do). These is some reference to atmospheric air pressure providing the required force. Two comments. First, gas pressure is uniform, whereas the pressure needed on the surface of a spheromak to equilibrate it varies as the square of the sine of the angle away from the pole. Therefore, gas pressure alone cannoe equilibrate such a plasma. Second, un-ionized air is unaffected by magnetic field and so cannot exper pressure on it. Air can exert pressure on the plasma via collisions, but these rapidly remove energy from the plasma. Or, the air can be ionized by the plasma, but this takes lots of energy from the plasma, too. 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 Jul 2 11:53:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA05582; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 11:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 11:42:33 -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: Silly idea. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >The problem is that you all assume that an "ideal diode" can be built. >Conventional thermodynamics says that such is impossible, and no one has >found a way around this bottle neck. Real diodes look like resistors for >small voltage and current excursions about zero. > >Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com OK, yes, this makes sense. Also, I understand it's a pretty good trick to make fast diodes. *If* such a device were possible it would have to have a very fast cycle rate because the diode would have *some* bias, but it would be like bailing water from a boat with a hole in the bottom. The faster the cycle rate the less effect the diode. The faster the bailing rate the smaller the bailing bucket. However, the electrical noise level and the oscillating potentials in an electrolyte get fairly high I believe. A kind of macro level thing happens, similar to brownian motion. Maybe such an environment (though not good for chips!) would be workable. It could possibly be enhanced with colloids as Frank suggests. Referring to a post I just made about PEE and NEE chips, the matrix of diodes could be "hardened" by depositing a layer of gold on the exposed ends of the diodes and using a chemically resistant lattice between the gold tips. The present chip technology keeps getting smaller and smaller, and the diodes and transistors in them work very reliably. *Someday* nanotechnology will catch up to thermodynamics and change the rules. I am just wondering if we are close enough today. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jun 10 02:10:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA01924; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:07:03 -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: H2O-H2O X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 8 Jun 1996, Scott Little wrote: > In Cold Fusion #17, in an article by Peter Graneau about his water-arc > explosions, it is stated: > > "This bonding energy [H2O-H20 bonds...i.e. 540 cal/gm], per unit mass, is > smaller in tiny fog droplets than it is in rain drops or bulk water." > > Somehow this doesn't seem right to me... I would expect that you would > always have to ADD energy to bulk water to convert it into tiny fog > droplets...not the other way around. In the limit, tiny fog droplets become > water vapor and I KNOW you have to ADD energy to bulk water to convert it > into water vapor. Could there possibly be a saddle-shaped energy function > here with "tiny fog droplets" being a LOWER energy state than either bulk > water or water vapor? There are two separate issues here: the bond energy between water and water, and the energy needed to form these tiny droplets. What the above is saying is that within the droplets, already formed, the bond energy, per mol of water, is smaller than in bulk water. If this is so, it has to be due to a surface tension effect. Also, "smaller" might well mean more negative... i.e. the absolute value of that energy might be larger. No doubt that number should be negative in the first place - because of the dipolar nature of the water molecule, two of them are happier together than apart, so the bonding is spontaneous, releasing some energy. Water is a strange substance and gets stranger, the more you read about it. There are books written about its structure. Some of these might be good to check; also check up on surface tension if you want to know more. Me, I'm busy with real work. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jun 10 02:09:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA01964; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I5Q8IDAF0E8WZD4U@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: vtx: The Muller GenMotor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: If two spring scales are used; one scale fixed on one side of the pulley and one adjustable on the opposite side of the pulley; by reading the difference between the scales and knowing the RPM you can calculate the output in watts. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 14:29:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA08403; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31D982E9.77E5@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Schsffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > > Some comments on "ball" plasmas: > Ref. Post by Michael, 2 Jul 1996 11:41:02 I'm with you on most of your post, Michael, but I offer the following comments: 1. What if the plasma ball contains some sort of discontinuity, for example, a conducting string with a QM structure? In my reference on the virial theorem, the divergence theorem is used in the derivation of the verial theorem. The divergence theorem has limits in volumes that are not simply-connected (like toroids). Any chance? 2. I wonder how the virial theorem relates to, say, an electron? We "know" they exist. They have horendous energy density. How are they held together? Why can a crystal stay together using the electromagnetic - force, and a plasma ball cannot? 3. Why do I do this to myself? Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 14:31:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA08794; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 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: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer writes: > The spheromak magnetic field is nearly force-free (J x B = 0) within the > plasma. However, no static magnetic field configuration can be EVERYWHERE > force free; somewhere a force must be applied by an extermal (to the > magnetic field itself) component. This is the conclusion of a very > general virial theorem. The theorem starts from physical input describing > the behavior of a static magnetic field (curl B = mu J and divergence B = > 0) and applies logic (mathematics). The only way you can beat the > conclusion is to either change the physics of the magnetic field (which > this list is prone to do, but which in practice requires new experimental > data) or change mathematics (even harder to do). But if ball lightning does exist, and since we don't expect to overthrow mathematics, then the virial theorm wouldn't seem to be so generally applicable that it applies to ball lightning, no? -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 16:42:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA04815; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:33:44 -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: The Correa Device Continued... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: The Correa Device Continued... Hello group! I have gotten a copy of the Correa Patent # 5,449,989 from Sept. 12, 1995. I have been going over it with a fine tooth comb. - It appears to me that there is a "fly in the ointment" in that much of the claim is based upon evaluating the power taken from the driving battery pack on the basis of it's normal discharge curve. (I.e. figures 16 and 18 in the Patent somehow played off against 15A, the change in the "break points" being unexplained as far as I can tell.) An actual piece of evidence which BACKS their claim would be in Figure 20 from the Patent which purports to show the input wattage versus output wattage, and indicates about 4:1 for a 12 second sample. - The problem with Figure 20. is that it is described as, "an example of operatio nal measurements taken videographically during 10 second period(s) for both the power consumption of the drive pack and the power production captured by the charge pack." What this leaves us wondering is whether these measurement (s) are made by monitoring a voltage with a scope across a resistance of some sort? (Implied, but not specifically given.) - I have talked to Paulo and gotten the following "feel" for where they are: - A. They want to charge people for demonstrations. - This may not be as crazy as it sounds, see C below. Demonstrations take time and effort. What he is trying to do is get serious $$. But there might be problems on that realm too! - B. They are looking for serious development money. (Isn't everyone?) - C. Paulo claims there is NOTHING hidden, and that the patents give enough info to allow anyone to test the claims independently. - Comment: I think this effort is very serious by Correa**2, but I think that (again) this fellow is suffering from the "inventor's disease". I think I'd have to characterize some aspects of the "inventor's disease", and they are: - 1. Thinking because YOU have designed/built/tested a product and found it viable, everyone else will too. - 2. Thinking because YOU have something viable, someone will want it. - And something UNIQUE to the "Cold Fusion" , "mysterious energy" field: - 3. Thinking that if you have tests showning a positive result that people will automatically believe you and beat a path to your door to get at your "patented" device. (I think we are seeing this with both Correa and Patterson.) - The real world works like this: - A. If you claim an over unity device, you ARE INSANE. B. Even if you have good data, the data is presummed corrupt. C. NO REAL WORLD CORPORATION OR FINANCIAL ENTITY WILL TOUCH YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A NUT CASE! - Now let me quickly say (and I'll track down and stuff Taco Bell burittos down the person's throat who qoutes me only in part and doesn't get what I am trying to say in its WHOLE form!) that the inventor may or may not be a genuine "nut". BUT in this field we have now degenerated into a situation which gives the potential claiment to a practical CF or OU device only two choices: - 1. Provide either actual devices, or such painfully clear instructions that a grade schooler can follow to duplicate your work, and finds such levels of in/out as to be wildly beyond signal to noise ratios... - 2. Actually start building and selling devices which can provide utilitarian use power wise... Now getting back to the Correa device, it does seem---the closer I look at the patent, that there MIGHT be something there. I am making some arrangements to try to duplicate the work through some associates who have vacuum equipment (used in their day to day process work) and the lab space and the ability to construct the Correa tubes and plumb a system to duplicate the Correa work. Now when I start looking at the Correa patents, I DO notice that Correa does provide an index of the circuit device values, which is very helpful. - Detailed instructions on the operating modes are given. - And there is an interesting discussion of circumstances under which you "lose" the effect in the text. - At the risk of getting drubbed by someone who is sharper at details than I am, I DO still think that the Correa device MIGHT be working by its method of CHARGING the rechargables, and that the "excess" is coming from the rechargable batteries. There is the UGLY possibility that what the Correa device does is simply allow a little better "draining" of the existing chemical energy from the Lead acid or NiCads. - The patent is 40 pages. I have a copy. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 16:42:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA04910; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Schsffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Stenger writes: >I'm with you on most of your post, Michael, but I offer the following >comments: > 1. What if the plasma ball contains some sort of discontinuity, > for example, a conducting string with a QM structure? > In my reference on the virial theorem, the divergence > theorem is used in the derivation of the verial theorem. > The divergence theorem has limits in volumes that are not > simply-connected (like toroids). Any chance? The divergence theorem applies in it's normal form to toroids, too. Anyway, in the proof one can do the integration far from the (plasma) source, and that distant surface can be chosen to be (topologically) spherical. > 2. I wonder how the virial theorem relates to, say, an > electron? We "know" they exist. They have horendous > energy density. How are they held together? I don't know. This is the subject of particle physics, not magnetostatics. > Why can a crystal stay together using the electromagnetic - > force, and a plasma ball cannot? Atoms are held together in a crystal by ELECTROSTATIC force, and the virial theorem about which we speak deals only with MAGNETOSTATIC force. Logajan writes: >But if ball lightning does exist, and since we don't expect to >overthrow mathematics, then the virial theorm wouldn't seem to be >so generally applicable that it applies to ball lightning, no? The virial theorem says that ball lightning, if it exists, is not magnetic in nature. 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 Jul 2 16:42:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA05028; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960702183647_346893215@emout15.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: gravity/Stenger's question X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Subj: Re: the remining fields-Schsffer Date: 96-07-02 17:24:33 EDT From: fstenger@interlaced.net (Francis J. Stenger) Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-to: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com (Multiple recipients of list) Frank Stenger wrote: > 2. I wonder how the virial theorem relates to, say, an electron? We "know" they exist. They have horendous energy density. How are they held together? ............................................................................. ................................ Frank a very good question. The answer is that the energy of the electron is contained by a FORCE. FORCE = dp/dt Force and gravity enjoy a symmetrical relationship. gravitational field in newtons/KG = G(dp/dt)/(ccr) The force that holds the electron together generates the gravitational field associated with that electron. This a a general rule. See my paper "The Source of Inertial and Graviational Mass" on Electromagnum. Physics Essays and Physical Review would not publish it. Its now at Extraordinary Science. Jennsion did an experiment in which he showed that a trapped standing wave has inertial and gravitational mass. This mass results from the force that the standing wave exerts against its containment. Why is this important for ZPE theory? It's importance lies in the fact that gravity contains negative energy. Once we learn how natural gravity is produced we can design systems that generate extra gravity. The principle of the Conservation of Energy mandates that extra gravity be accompanied by extra postive energy. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic@aol.com --------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 17:24:10 1996 Return-Path: vortex-l@eskimo.com Received: from mail.eskimo.com (mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by emin22.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA28539; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:24:07 -0400 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA08403; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31D982E9.77E5@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Schsffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 19:00:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA29063; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960702210613_147837328@emout14.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: Announce: Natural Philosophy Alliance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-07-02 04:58:28 EDT, Chris wrote: << It's increasingly obvious to us (Jed Rothwell, Gene Mallove and I) that the bulk of the problem lies in the court of the anomalists rather than with the 'conventionalist' opposition. >> He's got a point, you know. We can get fixated on our pet anomaly just as easily as the Guardians of Received Opinion can get fixed on theirs. It's obvious that conventional wisdom is incomplete; so is anyone's collection of anomalies. They are all very pretty and amusing but let's not fight over them. Speaking of anomalies, who remembers the Coke bottle in "The Gods Must Be Crazy"? Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 19:00:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA29368; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960702210601_147837220@emout15.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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dean brings up Velikovsky's scenario wherein there were colossal discharges between Earth, Venus, Mars and the Moon during the period of orbital instability caused by the arrival of Venus into the solar system. Velikovsky also did a detailed analysis of the accepted Egyptian chronology and found it wanting. In all the discussion surrounding the scenario the issue of radiocarbon dating came up, and with it early suggestions that radioactive decay rates are not absolute, but are influenced by the electrical environment. It was proposed that Earth is as whole is intensly negatively charged. Thus the colossal discharges between the proximate planets -- which left the scars on the Moon attributed to vulcanism and meteor impacts. The discharges perturbed the charge of the earth and very possibly the decay of radioactive elements herein. There is a similarity to the conditions being discussed here about putting samples inside the electrode of a Van de Graaf machine. The gathering evidence that radioactive decay rates are not absolute but are influenced by environmental factors will have a most interesting impact on all the academic work that relies on radiocarbon dating to establish the chronology of various artifacts archaeology. For diversion, read Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods -- it's as mind-blowing as the CF arena. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 20:39:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA19693; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 20:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 20:31:06 -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: Silly idea - some first calcs X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Hey Horace! What's wrong with using Brownian-motion sized particles >in a heavy-molecule type liquid instead of a gas? > > Frank Stenger I didn't think it was any good for piezo effects but it might be good for transported charge effects. See my prior post - I think our posts "crossed in the mail." Glad you left *something* to cut. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 20:37:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA19839; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 20:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 20:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607030323.UAA16041@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: Announce: Natural Philosophy Alliance X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:52 PM 7/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >In a message dated 96-07-02 04:58:28 EDT, Chris wrote: > ><< It's > increasingly obvious to us (Jed Rothwell, Gene Mallove and I) that the > bulk of the problem lies in the court of the anomalists rather than > with the 'conventionalist' opposition. >> > >He's got a point, you know. We can get fixated on our pet anomaly just as >easily as the Guardians of Received Opinion can get fixed on theirs. It's >obvious that conventional wisdom is incomplete; so is anyone's collection of >anomalies. They are all very pretty and amusing but let's not fight over >them. Speaking of anomalies, who remembers the Coke bottle in "The Gods Must >Be Crazy"? > >Mike Carrell > > that was beautifully executed and speaks to all of us wholly bushmen ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 21:30:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00266; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 21:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 21:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607030400.VAA18660@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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:54 PM 7/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >Dean brings up Velikovsky's scenario wherein there were colossal discharges >between Earth, Venus, Mars and the Moon during the period of orbital >instability caused by the arrival of Venus into the solar system. yeah but it is hard to reconcile with the solar wind streams which TOTALLY OVERWHELM ALL OTHER OBJECTS AND POTENTIALS IN THE SYSTEM Velikovsky >also did a detailed analysis of the accepted Egyptian chronology and found it >wanting. > easy to do because "accepted" means euro-centric papist/episcopalean/biblical literalists all else in this regard is ignored, most especially THE GREEKS WHO FOUNDED WESTERN SCIENCE, who were brilliant and more informed about Egypt than we some 2000 years after the fact the arguement over just when civilization began 2500 bc or 2800 bc or in Sumaria is just a ridiculous veiled debate by people trying to hold onto literal biblical history. there is no reason to argue one way or another except on the basis of hard physical science. this evidence is really clear. we have hard evidence of tool-using civilization going back 40,000 years, but the greatest crop starts about 10,000 years ago. >In all the discussion surrounding the scenario the issue of radiocarbon >dating came up, and with it early suggestions that radioactive decay rates >are not absolute, but are influenced by the electrical environment. It was >proposed that Earth is as whole is intensly negatively charged. Thus the >colossal discharges between the proximate planets -- which left the scars on >the Moon attributed to vulcanism and meteor impacts. > how do these relate together? >The discharges perturbed the charge of the earth and very possibly the decay >of radioactive elements herein. could be >There is a similarity to the conditions being discussed here about putting >samples inside the electrode of a Van de Graaf machine. > is there? >The gathering evidence that radioactive decay rates are not absolute but are >influenced by environmental factors will have a most interesting impact on >all the academic work that relies on radiocarbon dating to establish the >chronology of various artifacts archaeology. actually Mike, I think carbon dates are okay on this account because they are short-term - about 10,000 total accuracy and they are all near surface. But carbon dates have another severe problem, which is they require a chain of complex meteological events to be ON THE AVERAGE consistent. HA HA HA HA LAUGHING DOWN SCREAMING AND BEATING THE FLOOR. (slightly recovered) I live in the Puget Sound, which has the most inconsistent weather on the planet and you can't get me to buy the logic of relying upon anything mediated through the atmosphere. I think the best you can say is that it provides a rough and ready pointer...and could be off by a wide margin so you better have some other ways to correlate the data. but that aint all, FALLING OFF CHAIR AGAIN GIGGLING HYSTERICALLY the fluctuations of the solar wind are phenomenal and we have just begin to track it for historical trendlines and we do KNOW THAT OUR WEATHER IS ABOUT 100% varied by the fluctuations of the solar wind, uper charges, etc, are all going to have big effects on the carbon cycle. I think that you end up having to "cook the books" so complexly on carbon that it becomes worthless as an objective standard. I think where dating is also in trouble is in deep strata where piezo pressures are phenomenal. This may be recoverable in a generation or so, after the variability of radioactivity is plotted out, because presumably correlations can be made based on other geological data to "guess" pressures, etc. But all of this stuff will end up as "cooked books". The debate can be endlessly degenerated into nuances of objections to trivia. > >For diversion, read Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods -- it's as >mind-blowing as the CF arena. > >Mike Carrell > you haven't seen anything yet! read his latest, "The Message Of The Sphinx". A civilization on the Nile a long time ago (Egyptian or pre-cursor) could process the "Procession", the Earth's Great Year of 26,000 as accurately as we can today. Think about that! How many years of record keeping are required just to figure out and generalize the formula for the Procession of the stars? You get one degree of difference every 70 years. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 21:33:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00696; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 21:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 21:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31D9F17B.4A9A@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Schaffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > I don't know. This is the subject of particle physics, not magnetostatics. Oh come on now, Michael, when I hear that lightning return strokes may follow cosmic ray tracks, I kind of want to leave a little room for particle physics in my ball lightning model! And, to further complicate the matter, if the stuff is powered by decaying inductive energy, then we must have associated electric fields to drive the plasma current. > Atoms are held together in a crystal by ELECTROSTATIC force, and the virial > theorem about which we speak deals only with MAGNETOSTATIC force. I thought that THE force we were dealing with was the ELECTROMAGNETIC force, with both electric and magnetic aspects? I understand that the most general forms of the virial theorem apply to All energy concentrations, such as flywheels, springs, capacitors, etc. - maybe excluding the fundamental particles? I'm way over my head here, so be gentle! > Logajan writes: > >But if ball lightning does exist, and since we don't expect to > >overthrow mathematics, then the virial theorm wouldn't seem to be > >so generally applicable that it applies to ball lightning, no? > > The virial theorem says that ball lightning, if it exists, is not magnetic > in nature. John L., you are my hero! This is exactly why I first became interested in ball lightning! It seemed to me that BL might be telling us some secret stuff about EM stability! Or, maybe the virial theorem is just fine (it probably is!) and ball lightning is just some kind of limiting configuration that takes its sweet time to blow up. Like people in a room on fire (very unstable) trying to split but falling over each other in the rush out the door. And, when I know that each meter of a 200 kiloamp return stroke contains about 20,000 joules of inductive energy, I'm just not ready to drop magnetic energy from my ball lightning model cards! Don't get mad at me, Michael, I'm really grasping at straws here! (And I'm sorry my bad typing changed the "a" in your name to "s" in my post!) Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 22:19:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08278; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31D9F6F4.7279@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: gravity/Stenger's question X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > > Frank a very good question. The answer is that the energy of the electron is > contained by a FORCE. > > FORCE = dp/dt > > Force and gravity enjoy a symmetrical relationship. (Frank S. talking to Frank Z.)...... Frank, you must be in better spirits to bring out your big gravity gun! (Frank Z. has been making my head hurt for years - trying to get across to me his tie between gravity, energy, and the rest of the universe!) I really stuck my foot in it to be dumb enough to ask what holds an electron together! Frank, when you and Horace talk QM stuff, I quiver all over. I'm going back into my shell now. (call me when you can) Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 22:19:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08354; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:15:30 -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: the remining fields X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The following is in reply to Michael J. Schaffer's comments on ball plasmas. 1. Under the scenario I suggested for the formation af Bl, it is clear that the stroke core would be at a vacuum, and that the angular velocities giving the ball it's initial stability would be caused by the angular momentum imparted by the stroke fields, and by the collapse of the vacuum, which would accelerate the rotation. This does not imply indefinite stability, but high energy smoke rings, for example, last a long time. If there is an energy producing mechanism in the ball, this could prolong the containment effect of the atmospheric pressure without significant loss of momentum. 2. The magnetic field in the suggeste ball would be far from stable, it would be precessing rapidly. 3. The initial bolt would induce a much greater velocity on the electrons than the ions. THe result would not be completely a plasma, as the electrons would tend towards the outside, creating an electrostatic field. 4. The torus could be expected exhibit many instabilities. 5. I would like to suggest that, provided the outer electron rich shell had a minor variation from perfect symmetry, the result would be an electrostatic dipole. 6. Big if: if a stable electrostatic dipole formed, with the center of mass of the ions displaced slightly from the center of gravity, the electron center of mass would therefore be much more displaced from the center of gravity, and you would have an orbital system about a "center of charge". It seems to me the electrostatic charge could then contribute the excess force needed to hold the ball together. Maybe stability is not that important provided the dipole nature, though varying in magnitude, remained present as a significantly constant factor. Even if stuff were jumping all over the place in the ball, if it were precessing fast enough, it would still look round to the observer. Just food for thought. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 00:46:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA28196; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:42:38 -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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: With respect to carbon dating, the discussion has been oversimplified to some extent. It is not true that carbon daters blindly rely on a constant rate of production of C14 (i.e. constant meteorology); they are aware of the pitfalls and have at least one double-check: dendrochronology, the counting of tree rings. In fact, people who are into varying radioactive decay rates ought to look into this, compare tree-ring carbon dates with theoretical dates, they might discover something interesting (or not). It is interesting to me to speculate that this tree ring stuff might have been done as a defense against criticisms from creation "science". I like these people, because they keep scientists on their toes, they are better than anyone at finding weaknesses in orthodox science. That's why I liked communists too; I never wanted them to win elections, but liked their social criticism, and miss it now in this smug aren't-we-wonderful-now-that-the-curtain-has-fallen age. Ditto with "cold fusion"; one of the spinoffs of this has been to make orthodoxers think about how sure we really are about things, and why. If you're interested in varying radioactive decay rates, try to get hold of one of the books by these creation science people, titled roughly "Radioactive Dating is a Hoax" or the like. It is better written than their spurious stuff against Darwin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 3 00:46:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA28234; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:42:53 -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: Re: gravity/Stenger's question X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I really stuck my foot in it to be dumb enough to ask what holds an >electron together! Frank, when you and Horace talk QM stuff, I quiver >all over. I'm going back into my shell now. (call me when you can) > >Frank Stenger Gravity and energy, there is a simple way to look at that. Mass and energy are synonymous. You can't have one without at the same time having the other. Create energy and you have created mass, and vice versa. Create mass and you have created gravity. No matter how you formulate it, you can't get around all that. No QM necessary. Easy! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 01:56:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA04927; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960703084148_100433.1541_BHG146-1@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: Re: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: It seems to me that Dieter and I are gradually changing sides...sheesh. Yes to the dendrochronology/14C dating. And yes to the fact that a lot of *geological* dating is screwy - I did see a (non-creationist) diatribe against some of the longer-term dating systems, and it looked impressive. On the other hand, I wish the creationists (not a force on this side of the Pond, by the way) would pack their traps and depart. I believe they stifle debate within the 'orthodox' camp, since any attempt to leave the circled wagons of othodoxy is seen as defection to the enemy. And creationists attempt (at least in the US) to censor the media. They also wriggle on the hook and demonstrate their 'crankiness' by the best test of that condition - refusal ever to move their position by a single iota. Any good they do is more than offset by the bad - or at least I think so. But I will admit that I too was rather attracted by this "Fingerprints of the Gods" book - whose title is misleading, Hancock does not suggest 'aliens' formerly intervening in human affairs, nor any divine meddling either. He draws many interesting data out of the mists of prehistory. Best of all, he *starts* with the anomalies, and then eventually makes up a (rather dubious, to my thinking) hypothesis. NOT the other way around. And here I differ with Dieter. He suggests that CF has made the orthodox question things. This surprises me, because I've seen no evidence for that as yet? I think it has simply made the circled wagons draw closer. And we have it from TV people that they have received worse flak from the orthodox for doing CF programmes (specifically the Horizon/CBC one) than the TV evolutionists get from their creationist opponents. Sadly, I do not believe that there is any way in which "Planck's other constant" - that twenty-year interval before a new idea can penetrate into science - can be reduced by interaction between scientists. If it is to happen, it won't come through conflict but through sidestepping the entire system and going for commercialisation or a high-profile demonstration of inarguable merit. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 02:02:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05699; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlagarde@cyberaccess.fr (Jean_de_Lagarde) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wither the Vortexian Commentary on C X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Chris writes: >And the Correa device is one of those at the top of our list to check. > >You say 'nothing could be easier', technically that is true, but >you neglect the main issues. The first of these is whether the Correas >would be >able or willing to provide access for testing - and I am not >for a moment suggesting that they would make it difficult. The second >is M O N E Y. > >I have rising hopes that such visits/investigations will become more >practicable for our group in the near future. Until then, unless >others can come forward, there is little more we can do. Chris By your own words, I can't help thinking of the treatment given by IE to this unchecked device as a major mistake : more than twenty pages plus the photo on the front cover page, plus the qualification by Gene as THE SMOKING GUN is really too much at this stage. A factual report followed by an expression of hope and a question mark would have been in my opinion, more appropriate. Why giving arms to shoot you ? Regards Jean From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 03:31:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA12466; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 03:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 03:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9607031313.AA10936@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: the Experiment on the Neutron 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: the Experiment on the Neutron > >please,I have to add three comments to your manner to debate the >problem: >--the use of bubble detectors is unappropriate owing their low >sensitivity,they are often used for radiation protection purposes,in fact; >the same limit occurs for dosimeters used by thermoluminescence. >It occurs a true neutron detector as the BF3 we used. >--dr.Dieter Britz,it does not appear to me that also this time >we have the same limit that we had for other CF experiments >and regarding the too low number of emitted neutrons and to be detected. >We used an Al catode of 1mm .1mm,the number of the formed neutrons >should be proportinal to the dimensions of the catode and to the number >of the incoming electrons.Only radioprotection problems are present as you >may well see. >--please,it appears to me that a new promising aspect of the experiment, >important as well as the fact that a neutron was formed at confirmation >of the biquaternion quantum mechanics,is the complete fusion of the catode. >Do we debate this important aspect of the experiment?,do we examine >also its perspectives in addition to the origin of this phenomenon?Do you >agree with me that this anomalous production of heath was due to the >liberation of energy during the formation of the neutron(about 80 kev for >each fusion)? or do you hypothize some other chemical effect?Please, >remember that,as I remember kamada results,also this author found >anomalous production of heath during the bombardment with electrons >and also this author,uncorrectly,hypothized a like electron capture >from the proton to clear his results.Sincerely.Elio Conte > --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 04:48:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA18612; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 04:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 04:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960703073817_347470774@emout15.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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael responded to my post with quotes and comments which I won't requote. I'll just add a few notes. There was some recent discussion about influencing radioactivity by placing a sample within the dome of a Van de Graff machine. Placed so, the sample would not experience a local charge gradient, but would share the change of potential with respect to the rest of the universe. So it would be with all matter sharing the genral charge of the Earth, which is very high. If the Van de Graff experiment influences radioactive decay, it is supporting evidence for the second. Velikovsky's research embraced the myths of all cultures and he derived his scenario not just from the Eurocentric one. I don't want to start a new out-of-context thread here, but I was watching a NOVA program last night on the Magellen mapping of Venus. The finding that has everyone in a tizzy is the random distribution of meteor craters on the surface, which is unique. It indicates a fresh surface, with no volcanic flows to cover old craters with smooth surfaces. Velikovsky's central point is that Venus arrived in the solar system within the time of man and it arrival was accompanied by a series of phenomena and catastrophes that have blurred into legend. The reason Venus is hot is not a runaway greenhouse effect, but that it is cooling down! Speaking of anamolies....! I just finished reading The Message of the Sphinx, which is also a mind-blower. I'll have some sidebar conversation with Michael about it, as it's off-topic here, but recommended reading. The reason I mentioned Hancock's earlier book is that it picks up the threads of Hapgood's Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings and Path of the Pole, and Hamlet's Mill as well as the work of West and Beauval on the layout of the Giza site. The Message of the Sphinx focusses very well on the Giza site. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 05:24:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA22093; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 05:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 05:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Neutralizing Radioactivity .... Part way does NOT help X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Again here is some comment on Barker's work. If you have not seen the patent, or accurate information, then the conclusions as to effiacy, such as this one regarding a sample in the sphere are also not accurate. Get the patent. Read the patent. Then make the comments ... or better yet ... DO THE EXPERIMENT! JHS On Wed, 3 Jul 1996 RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: > Michael responded to my post with quotes and comments which I won't requote. > I'll just add a few notes. > > There was some recent discussion about influencing radioactivity by placing a > sample within the dome of a Van de Graff machine. Placed so, the sample would > not experience a local charge gradient, but would share the change of > potential with respect to the rest of the universe. So it would be with all > matter sharing the genral charge of the Earth, which is very high. If the Van > de Graff experiment influences radioactive decay, it is supporting evidence > for the second. > > Velikovsky's research embraced the myths of all cultures and he derived his > scenario not just from the Eurocentric one. I don't want to start a new > out-of-context thread here, but I was watching a NOVA program last night on > the Magellen mapping of Venus. The finding that has everyone in a tizzy is > the random distribution of meteor craters on the surface, which is unique. It > indicates a fresh surface, with no volcanic flows to cover old craters with > smooth surfaces. Velikovsky's central point is that Venus arrived in the > solar system within the time of man and it arrival was accompanied by a > series of phenomena and catastrophes that have blurred into legend. The > reason Venus is hot is not a runaway greenhouse effect, but that it is > cooling down! Speaking of anamolies....! > > I just finished reading The Message of the Sphinx, which is also a > mind-blower. I'll have some sidebar conversation with Michael about it, as > it's off-topic here, but recommended reading. The reason I mentioned > Hancock's earlier book is that it picks up the threads of Hapgood's Maps of > the Ancient Sea Kings and Path of the Pole, and Hamlet's Mill as well as the > work of West and Beauval on the layout of the Giza site. The Message of the > Sphinx focusses very well on the Giza site. > > Mike Carrell > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 06:10:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA29268; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 06:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 06:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607031300.IAA00838@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: Silly idea. - Schaffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 10:01 7/2/96 -0700, Mike wrote: >The problem is that you all assume that an "ideal diode" can be built. >Conventional thermodynamics says that such is impossible,.... Mike, could you elaborate on this situation a bit? Exactly HOW does one apply the laws of thermodynamics to a diode in order to determine that you can't make a diode with arbitrarily low forward voltage drop? Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 06:29:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01519; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 06:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 06:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607031315.IAA01699@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: Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hello, John...my name is Scott Little and I am exploring the claims of Joe Champion. You wrote to him (and he posted to our discussion group): >Dear Joe: > >This note is to appologize to you for my disbelief in the hypothesis >that you put forth in the past! I am a believer now! My unfortunate >circumstances as to not having powerful enough or high enough resolution >instrumentation when examining samples sent to me by your group >precluded me from "seeing what you said was contained in the samples". Would you please elaborate on the analyses you performed...or attempted to perform on Champion's materials. What techniques did you use that were "not powerful enough or high enough resolution"? What techniques did you subsequently employ? Thanks Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 08:26:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA25721; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607031417.KAA23919@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael Mandeville (mwm@aa.net) said: > I think that you end up having to "cook the books" so complexly > on carbon that it becomes worthless as an objective standard. No, there are difficulties, but it works quite well. There are bristlecone pine trees which provide a correlated (through growth rings) record of the atmospheric C14 ratio back to about 4000 BC. However, since the percentages does swing, there are certain time frames where C14 dates are multimodal, corresponding to several dates, hundreds or thousands of years apart. Usually other dating methods allow you to determine whether this sample was taken thousands of years ago or last week. (Of course anyone pointing to a single C14 date as evidence of anything has been smoking something. But it is often possible to sample a dozen tree rings from a single wood fragment, and place the artifact precisely in the historical record.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 08:24:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA25783; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607031432.KAA00981@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Schaffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Francis J. Stenger (fstenger@interlaced.net) said: > I thought that THE force we were dealing with was the > ELECTROMAGNETIC force, with both electric and magnetic aspects? I > understand that the most general forms of the virial theorem apply > to All energy concentrations, such as flywheels, springs, > capacitors, etc. - maybe excluding the fundamental particles? I'm > way over my head here, so be gentle! Hmmm. While it does apply to electrostatics in theory, in practice it ignores non-linear effects. And there are lots of non-linear effects associated with electric charge. Run a comb through your hair, or use your homemade van de Graff generator to put a few kilovolts of charge on it. Now run the water in the sink at a trickle, and bring the comb near it. The (uncharged) water is deflected. How? The non-linear electric field created by the comb causes the water to align itself in a minimal energy configuration, basically like a magnet, but you are aligning positive and negative charges, not north and south poles. So although there is no net charge to the water the side closer to the comb is attracted, the other side is repelled. Due to the square law, this results in a net attraction, no matter what the sign of the charge on the comb. But is this something more than a way to amuse your kids? Yes. Ball lightning clearly involves lots of non-linear fields. The net effect of those non-linearities must be to compress the ball, even though the first order terms may all cancel. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 08:35:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA25972; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960703110518_569247923@emout07.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: Silly idea - some first calcs X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Picking up on an earlier idea about diodes and capacitors rectifying and using ambient fluctuation energy sources, I draw attention to papers by Joseph C. Yater "Power Conversion of Energy Fluctuations" and followups. See: Yater, Power conversion of energy fluctuations," Phys. Rev. A 10, 1361 (1974); Comments by EerNisse, Phys Rev A 18, 767 (1978); Rebuttal by Yater, Phys Rev A 20, 623 (1979). See also articles by Maddox in Nature with titles "Directed motion from random noise," and "Bringing more order out of noisiness," both in vol 369, pp. 181 and 271 (1994). Finally article J. Travis, "Making light work of Brownian motion," Science 267, 1593 (1995). Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 08:34:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA26299; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:18:52 -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: More on assessing Correa**2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: More on assessing Correa**2 - Well....gang, I have a 1940 text in my hand called "Storage Batteries". One of those classic tombs that shows up in power plant/utility enviroments. - SO I've been doing some comparisions with the Correa claims about their storage batteries. - So far, nothing too obviously corrupt with the Correa claims (general) and the classic text. The text notes the efficiency of a typical lead acid at about 75%. It does, interestingly enough, mention some "short cycle" testing by one individual, which obtained a 98% effecient return with less than 1 minute charge/discharge cycles. Anyway, if we do knock down the Correa numbers on each side by 25%, we go to a 2.5:1 return versus a 4:1 return, and with the numbers involved, that's still impressive. - There remains the doubt that the discharge method could be extracting greater than normal amounts of energy from the driving pack by chemically "eating up" the driving pack cells. One thing that bodes against this is the multiple runs on the same driving pack. (One would expect a degradation with time.) - I'm still of the mind to WARN the Correa**2 parties that unless they are MUCH MORE DETAILED on the results, (like How? did they measure the input and output, AKA Fig. 21 in their '989 patent) and try some other methods to bound the input and output powers (doesn't this stuff have to cross wires? Aren't there high speed data gathering devices? Currents and voltages that hard to measure?) their ability to claim REALITY of the results is toast, and they won't get a penny from anyone. (EVEN IF THE RESULTS ARE REAL!) - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 09:40:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA13685; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960703112107.35874c84@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: Neutralizing Radioactivity - data please X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 04:43 AM 7/3/96 -0700, Mike Carrell wrote: >There was some recent discussion about influencing radioactivity by placing a >sample within the dome of a Van de Graff machine. Placed so, the sample would >not experience a local charge gradient, but would share the change of >potential with respect to the rest of the universe. So it would be with all >matter sharing the genral charge of the Earth, which is very high. If the Van >de Graff experiment influences radioactive decay, it is supporting evidence >for the second. > where is the data and published literature to this allegation and putative claim? thanks in advance. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 09:40:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA13913; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960703112205.358743ea@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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:51 AM 7/3/96 -0700, Chris wrote: >It seems to me that Dieter and I are gradually changing sides...sheesh. > >Yes to the dendrochronology/14C dating. And yes to the fact that a lot of >*geological* dating is screwy - I did see a (non-creationist) diatribe against >some of the longer-term dating systems, and it looked impressive. > >On the other hand, I wish the creationists (not a force on this side of the >Pond, by the way) would pack their traps and depart. I believe they stifle >debate within the 'orthodox' camp, since any attempt to leave the circled wagons >of othodoxy is seen as defection to the enemy. And creationists attempt (at >least in the US) to censor the media. They also wriggle on the hook and >demonstrate their 'crankiness' by the best test of that condition - refusal ever >to move their position by a single iota. Any good they do is more than offset >by the bad - or at least I think so. > >But I will admit that I too was rather attracted by this "Fingerprints of the >Gods" book - whose title is misleading, Hancock does not suggest 'aliens' >formerly intervening in human affairs, nor any divine meddling either. He draws >many interesting data out of the mists of prehistory. Best of all, he *starts* >with the anomalies, and then eventually makes up a (rather dubious, to my >thinking) hypothesis. NOT the other way around. > >And here I differ with Dieter. He suggests that CF has made the orthodox >question things. This surprises me, because I've seen no evidence for that as >yet? I think it has simply made the circled wagons draw closer. And we have it >from TV people that they have received worse flak from the orthodox for doing CF >programmes (specifically the Horizon/CBC one) than the TV evolutionists get from >their creationist opponents. Dieter is correct because there are two groups. Some have "circled their wagons" around their hot fusion systems. Others who had orthodox training, have entered the field, continue to experiment, theorize and explore, and they do question things, as Dieter pointed out. BTW this group is lowering its standards by awarding 'belief' for systems which have not offered clear baselines and data to demonstrate the remarkable effects claimed. CF in nickel and palladium have been proven by various configurations, and the data have been substantial. where is the hard clear data (even one quality postive) for these new systems? Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 09:45:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA14106; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:27:35 -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: Re: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >And here I differ with Dieter. He suggests that CF has made the orthodox >question things. This surprises me, because I've seen no evidence for that as >yet? [snip] >Chris The ice seems to be melting a bit, don't you think? At least in the US. Here we have the work at NASA on Ni - NaCO3 system, the LANL work of Claytor, etc. There is lots of work on sonoluminescence. There is still academic work going on regarding transmutations, PPC, etc. Maybe there's a little progress in the US Congress this year too. The *private* interest level of mainstream (orthodox?) US employees seems to be growing as well, but the publishers here would have a better feel for the evidence of that. At least the *number* of publications seems to be growing. This field is only just beginning to move. If there is anything it has done at all - it has created a lot of important questions the answers to which require orthodox research. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 09:46:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA14282; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:28:17 -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: How to prove the Correa device... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: How to prove the Correa device... - As usual, it took a while for the old "flash of inspiration". If the Correa device is REAL and, let's presume you need to use the batteries for now to keep operating conditions correct, the way to prove the Correa device would involve 2 DC to DC converters and some DPDT relays, and 2 Charge Packs and 2 Discharge packs. Let's call the Discharge Packs DP1 and 2 (and similar for charge packs). The cycle goes like this: DP1 runs the device for a couple minutes and charges CP1. Relays cycle out DP1 at this time for DP2, while also cycling out CP1 for CP2 and then tying up CP1 to a converter (DC to DC) to allow it to charge DP1, AND feed off the "excess" to a load. The whole cycle repeats itself in a couple of minutes, switching DP1 and CP1 back INTO the Correa Circuit, and shifting CP2 and DP2 out to the converter/load circuit. - This would provide a continuous system and would allow verification in about a month's operation. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 09:59:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA14526; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:29:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:29:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Schaffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert Eachus said: > Hmmm. While it does apply to electrostatics in theory, in >practice it ignores non-linear effects. And there are lots of >non-linear effects associated with electric charge.... The virial theorem I am familiar with DOES deal with the nonlinearity of classical magnetism (but not the quantum nonlinearity of vacuum). >Run a comb >through your hair, or use your homemade van de Graff generator to put >a few kilovolts of charge on it. Now run the water in the sink at a >trickle, and bring the comb near it. The (uncharged) water is >deflected. This well-known effect is explained QUANTITATIVELY by classical electrostatics. The lab where I did my PhD research was doing lots of sophisticated experiments testing the theory of electrostatic forces in various situations. 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 Jul 3 10:05:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA14791; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Schaffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > >> I don't know. This is the subject of particle physics, not magnetostatics. > >Oh come on now, Michael, when I hear that lightning return strokes >may follow cosmic ray tracks, I kind of want to leave a little room for >particle physics in my ball lightning model! > Cosmic rays, like other "ionizing radiation", leave a trail of ions when they pass through matter. Electrical breakdown is likely to follow this path of weakened electrical insulation. It's not "particle physics" in the usual meaning of that phrase, just collisions knocking an occasional electron off an atom. Many radiation detectors employ this technique. >> Atoms are held together in a crystal by ELECTROSTATIC force, and the virial >> theorem about which we speak deals only with MAGNETOSTATIC force. > >I thought that THE force we were dealing with was the ELECTROMAGNETIC >force, with both electric and magnetic aspects? When the length of the system is much smaller than the distance light travels in the time of interest, the full electromagnetic (wave) effects are minor, and the electric and magnetic effects can be each treated independently. This is called QUASI electro statics and QUASI magneto statics. >I understand that the >most general forms of the virial theorem apply to All energy >concentrations, such as flywheels, springs, capacitors, etc. - maybe >excluding the fundamental particles? I'm way over my head here, so be >gentle! You're over my head, too! > >And, to further complicate >the matter, if the stuff is powered by decaying inductive energy, then >we must have associated electric fields to drive the plasma current. > >And, when I know that each meter of a 200 kiloamp return stroke contains >about 20,000 joules of inductive energy, I'm just not ready to drop >magnetic energy from my ball lightning model cards! In the "game" I play for a living, controlled fusion energy, we have at General Atomics a tokamak whose plasma is 10 m in circumference and carries 2 MA in a high quality vacuum. When we turn off the sustaining power from outside sources, it decays in about 5 sec. The tokamak is at least 10,000 times more electrically conductive than a lightning channel, in view of the tokamak's much higher temperature. Also, the high vacuum and the tokamak's large plasma-confining magnetic field both act to keep its plasma hot and highly conductive much longer than is the case of a lightning channel surrounded by the atmosphere. So, even ignoring the issue of the existence of a magnetic equilibrium for ball lightning (virial theorem), a BL model that requires magnetic fields generated by its own internal currents will decay in very much less than a second. (One can also calculate this result directly, using the conductivity of air plasmas, but I thought that comparison with an existing experiment would make the conclusion more graphic.) 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 Jul 3 11:26:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA04873; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I finally received my copy of Infinite Energy and read the material about the Correas' claimed OU devices. Here is my analysis and opinion. (I assume everyone else here reads IE, so I won't repeat what's in the magazine.) The first patent describes a novel plasma tube oscillator and methods to couple its AC output to drive motors, etc. The most novel aspect of the invention (to me) is the ability to operate the tube at extreme abnormal glow parameters without rapidly destroying the electrode(s), which enables substantial power output from modest sized tubes. Normally an abnormal glow discharge transitions into an arc in short order, melting and vaporizing the cathode. This patent goes on and on and on with details and makes no mention of OU. Mallove reproduces it in its entirety. He also reproduces pages of what appears to be sales literature totally without any technical content. The second patent (US pat 5449989) overtly claims OU performance. As he has done several times in the past, Mallove fails to reproduce most of the details of this, the critical part. Within the IE-reproduced material, the Correa OU claim rests on a comparison of the energies in two rechargable electric batteries. The "driver" battery powers the tube, and the "charge" battery gets charged by its rectified output. The text gets obtuse, but it seems that the proceedure is to partially discharge each battery before an experimental run, do the run, and then continue to discharge the batteries down to a prespecified terminal voltage. Actually, from the figures given it looks like they did not actually complete the discharges to their pre-defined voltage, but EXTRAPOLATED (by some technique that is not explained and that I could not decipher from the patent!) from less complete discharges. By comparing the battery discharge power-vs-time curves against a standard power-vs-time curve, they claim to calculate the energy supplied (from the driver battery) and gained energy (in the charge battery). The unstated assumption is that the battery discharge curve is a stable and reproducible property. Of course, anyone who reads battery manufacturers' data sheets knows that the discharge curves depend substantially on the discharge current history, so this assumption is not valid. If the OU were sufficiently great, even this flawed experimental technique would be believable. However, from Table 8 we see that the energy supplied by the driver battery is 1% OR LESS of the total batttery discharge energy. In other words, we have to believe OU on the basis of numbers calculated as small differences between two quite uncertain large numbers. Any experimentalist knows that this an unreliable technique. Therefore, until better data is presented, I will not believe the OU claim. The patent briefly and without explanation mentions "videographic" power measurements and presents a result of such in Fig. 20. Is this a true power calculation derived from oscillographic traces? They don't say. I suspect that "videographic" means instead something read from video camera recordings of something. Mallove writes that this patent provides "copious experimental evidence of massive overunity performance." I for one find it hard to believe that he actually read and understood it (opinion :<). How should this measurement be done? One way would be to record time histories of input and output V and I and calculate true input and output powers. The IE photos show two oscillopes, so the Correas have the wherewithall to do this. However, Fig. 20 suggests that the wave forms are changing frequently, a common generic problem with plasma oscillator tubes, which means that the data must be averaged over a long time. The work would be tedious, but certainly worth the millions of dollars that a positive result would engender. There is an easier way that is also reliable: First, make sure that both battery voltages are truly DC. Monitor the battery voltages by oscilloscope, and if the voltage varies more than a few volts at the wave frequency out of the 300 VDC, add filter capacitors to reduce the ripple. Now one has a system wherein the true power is just the product of the steady voltage times the average battery current. Average current, even with an AC component present, is measured by a conventional moving coil ammeter. However, if the erratic power plotted in Fig. 20 is any indication of true power, then the meter needle will be bouncing around too much to take accurate readings. The solution is to add RC filters with time constants long enough (say 10 sec) to make readings possible. The filters must be designed so as not to seriously compromise the accuracy of the reading, but this is a standard electrical engineering task that even a PhD physicist can do. Of course, if the device really produced 400-800% excess energy, it would be simple to close the loop. Modern DC-DC converters are > 50% efficient, even without trying hard. Simpler still, skip the "charge battery" and DC-DC converter and use the output to charge the drive battery. They could start out with a half-charged drive battery and watch it charge. Why hasn't this been done? And why do the Correas base their OU claim on such a roundabout and error-prone technique as described in pat 5449989? My OPINION is that the more direct methods did not show OU performance. 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 Jul 3 11:28:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA04960; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DAB50D.5A0E@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Schaffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert I. Eachus wrote: (3 Jul 96 08:16:54) > Snip: > But is this something more than a way to amuse your kids? Yes. > Ball lightning clearly involves lots of non-linear fields. The net > effect of those non-linearities must be to compress the ball, even > though the first order terms may all cancel. > I'm with you on the comb-and-the-water attraction, Robert! But, gee, please let me know about ANYTHING inside a lightning ball that CLEARLY involves ANYTHING! I guess what I'm saying is that we need a specific model to test by analysis and experiment! Maybe Paul Koloc's plasmoid is it, but I don't think so. I have been trying to dream up a truly force-free current configuration for a long time (I'm slow!) but I have yet to get around Maxwell's magnetostatic equations. I have tried some blind experimental attempts (with Frank Z's help) and have made some grand 60 Kjoule fireworks with my slow- pulse capacitor bank - but no ball lightning. I want stuff that runs around my garage for 10 seconds and burns a hole in my garbage can! Why can't *I* see ball lightning??? - All these little old ladies do when they'er weeding their asparagus patch!! WHY NOT ME???? Snivel, Snivel. Frank Stenger (Where's Mike Schaffer when I need him? He's probably still mad that I typoed his name.) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 11:21:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA05049; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:11:44 -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: the remining fields-Schaffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > surrounded by the atmosphere. So, even ignoring the issue of the existence > of a magnetic equilibrium for ball lightning (virial theorem), a BL model > that requires magnetic fields generated by its own internal currents will > decay in very much less than a second. Koloc's home-made BL's (in earlier experiments) had lifetimes of about 1/4 second with impulse energy inputs of 4 kJ. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 13:59:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA07238; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DABA71.4795@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Schaffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer wrote: (Many things to slap me into the ground!) Hey, Michael, would it be too tedious of me to ask you some questions - off Vortex - about electromagnetics? Don't answer and I won't bother you. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 14:09:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA07454; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960703183741_100433.1541_BHG92-1@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: Re: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Swartz comments: > BTW this group is lowering its standards by awarding 'belief' for > systems which have not offered clear baselines and data to > demonstrate the remarkable effects claimed. I can speak only for myself, but certainly *I* have no 'standards' to lower. I feel that once a group starts to promote itself as having something special then it rapidly starts to go downhill. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 14:04:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA07566; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607031909.MAA24658@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: Neutralizing Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 08:16 AM 7/3/96 -0700, you wrote: > > Michael Mandeville (mwm@aa.net) said: > > > I think that you end up having to "cook the books" so complexly > > on carbon that it becomes worthless as an objective standard. > > No, there are difficulties, but it works quite well. There are >bristlecone pine trees which provide a correlated (through growth >rings) record of the atmospheric C14 ratio back to about 4000 BC. >However, since the percentages does swing, there are certain time >frames where C14 dates are multimodal, corresponding to several dates, >hundreds or thousands of years apart. Usually other dating methods >allow you to determine whether this sample was taken thousands of >years ago or last week. > > (Of course anyone pointing to a single C14 date as evidence of >anything has been smoking something. But it is often possible to >sample a dozen tree rings from a single wood fragment, and place the >artifact precisely in the historical record.) > > > Robert I. Eachus > >with Standard_Disclaimer; >use Standard_Disclaimer; >function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... > > I came up the hard way from the streets. My grand parents were migrant agricultural workers during the great depression. I have seen every line of BS imaginable in my way of walking through the world. I also spent nine years at a University learning how people invent BS to play the scholarly game. I know that you are sincere and I do not offer any personal or conceptual criticism whatsoever in stating that in many of the circles through whom I have moved, they would call what you are saying above "cooked books". It is in the ledgerdemain of correlations of inferences that the con-man wins the argument. That's the problem. Unless you know more than the con-man, it is really hard to spot the cheating element. So, from the outside, there is still the tinge of suspicion. It is the inescapable result of incomplete communication. The scientist wants to have his correlations accepted by the outside, because he is the scientist peer reviewed and all that. That is also the problem. Most people aren't that stupid, not really, though they may smile politely and congratulate the scientist on all of his good work... ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 13:58:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA07692; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607031918.PAA13119@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Schaffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I said: > Hmmm. While it does apply to electrostatics in theory, in >practice it ignores non-linear effects. And there are lots of >non-linear effects associated with electric charge.... Michael J. Schaffer (Schaffer@gav.gat.com) said: > The virial theorem I am familiar with DOES deal with the > nonlinearity of classical magnetism (but not the quantum > nonlinearity of vacuum). I think we may be agreeing violently, but I guess what I said is slightly misleading. The "it" was intended to refer to "proofs" that ball lightning can't exist, not the virial theorem. Most "proofs" I have seen that ball lightning can't exist, or can't be magnetic, use linear approximations and hand waving. The math with moving plasma with inhomogeneous charge distributions is hard, but it is fairly easy to come up with theoretical solutions where there is net inward pressure from all directions. (The simplest is a rotating plasma with charge separation.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 13:58:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA07818; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:49:07 -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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/03/96 11:25 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Correas' Experiments Michael Schaffer--- we are talking on the SAME wave-length I see. I hope you get a chance to see my post on the definite way of proving "O-U" from earlier today. Indeed, application of a DC-DC converter (to match the voltage differential between the charge pack and the discharge pack) would be the final denoument with regard to "O-U" performance. - I'm also pleased that I'm not the ONLY one that thinks the "previously run discharge curve" and "videographic" analysis of output are dubious for getting the "facts" out of this system. (A simple statement that power output and input was calculated by captured voltage versus time traces on a storage scope as measured across a standard resistance would be clear enough!) - Let's keep at it in terms of what we demand for GOOD work! From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 14:02:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA07933; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DAD7D9.58DF@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Logajan X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan wrote: > Snip: > Koloc's home-made BL's (in earlier experiments) had lifetimes of about > 1/4 second with impulse energy inputs of 4 kJ. > Yes, I agree, a 4 kJ plasmoid that lasts for that long has something very interesting going on inside! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 14:12:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA08149; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960703163259_347957399@emout18.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: MichaelUK1@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 03/07/96 18:17:26, you write: >Of course, if the device really produced 400-800% excess energy, it would >be simple to close the loop. Modern DC-DC converters are > 50% efficient, >even without trying hard. Simpler still, skip the "charge battery" and >DC-DC converter and use the output to charge the drive battery. They could >start out with a half-charged drive battery and watch it charge. Why >hasn't this been done? And why do the Correas base their OU claim on such >a roundabout and error-prone technique as described in pat 5449989? My >OPINION is that the more direct methods did not show OU performance. > >Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com I too am surprised that conclusive OU performance has not been demonstrated by a battery-less closed loop system however if the Correas have made a mistake in their calculations, then I have got to believe that this mistake has been repeated throughout their years of work. Lets face it, I guess that they didn't start out expecting to see OU and when they did they would have asked the same questions as we are doing: is it a mistake ? Are we going to look like total idiots if we say we have something that turns out not to be true? Patenting is anything low cost, designing energy self sufficient buildings, vehicles etc., to go through all that expense just for a more efficient way of draining a battery doesn't add up. Having said all that I had the same feeling looking at Potapov's setup in Moldova so that says something about my judgement. No overall I think that the most compelling piece of evidence that they are legit lies in IE. page 22. If you were indeed a set of dodgy characters trying to solicit investment funds would you submit photo's of your selves posing as middle eastern terrorists? Mike Butcher The Alcuin Foundation From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 18:10:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA28722; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960703205545_100433.1541_BHG108-1@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: Correa coverage X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In response to all the complaints about the tone of the coverage of the Correa device in IE, I would suggest that this is misplaced. Some feel that the magazine's credibility is at risk of injury from Gene's positive appraisal, others that the coverage is incomplete. Clearly Gene's assessment must be based on rather more than the technical data given in the magazine. Let us consider two possibilities. First, that the Correa device is 'good'. If that is so, then the coverage will later be seen as sober, well-judged and so forth - on the basis that success is always praised. The early publicity in IE will then have assisted the Correas. For examples of sheer downright bad work escaping criticism for that reason, I would cite reports that the initial '1-2-3' HT superconductor paper had a deliberate falsification of one of the ingredients, this 'error' being corrected at the last possible moment before publication. Or the much-criticised work of Millikan, who appears from his notebooks to have indulged in 'pathological science'. He of course got his Nobel, while his competitor who published the straight data got nothing. The other possibility - that the Correa device is in error - would mean that the coverage in IE was misplaced. Yet I suggest that this would also probably mean that a full test will have been done more quickly - to the eventual benefit of all. And, most especially, IE would PUBLISH the results of any properly-done negative tests. IE would cheerfully admit error. Contrast this behaviour with that of those journals and magazines which took it upon themselves in 1989 to 'clean the house of science', to 'show the young that science is not done that way', and who contributed to (and even cheered on) the hounding of Fleischmann and Pons. When have they reported the positive papers? Have they admitted that there might be the slightest chance that they might be wrong? Never. Their behaviour was and has continued to be a disgrace to their profession. Even had Fleischmann and Pons been guilty of gross error in more than merely the nuclear measurements, then the science press would have been guilty of promoting a system which penalises risk-taking and error, and rewards the dull plodders of science. I personally feel that Gene has provided - effectively single-handed, largely unfunded and while working as a high school teacher - a magazine of astonishing quality; and that those who attack the magazine over this particular issue are merely cavilling, and lack perspective. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 18:10:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA28924; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960703182416_569543085@emout13.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: simple X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Subj: Re: gravity/Stenger's question Date: 96-07-03 03:43:50 EDT From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-to: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com (Multiple recipients of list) >hheffner wrote. > > Gravity and energy, there is a simple way to look at that. Mass and energy are synonymous. You can't have one without at the same time having the other. Create energy and you have created mass, and vice versa. Create mass and you have created gravity. No matter how you formulate it, you can't get around all that. No QM necessary. Easy! ............................................................................. .......................................... Horrace you have begun to under the makings of ZPE. You said, "Create mass and you Create Gravity" True True True!!! The opposite is also true "Create gravity and you Create energy" There is no law of the conservation of gravity!!! It is possible to create gravity. Fields are NOT conserved. Gravity is a field and it is not conserved. ............................................................................. ..................................... Frank S Gravity is easy to understand. Don't be intimidated by it!! You know the laws of electromagnetic induction. A changing electric field produces a magnetic field and vice versa. E = k di/dt The same rules apply to all fields. Gravity produces a changing momentum and vise versa a changing momentum produces gravity. G = k (dp/dt) The constant K is the only thing that is different. For a fellow who can numerically solve a system of improper convergent three dimensional differential equations...how can this simple idea give you a fright? ............................................................................. .......................................... Frank S & Horrace I differ in my view of ball lightning. I do not believe ball lightning is stored energy at all. Ball lightning produces new energy through a zero point process. The plasma density of the ball lightning is dense enough to interact with matters zero point energy levels. This interaction occurs though a process known as evanescence. The interaction results in forces. These forces induce gravity. Positive energy follows the induction of the gravitation field. The zero point system does not loose any energy in the process. ZP systems are already at their minimum energy. They cannot give up any energy. They can, however, exert forces. These spontaneous forces induce gravity. New energy results along with the extra gravity. I believe that this is how the universe formed. See my paper on weird science, "The Genesis of the Universe and Zero Point Energy" These ideas are so simple. Why does everyone have trouble with them? Frank Z fznidarsic@aol.com From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 21:12:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA02794; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960703220540.34073c32@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: Correa and IE coverage X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:01 PM 7/3/96 -0700, Chris wrote: >In response to all the complaints about the tone of the coverage of the Correa >device in IE, I would suggest that this is misplaced. Some feel that the >magazine's credibility is at risk of injury from Gene's positive appraisal, >others that the coverage is incomplete. > >Clearly Gene's assessment must be based on rather more than the technical data >given in the magazine. > would that be prudent? what else could you be speaking of? ============================================= >Let us consider two possibilities. First, that the Correa device is 'good'. If >that is so, then the coverage will later be seen as sober, well-judged and so >forth - on the basis that success is always praised. The early publicity in IE >will then have assisted the Correas. > >For examples of sheer downright bad work escaping criticism for that reason, I >would cite reports that the initial '1-2-3' HT superconductor paper had a >deliberate falsification of one of the ingredients, this 'error' being corrected >at the last possible moment before publication. Or the much-criticised work of >Millikan, who appears from his notebooks to have indulged in 'pathological >science'. He of course got his Nobel, while his competitor who published the >straight data got nothing. > >The other possibility - that the Correa device is in error - would mean that the >coverage in IE was misplaced. Yet I suggest that this would also probably mean >that a full test will have been done more quickly - to the eventual benefit of >all. > no. IMHO there are three possibilities. 1) ordinary under unity physics 2) over unity physics 3) errors (or misinterpretations of data) of several types. ============================================= >And, most especially, IE would PUBLISH the results of any properly-done negative >tests. IE would cheerfully admit error. Contrast this behaviour with that of >those journals and magazines which took it upon themselves in 1989 to 'clean the >house of science', to 'show the young that science is not done that way', and >who contributed to (and even cheered on) the hounding of Fleischmann and Pons. >When have they reported the positive papers? Have they admitted that there >might be the slightest chance that they might be wrong? Never. > you seem to be anthropormorphisizing the mags. the authors of a few key negative papers did appear to actually have data which was consistent with the cold fusion (Pd,D2O) effect. is not the onus on the writers and not the journals? [BTW this does not condone obstructions to publishing or the attacks on the cf community by some of the publishers and/or editors] ============================================= >Their behaviour was and has continued to be a disgrace to their profession. >Even had Fleischmann and Pons been guilty of gross error in more than merely the >nuclear measurements, then the science press would have been guilty of promoting >a system which penalises risk-taking and error, and rewards the dull plodders of >science. > it would actually appear that the events are mutually independent, and each party must take independent responsibility. no? Also, the 'system' (and now the NET it does seem) promote a system which penalizes risk-taking and rewards both "the dull plodders of science" and the electro-terrorists who now with their copious but albeit illiterate posts (consistent with their lack of experience and/or knowledge of the subject) have pushed cold fusion right off of s.p.f. ============================================= >I personally feel that Gene has provided - effectively single-handed, largely >unfunded and while working as a high school teacher - a magazine of astonishing >quality; and that those who attack the magazine over this particular issue are >merely cavilling, and lack perspective. > there have not been any attacks on Gene or the mag, just serious questions of purported inadequate data, ambiguous graphs, etc. perhaps you might not take it so personally. or have i missed something? Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 21:12:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA02794; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960703220540.34073c32@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: Correa and IE coverage X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:01 PM 7/3/96 -0700, Chris wrote: >In response to all the complaints about the tone of the coverage of the Correa >device in IE, I would suggest that this is misplaced. Some feel that the >magazine's credibility is at risk of injury from Gene's positive appraisal, >others that the coverage is incomplete. > >Clearly Gene's assessment must be based on rather more than the technical data >given in the magazine. > would that be prudent? what else could you be speaking of? ============================================= >Let us consider two possibilities. First, that the Correa device is 'good'. If >that is so, then the coverage will later be seen as sober, well-judged and so >forth - on the basis that success is always praised. The early publicity in IE >will then have assisted the Correas. > >For examples of sheer downright bad work escaping criticism for that reason, I >would cite reports that the initial '1-2-3' HT superconductor paper had a >deliberate falsification of one of the ingredients, this 'error' being corrected >at the last possible moment before publication. Or the much-criticised work of >Millikan, who appears from his notebooks to have indulged in 'pathological >science'. He of course got his Nobel, while his competitor who published the >straight data got nothing. > >The other possibility - that the Correa device is in error - would mean that the >coverage in IE was misplaced. Yet I suggest that this would also probably mean >that a full test will have been done more quickly - to the eventual benefit of >all. > no. IMHO there are three possibilities. 1) ordinary under unity physics 2) over unity physics 3) errors (or misinterpretations of data) of several types. ============================================= >And, most especially, IE would PUBLISH the results of any properly-done negative >tests. IE would cheerfully admit error. Contrast this behaviour with that of >those journals and magazines which took it upon themselves in 1989 to 'clean the >house of science', to 'show the young that science is not done that way', and >who contributed to (and even cheered on) the hounding of Fleischmann and Pons. >When have they reported the positive papers? Have they admitted that there >might be the slightest chance that they might be wrong? Never. > you seem to be anthropormorphisizing the mags. the authors of a few key negative papers did appear to actually have data which was consistent with the cold fusion (Pd,D2O) effect. is not the onus on the writers and not the journals? [BTW this does not condone obstructions to publishing or the attacks on the cf community by some of the publishers and/or editors] ============================================= >Their behaviour was and has continued to be a disgrace to their profession. >Even had Fleischmann and Pons been guilty of gross error in more than merely the >nuclear measurements, then the science press would have been guilty of promoting >a system which penalises risk-taking and error, and rewards the dull plodders of >science. > it would actually appear that the events are mutually independent, and each party must take independent responsibility. no? Also, the 'system' (and now the NET it does seem) promote a system which penalizes risk-taking and rewards both "the dull plodders of science" and the electro-terrorists who now with their copious but albeit illiterate posts (consistent with their lack of experience and/or knowledge of the subject) have pushed cold fusion right off of s.p.f. ============================================= >I personally feel that Gene has provided - effectively single-handed, largely >unfunded and while working as a high school teacher - a magazine of astonishing >quality; and that those who attack the magazine over this particular issue are >merely cavilling, and lack perspective. > there have not been any attacks on Gene or the mag, just serious questions of purported inadequate data, ambiguous graphs, etc. perhaps you might not take it so personally. or have i missed something? Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 22:03:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA14263; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 21:56:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 21:56:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DB4836.5FF0@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: simple X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: Snip: > These ideas are so simple. Why does everyone have trouble with them? > > Frank Z fznidarsic@aol.com Hi Frank! I know, I know - I've never been able to get hold of the idea of gravity having a major local, small-mass-level energy effect. To me it just seems that (except for planetary size effects) the electromagnetic force is in control. Remember, I can hold magnets in my hand and feel their force! I have felt the force on a small current-carying wire near an alnico magnet. I suppose, for an old mechanical engineer, these close-up forces that can change direction in my hand just seem more real than gravity (until I drop a hammer on my toe!) If you can come up with an experiment for my garage that shows this local tie between gravity and large local forces, I'm up for it! Frank, I never had more fun in my life than working with you to blow up my garage looking for both our versions of vaporthings! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 3 23:27:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29611; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 23:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 23:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31db5e35.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Correa, July 4. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jean wrote re. the Correa device: I firmly disagree, it is obvious that the Correa device has resulted from many years of highly PROFESSIONAL, very serious work. To reproduce it, is a difficult task even for electrotechnics/electronics engineers specialized in glow discharge but this is not a reason to postpone the publication of such an important, instructive information. According to this thinking, this group has not yet checked the Patterson Cell, and this means that the information re. this device working in self-sustained regime for many hours was also prematurely published. It is not advisable to discuss about the inventor's syndrome here but an other subject is the "invention's syndrome" i.e. the inventions are pathologically complex and do not enjoy reproduction. I think that it is advisable for everybody to study the books re. complexity recommended by Mike Carrell. A lot of useless complains could be avoided. I think Gene has to be commended for publishing about the Correa devices. It is a risk involved but risks are bound to everything worth to be considered. MAY I TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WISH OUR AMERICAN FRIENDS A VERY HAPPY AND SUCCESSFUL JULY 4! (JULY $$$$...!) Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 4 01:23:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA13659; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 01:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 01:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607040816.BAA01205@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Correa, July 4. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:21 PM 7/3/96 -0700, you wrote: >I think Gene has to be commended for publishing about the Correa >devices. It is a risk involved but risks are bound to everything >worth to be considered. I agree - publishing on "speculative science on the cutting edge of new research" has to have different standards, such as - "promising results", found by somebody who has tried reasonably to report in a reasonably specific manner which invites further scientific investigation, should be published for those who want to work on ideas, concepts, anomolies, technologies, etc. in the vanguard, unless there is a fairly heavy load of reasonable contra-indication. Let "wisdom" be the guide of "reasonableness". And let all of us allow others to manifest some "wisdom" in making such selections and passing it on to others. If people like Gene are only 30% right, he is still a goldmine. The worst you can say is that it sure beats the hell out of 90% of the fare in TV/Radio/Magazines/Books. > >MAY I TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WISH OUR AMERICAN FRIENDS >A VERY HAPPY AND SUCCESSFUL JULY 4! (JULY $$$$...!) >Peter > Thanks. I intend to have a great wonderful long weekend too. >-- >dr. Peter Gluck > >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 > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 4 18:32:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA07749; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 18:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 18:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960704212052_149163916@emout14.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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Gene has forwarded to me over 100 pages of mind-numbing patentese in three Correa patents with a request to do an assessment for a forthcoming issue of IE. I am mindful of several comments about the material published in IE 7, and share some of the reservations. The Correas were at the Denver conference in late April. Gene talked to them there and was impressed with their presentation, which I believe also included a demonstration. I believe he told me that the Correas could simply continually switch the input and output batteries and keep the process going, which would indicate that there is o/u performance despite the various uncertainties one could attribute to the documented procdures. At the time of this posting, I can't confirm this. Vortex is a collegial discussion group and IE is *fortunately* not a peer-reviewed journal. The energy release in hydrated metals is now so well established that it becoming almost respectable, but it's not time to slam the door on immigrants to our pleasant shores. Commercially manipulated radioactivity and transmutation may seem a bit, well, much -- but what else is happening in the Patterson cells? And the marvelous motors -- well Chris holds a shred of reservation even though he rode around London on a Takahashi-powered scooter. IE in the persons of Gene and Jed tested some YUSMAR vortex tubes will non-o/u results and so published, to their credit. They may have got it wrong, and there will be some tests at LANL this summer with Potapov present. IE reaches more of an audience than any of the Internet groups or the specialized newsletters. It presents depth and details and quality reporting more than anything else in the field. It has not wrapped itself in a mantle of "Authority", but stands very well on its own merits. BTW, the reluctance of big comapnies to take on these new technologies isn't necessarily evil or stupid, just a matter of responsibility to shareholders. Witness the many failures in the automobile business; Carlson's years of effort to get xerography to work, etc. and etc. Building a new industry with a process that "burns" nickel is a lot different than one which "burns" water. The Griggs and YUSMAR machines are scientifically interesting but so far fit into market niches -- including room heaters -- and won't in themselves change the world. If the inventor doesn't really understand how the device works, how can he explain it to others, and how can you make them by the zillion? Edison had a light bulb, but he had to invent and demonstrate the whole system to get an industry going. Even so, he was wrong in one vital respect -- his system ran on DC. Without Westinghouse's backing of Tesla and winning the war with the Edison interests, we wouldn't have much of an electrical industry today, compared with what it is. Tesla was not only a brilliant theorist, he designed elegant machines which worked better than what most of his contemporaries could do. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 02:10:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA28393; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 02:02:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 02:02:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31dbbbdc.50951709@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: Other experiments for Scott's beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Michael J. Schaffer wrote: >Glass expands less than most metals. This complicates eg. glass-metal >joints. Vacuum tubes, light bulbs, etc. use metal alloys for the >feedthrough leads and/or special glasses whose expansions match. > This is fine in situations where one can count on the metal having some structural integrity of its own, so that it expands evenly when heated. However for a hollow metal sphere, where the ratio of wall thickness to diameter is as small as it is in this case, one can't really count on the metal having any such structural integrity. This means that despite the fact that the expansion coefficient of metal is greater than that of glass, it is still very possible that the metal will split, as it will adhere to the glass in some spots, but not in others. >Plastics expand much more than metals. > [snip] While generally true, it may not be true of all plastics. I just wondered if this particular plastic was chosen because it might be an exception. 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 Jul 5 02:10:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA28469; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 02:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 02:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31dbccf1.55325363@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: the remining fields-Schaffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:16:54 -0700 (PDT), Robert I. Eachus wrote: [snip] >non-linear effects associated with electric charge. Run a comb >through your hair, or use your homemade van de Graff generator to put >a few kilovolts of charge on it. Now run the water in the sink at a >trickle, and bring the comb near it. The (uncharged) water is >deflected. How? The non-linear electric field created by the comb >causes the water to align itself in a minimal energy configuration, >basically like a magnet, but you are aligning positive and negative >charges, not north and south poles. So although there is no net >charge to the water the side closer to the comb is attracted, the >other side is repelled. Due to the square law, this results in a net >attraction, no matter what the sign of the charge on the comb. [snip] And I always thought that because the water came through an earthed pipe, it always had a net charge opposite to that on the comb, and was thus attracted to it. 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 Jul 5 03:54:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA04854; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 03:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 03:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960705104201_100433.1541_BHG70-1@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: Re: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Mike writes: > I believe he told me that the Correas could simply continually > switch the input and output batteries and keep the process going, > which would indicate that there is o/u performance despite the > various uncertainties one could attribute to the documented > procdures. At the time of this posting, I can't confirm this. I can. That is exactly what Gene told me, too; namely that the Correas reported success with this procedure. > And the marvelous motors -- well Chris holds a shred of > reservation even though he rode around London on a > Takahashi-powered scooter. Chris holds much more than a 'shred' of reservation. I was able to make measurements which *looked* decidedly odd but which *proved* nothing. However, I was able to determine that Takahashi must be either genuine or a fraud - because he claimed as genuine a video tape he showed us, with a disconnected motor/generator driving an alternator driving two car headlamp bulbs. We can perhaps take as evidence of his competence and reliability the fact that his famous magnets appear to outperform even *his* unlikely claims. On the other hand, I'm too old a bunny not to realise that a person can make one honest and one dishonest claim at the same time. Note that I am simply listing possibilities here, I make no accusation of any kind. > IE reaches more of an audience than any of the Internet groups or > the specialized newsletters. It presents depth and details and > quality reporting more than anything else in the field. It has not > wrapped itself in a mantle of "Authority", but stands very well on > its own merits. Quite. It may also be a 'first' in the history of magazine publishing that a single person has edited, produced, had printed and distributed - let alone handled all subscriptions and marketing and advertising - while doing a full-time job. I'm not suggesting that all this means that 'allowances should be made' - far from it. Merely that acknowledgement of the achievement be made, and that IE should be judged by its overall quality and its intellectual honesty, as well as by any flaws which it may have. It is one of those curiosities of life that the 'cop-out' of the 'skeptical' view is regarded as sober and responsible, whilst any error made in the other direction is jeered mightily. A 'cop-out'? Of course it is. The 'skeptic' - a word now so debased that its true meaning often is 'one who takes refuge in adherence to the accepted view' - can vilify or condemn anyone who steps out of line, safe in the knowledge that he can later change his view without losing credibilty, and will be able to say: "Despite my previous reservations, I am now delighted to see that more careful and competent work has indeed confirmed my original inner feelings that ... bla bla." I well recall one occasion when a person with whom I had sparred for years said quietly, "What a bloody idiot I have been." An honest opponent, and I admired his saying that. I'd like to feel I would do that, and I wish I were *sure* I would. (Or *will*?) Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 07:04:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA21869; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 06:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 06:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31dd2a74.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Two papers, one annoumcement. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexers, In Current Contents no 27/1996 I have found two, potentially interesting papers: a) Y Y Tevtul: " Thermal phenomena at the electrodes during the electrolysis from aqueous solutions of certain metal salts." Russian Journal of Electrochemistry 32:5 May 1996 pp 535-540 Is this actually a CF paper? b)M C Chu: "The homologous contraction of a sonoluminescence bubble" Physical Review Letters 76:24 (Jun 10, 1996) pp 4632- 4635. I take this opportunity to announce my Vortex friends that our ( Potapov senior, Potapov junior and I) travel to Los Alamos will start Sunday, July 14. Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck 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 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 07:47:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA27217; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 07:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 07:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607051423.KAA25417@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Schaffer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Are your pulses too slow? We found that with pulses with rise times of over 250 microseconds ball lightning, coronal arcing, etc. were not a problem. But take the choke out of the circut, and you had better have straight wires or you will have all sorts of problems, including ball lightning. Of course, when I was working on this, the goal was bright lights, not ball lightning, I saw one (small short-lived) ball, which left a track on the workbench and a technician saw another, but in both cases they were symptoms of equipment failure. (In one case a high voltage induced short in the choke coil, in the other an arc to ground.) The high-voltage, high-current circut we were working with was very simple if you ignore the charging and triggering sections. A low-pressure helical Xenon tube, a 5 Kvolt capacitor bank with varying numbers of capacitors, and a choke coil all in a loop. The trigger pulse went through a secondary ten-turn winding on the choke coil, and caused both an avalanche in the Xenon tube, and the iron choke core to saturate, so that it was effectively an air core until the current reversed. The charging circut had enough inductance so that it was out of the picture when a pulse fired. Why all this detail? Well that choke was one hell of a magnetic field generator, the ball lighting in both cases was within a few inches of it, and in both cases the field was collapsing, not static. Safety note. Frank may want holes in his trashcan, and this should be enough hints to make some. But work with either 1) all your apparatus (and the trashcan ;-) inside a Faraday cage, 2) with you inside a Faraday cage, or 3) at least fifty yards away from your apparatus. Even without ball lightning, coronal discharge is painful, and the magnetic fields can do nasty things to mechanical watches, even good ones. :-( After the second dead watch, we put well grounded window screen all around the workbench, with a counter-weighted and hinged door in front. We kept a screen patch kit handy and used it when intentionally or otherwise we had fast pulses. (This probably made the FCC happier as well. If we used an external trigger with no choke, the capacitors and tube resonated in the AM band, and as much as 20% of the pulse energy was radiated there.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 11:25:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA04902; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 11:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 11:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DD5B28.1207@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Eachus X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert I. Eachus wrote: (Safety and fast-pulse details) > Good points Robert! Frank Z. and I would leave the garage for a shot! Interesting to note that the EM pulse and/or the light flash would always saturate the camcorder electronics for the first few frames of the shots. I agree that the fast-pulse stuff might be more interesting than the slow pulse. My electrolytic caps and system are slow, so, in many tests I store energy in an inductor near current peak, and then try to come up with ways to interrupt the current flow in a few microseconds - with the intent of causing large voltage surges - a-la the induction coil effect. One of my speculations is that the magnetic pinch effect might cause such fast switch-off effects in large natural lightning strokes. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 11:43:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA06703; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 11:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 11:27:11 -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: Le' Mort De-Amber... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Le' Mort De-Amber... Mark Hugo had to put away his 18 year old dog today. He is saddened, but happy for her many wonderful years of company. She was a firm supporter of his Cold Fusion work, whenever he said "Cold Fusion" she would bark, and whenever he said, "Frank Close" or sneezed and said "Huzinga" she would howl. - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 12:50:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA18992; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:40:12 -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: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I recently posted some ideas regading a Suddenly Relectant Torus (SRT). The idea behind the SRT was to stretch permanent magnet flux lines in a ferromagnetic torroidal core around the surface of a metallic sphere and then suddenly cause them to snap across the interior of the sphere by driving the flux out of the core using transverse fields driven across the core, thus in effect increasing it's reluctance. The permanent magnets alternated with ferromagnetic material which is surrounded by the transverse flux cores and coils could be arranged in a simple circular form outside the equator of the sphere, or possibly of much more significance, in a symmetrical pattern similar to seams on a baseball. Such a surface pattern could be significantly more complex, involving vaious convolutions of the loops. The sphere should be reflective to EM wavelengths that may be involved inside it, but not conductive in a large loop as it would then become a seconday coil to the core. An object located in the center of such a sphere should experience significant electromagnetic agitation focused upon it. Such a gadget might be useful for various kinds of EM studies, including possibly the momentum induced entangling of flux lines upon collapse. There are other means of providing electromagnetic agitation inside the sphere. One might be using N inward near S inward magnets all over the outside of the sphere (which would inject a flux loop inside the metallic sphere) and driving them like flyback transformers so the flux can penetrate the sphere but the flyback generates an EM pulse. This would have the disadvantage that the flux lines would not be driven through the cneter of the sphere. Another means might be to incorporate antenna shapes (lobes) by bordering the desired patterns with slits cut out of the surface of the spere. The slits would have to be small enough that they did not reduce the reflectivity of the sphere for the EM wavelength desired to be utilized inside the sphere, yet large enough to insert the required ceramic insulation. This has the advantage of being able to drive the sphere at a resonant frequency, but the difficulties of balancing insulating needs with mirror reflection efficiency. Of special interest to me is the possibility of using the resulting spherical EM disruption to pump a MASER inside the sphere. The idea is to magnetically pump at one frequency and have the frequency boosted inside the sphere to a higher and resonating frequency, especially in a longitudinal wave resonating pattern focused on the center of the sphere. The objective would be to include a fusable gas inside the sphere (e.g. D2 + T2), so the gas mixture would have the tall order of having to both MASE and be capable of fusion. The idea is to have a plasma ball in the focal point that expands and contracts at the resonant frequency. An efficient masing requires the EM wavelength to be long enough that the sphere surface, which has seams, flaws, etc, can be adequately reflective. An interresting benefit to this approach is that there is no limit (besides the all important cash and structural limitations) to the size of the sphere. Any desired degree of energy density can be achieved at the focal point, and continuous operation is feasible. Some questions: 1. I assume a spherical MASER has been considered for fusion. Anybody have any info regarding such? 2. Is it feasible to use H at some pressure to mase in the radio bandwidth? 3. Is it feasible to mase water? 4. Any suggestions for a masing medium for the inside of such a sphere? Any other suggested geometry? Eg, CO2 would work well except it lases in the UV range, so the mirror would have to highly polished and seamless. Maybe two parabolic reflectors would work though. The CO2 would ionize at the focal point though, and destroy the masing medium. Good only for short use. Dirties up the fusion also. Hot gas convection would also disrupt the focus. 5. I am interrested in interlocked magnetic core (like chain link) transformers, where the secondary core is biased by a permanent magnet. I have no reference for this. Just analyzing, under non-saturation conditions, it appears that the secondary core winding is driven at twice the frequency of the primary, and Vs = k*d(|Ip|)/dt, where Vs = voltage on secondary coil on secondary core, Ip = current on primary coil on primary core. Is this true? Are there any currently in print references I can buy on this kind of thing? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 12:59:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20615; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607051940.PAA19475@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Eachus X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Good points Robert! Frank Z. and I would leave the garage for a > shot! I really suggest buying some screening. Even if you have a shielding box open on one side, your neighbors will probably thank you. You can get kilowatts into the AM band. (Even though it is only a few joules spread over 20 microseconds.) > Interesting to note that the EM pulse and/or the light flash would > always saturate the camcorder electronics for the first few frames of > the shots. Kerr cells? Streak photography? Ah, I have it at this level--use a rotating mirror, and time your discharge off it. > I agree that the fast-pulse stuff might be more interesting than the > slow pulse. My electrolytic caps and system are slow, so, in many tests > I store energy in an inductor near current peak, and then try to come > up with ways to interrupt the current flow in a few microseconds - > with the intent of causing large voltage surges - a-la the induction > coil effect. One of my speculations is that the magnetic pinch effect > might cause such fast switch-off effects in large natural lightning > strokes. Exactly. You wind up studying the properties of magnetic materials, and how much of an air gap will buy what you want. But even "slow" capacitors can give you quite a bang for the buck. We found best results when the capacitors and inductors in the circut stored the same amount of energy. Let me rephrase that. The capacitors and inductors stored the same amount of energy. We just had problems when the energy in the capacitors caused overvoltages across the inductance coils or vice-versa. One last word of advice. You can have fun cryocooling your inductors. But if you don't want to do that, you end up using some pretty large cross-section single-strand wire. Aluminum is easier to work and easier to carry around--the steel is heavy enough--but the best way we found to get decent insulation is to use a porous sleeve around varnished wire and pot in epoxy. You also want to heavily insulate the lead to the start of the coil. Remember it will be at tens of kilovolts with respect to other layers of the coil, and that was the number one failure location. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 13:09:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20718; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Steve Ekwall To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Related NEWS(?) fyi-only X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Todays 'BUSINESS Section' of our Rocky Mountain News (Denver Colorado/usa) news#=(303)892-5157 / fax#=(303)892-2835 / e-mail biz-rmn@csn.net pg 4B/ This story seems/may/could have interest in the hydrogen group talks?? didn't know if it ran in all papers world-wide, but here it is: Verbatim: (header) "Electrifying promise of fuel cells" Lrg Font (leader) "Process converts hydrogen, oxygen into non-polluting (leader) energy that can power autos" Medium Font (news by) By Glenn Hall ----------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg Business News (news) BURNABY, British Columbia -- Cars running on zero-emmission hydrogen fuel cells don't have much need for an exhaust pipe, though a faucet might not be a bad idea. Pure water is the only byproduct of vehicles using the fuel cell sys-tem developed by Canada's Ballard Power Systems Inc. The technology, which creates electricity without combustion, is expected to bring Ballard to profit in the coming years after mounting losses during the 10-year development phase, said chief executive Firoz Rasul. "I believe the technology is ready," Rasul said, adding that the company is banking on environmental regulations to spur demand for its only product. "Exactly when the vehicle is put on the road is really a decision made by the auto companies." Carmakers, though, say it could be 10 years or longer before fuel cell systems are ready to compete with conventional internal combustion engines, which are currently smaller, more powerful and less expensive. Borrowed and shrunk from manned space programs, fuel cells are portable power plants that use an electrochemical process to convert hydrogen and oxygen into electricity to run the car. There are few moving parts, no sparks and no fumes. Last month, Daimler-Benz AG unveiled a working prototype powered by Ballard's system. Except for bulky rooftop hydrogen tanks, the fuel cell system fit under the hood and seats of a Vito mini-van made by Daimler's car-making unit, Mercedes-Benz AG. While the latest mini-van version is still a rolling research lab, Mercedes chief executive Helmut Werner said he is optimistic the technology will find a "permanent place" in his company's lineup, perhaps within a dozen years. "We are making faster headway than expected," Werner said last month at the unveiling of the lastest version, dubbed NECAR II, an acronym for New Electric Car II. NECAR II, which Daimler said is the world's first cell-powered passenger car, has a top speed of about 68 mph with a range of about 155 miles on full hydrogen tanks. Although it's already smaller than a previous version, Werner said he would like to squeeze the system into the compact A-class cars Mercedes plans to introduce in 1998. GM joined Ballard in 1990 to develop a fuel cell system under two contracts from the U.S. Department of Energy worth a combined $49 million. -----------------------------end of news-----------------fyi-only-- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 12:56:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20810; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960705194345_100433.1541_BHG31-1@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: Re: Le Mort D'Amber... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark, > Mark Hugo had to put away his 18 year old dog today. He is > saddened, but happy for her many wonderful years of company. She > was a firm supporter of his Cold Fusion work, whenever he said > "Cold Fusion" she would bark Allow me to extend my sympathy. And my congratulations on so long an association with such a discerning creature. We had a total of five cats, each of singular character, two of which died from old age, the others cut down by cars. After two such incidents within six months, I've sort of given up on pets. But I do know that each of them enjoyed life hugely, especially the very last one, a ferocious, savage and generally delightful ginger male. Here's to them all, wherever they may be! Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 13:00:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20866; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960705154911_231573385@emout19.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: Le' Mort De-Amber... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark, You have my condolences for sending Amber to the Great Beyond. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 16:09:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA18341; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 15:59:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 15:59:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: You seem to be thinking about a plasma in some kind of stationary equilibrium with a spherical wave that heats it for fusion. Main problem is that the plasma is not confined. Hot plasmas loose energy at enormous rates. Hence the two main thrusts within controlled fusion reserach: 1) magnetically confine the plasma (both holds it in place and profides "magneto-thermal" insulation against some forms of heat loss), and 2) "inertial" fusion, in which the plasma is imploded extremely rapidly (compression heatint; about 1 NANOsec) to high density and temperature. This is essentially a micro H-bomb, but with a non-nuclear trigger--laser or particle beam. When it is a laser, the appropriate wavelength in ultra violet. You won't get anywhere near where you have to be using capacitors, inductors, etc. 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 Jul 5 19:59:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA21124; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 19:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 19:53:43 -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: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >You seem to be thinking about a plasma in some kind of stationary >equilibrium with a spherical wave that heats it for fusion. Main problem >is that the plasma is not confined. Hot plasmas loose energy at enormous >rates. Hence the two main thrusts within controlled fusion reserach: 1) >magnetically confine the plasma (both holds it in place and profides >"magneto-thermal" insulation against some forms of heat loss), and 2) >"inertial" fusion, in which the plasma is imploded extremely rapidly >(compression heatint; about 1 NANOsec) to high density and temperature. >This is essentially a micro H-bomb, but with a non-nuclear trigger--laser >or particle beam. When it is a laser, the appropriate wavelength in ultra >violet. You won't get anywhere near where you have to be using capacitors, >inductors, etc. > > >Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Thanks for your comments. you might be right about all this, but I would still like to advocate for the idea. 1. I really do mean resonance, not equilibrium. I could be mistaken but I think there is a big difference here. By resonance I mean that most of the energy simply goes back and forth to the walls of the sphere. A small added signal in phase or a pumping mecanism like in a MASER results in much higher energy densities at the focal point than a single direct pulse. The important, and difficult, thing is to get the reflected or pass-through energy back to the focal point in phase during the next cycle. It is energy recycling. One blast with a laser and you recharge for a while. All the energy is blown in one shot. And you need all that fancy light ducting and focusing equipment, and big lasers. Yuck. Seems like you could pay for a mighty large sphere for that kind of price. 2. The objective is to make the plasma self confining through it's own momentum, and the momentum of the surroundings. This might be enhanced by a kind of dual resonance, an accoustic resonance combined with an EM resonance. The EM resonance would cotinually heat the central region, but the accoustic resonance would provide the initial hammer, as in sonoluminescence. Alternatively, maybe just a plain water core tuned with the SRT is a good idea. That way you get a double hammer. Enough energy from the EMP and you don't even need piezoelectric transducers. The water could accoustically stimulate itself with the shock wave of the expanding central plasma. The energy from such a gadget, if ou, could be extracted by piezoelectrics on the edge of the sphere. I think the simulation work we saw from LLNL indicated you could get more from improving the sharpness of the hammer. The excellent timing of an EMP could be just the ticket to do just that when the ball is at maximum acoustic compression. However, suppose we want to operate at 10^7 deg. K. D2 at atmospheric pressure has a thermal conductivity of 1.66 mW/(cm * deg. K). Suppose the sphere is 100 m or 10^4 cm. radius. That is an average temperature differential of 10^7/10^4 or 1000 deg. K per centimeter. Using the area of the sphere at 50 m, which is 12.57 (2500m^2) = 7.9 x 10^11 cm^2. So the total heat flux through a 1 cm layer at the midpoint would be about (1.66 mW/(cm * deg K))*(7.9 x 10^11 cm^2)/(1/ cm) = 1264 MW. I think the trick is probably getting the 1200 MW out of a near atmospheric pressure gas. It's going to take a lot of it. However, there may be some other confinement tricks to use to help get the pressure well up above atmospheric. 3. There may be many ways to reach the lawson criteria. I think, in the case of a hot plasma device, starting with an already hot plasma before the compression should be helpful. I think, if these ideas are practicable at all, the overall sphere would probably have to operate under a high pressure to maintain a high H2 density surrounding the focal point. The loss of heat is OK if much of it returns on the ensuing compression cycle. It's not like the plasma would be located in a vaccum. There would be a heat gradient all the way to the water cooled spherical jacket. However this could be quite a long distance in a production reactor. It would not be like a tokamak where there is a vacuum to the wall and heat and mass loss is almost instantaneous. *Some* heat conduction would be necessary to pull off the production heat. The use of a large H2 blanket could greatly reduce neutron side effects as well, by moderating the neutrons and producing T and heat. There is no theoretical limit to the sphere size, so that heat gradient could go for a long distance. There is also no theoretical limit to the input energy. 4. I would like to repectfully point out that a tokamak is just a bunch of capacitors, inductors, etc.. Can't say much more for the confinement gadgets. A gadget is a gadget. A refined gadget, well that's another thing all together! :) The question is how long it takes to refine and what it costs to build. The beauty of plasma physics is the degree of refinement it has already reached. 5. There may be unkown positive effects of flux twisting/knotting flux in the center of the sphere, or other unanticipated phenomena associated with such a device. As we have seen with the tokamak, these can be either good or bad. In addition, additional confinement enhancing methods might possibly engineered. 6. What is suggested is possibly a new experimental medium from which enhancements might spring. There are lots of degrees of freedom, and variations, some of which can be built by amateurs. Today's tokamaks and technology are much more sophisticated than the first feable attempts at fusion. It might be worth a little pilot to get some hands on experience and some data. Besides, there are other uses for such things, like EMP testing. 7. UV was not precluded. In fact it was specifically mentioned. It's just that there are some difficulties with CO2. Maybe a hydrogen and boron environment would be superior. The cooling would not be water then, though. It would be pretty nifty to get a gas to lase in the xray spectrum. Not likely though, eh? 8. I realize some numbers and a few experiments are in order on my part, but I'm working on that. Still looking for input. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 20:47:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA26669; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 20:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 20:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607060337.WAA23875@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: Champion's claims X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Today I spoke with John Williams, the refiner of precious metals that Joe Champion quoted here a few days ago. John said that samples provided to him by Champion that had originally shown little or no precious metal content on a "standard" atomic emission spectrometer were observed to show commercially interesting quantities of various precious metals when a very long "burn time" was used in the emission spectrometer. The apparent explanation for this is that the standard atomic emission analysis, which involves a 15 or 20 second "burn" vaporizes only the lower boiling-point elements in the sample, such as Fe, Cu, Pb, Zn, etc. Only when the burn time is extended to 100 seconds or more do the more refractory elements begin to vaporize (and thus become detectable). This seems reasonable but, as usual, I still have questions. Does any Vortex member have information about this aspect of emission spectroscopy? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 21:03:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA28437; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 20:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 20:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DDE306.2FB5@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Eachus-2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert I. Eachus wrote: More good advice on high-voltage pulse circuits. Robert, it helps that I live on 53 acres with no real-close neighbors to which I don't enjoy some pay-back for their ATV's, high-powered off-road racing rig engines, etc. About 300 microseconds of wide-band RF noise once every year or so serves them right! It turns out that my inductor is about a 5 foot long rigid coaxial conductor. The inner conductor is a 3/8 inch dia. solid aluminum rod. the outer conductor is formed from four, 1/4 in. X 1 in. solid aluminum bars, equi-spaced on a circle concentric with the 3/8 in. rod. Each opposite bar pair is separated by about 4 3/4 inches. I calculated the line inductance at about 0.8 micro henrys. So, at my current peak of about 200 kiloamps, the stored inductive energy should be about: E = 1/2 L I^2 = (1/2)*(8 X 10^-7)*(2 X 10^5)^2 joules = about 16,000 joules. If I could linear-ramp the current from 200 kiloamp to zero in T seconds, my inductive forward voltage would be: V = - L dI/dt or, say - L (delta I)/(delta t) volts. For delta t in microseconds forward inductive voltage, volts 100 1600 10 16000 somewhere in here I start to worry about coax insulation 1 160000 somewhere in here I might get electron-positron pair formation if my magic switch is short enough! Also, I really have to worry about my coax insulation! 0.1 microsec. 1,600,000 volts Let me know if you guys have any good ideas for a 1/10 microsec switch to open 200 kiloamps, across a very small gap! Dream on with -----------Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 21:30:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01407; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 21:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 21:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DDE92B.2BC4@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > Super snip: > > Still looking for input. > Man, this looks complex, Horace! Not too much input except, in your large spherical systems with a hot gas core - by any method - I would think the thermal convection currents would soon be huge, no? (Maybe this is one thing Michael S. was talking about?) Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 21:48:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA03959; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 21:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 21:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960706042135_72240.1256_EHB151-1@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: Vortex, s.p.f., Internet improvements X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Jones and Mitch Swartz have both said it is a shame that CF is no longer discussed much on Internet, particularly in s.p.f. Jones suggested we should come out fighting. Swartz described "the electro-terrorists who now with their copious but albeit illiterate posts (consistent with their lack of experience and/or knowledge of the subject) have pushed cold fusion right off of s.p.f." I feel that these concerns are misplaced. As I see it, the structure of Internet has improved over the last few years, marginalizing s.p.f. Newsgroups no longer matter. The World Wide Web and orderly discussion groups like Vortex are much better. All we have to do is post an occasional message on s.p.f. advertising our Home Pages. I have been meaning to do that for weeks; Mitch Swartz's comments spurred me to action. My Home Page points to others, including Mitch's, John Logajan's, Bill Beaty's et cetera. Chris Tinsley aptly described the role of Infinite Energy magazine, and its editorial stance. Let me describe my view of the changing role of Internet and cold fusion. I'll start by giving credit to Bruce Lewenstein (bvl1@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu) who wrote some excellent papers about this years ago. As I see it, free market competition forced the Internet to evolve and ameliorate some of the problems he described. As many readers know, I used to post many messages on s.p.f. :-}, but I no longer do so. I did this for only two reasons: for the fun of it; and in order to spread the word to *a small number of smart people*. I never expected to win any arguments or generate widespread interest. I figured that if s.p.f. was 99% anti-CF and 1% pro, a few good smart people who are sincerely interested in the subject will latch on to that 1% and ignore the rest. I was right: a few good people did latch on, and they came right here to Vortex. Everything worked out beautifully. We can pick up more good people by posting the advertisement every month. A few sincerely interested people will look up the Home Page, and find pointers to Bill Beaty Home Page, which will eventually lead them to this discussion group. People who cannot access the WWW will contact me directly. A few months ago, I suggested to Bill that we post direct instructions on s.p.f. for signing up on Vortex, but he wisely vetoed the idea. He thinks we should make it little difficult. People have to do a little homework to find us. Internet Newsgroups and CompuServe forums have many built-in problems which can all be fixed with a carefully written Home Page: 1. Messages scroll off from Newsgroups. If you want to maintain a presence and re-enforce your point of view, you have to keep posting new messages. It is not good form to repeat yourself verbatim, so you have to keep thinking up new ways to express the same ideas. With a Home Page, you say it once. 2. The information in a Newsgroup is not organized. Messages are not carefully written or thought out, and they cannot be revised. Home Pages have tools to impose organization. 3. There is no institutional memory. New readers who know nothing about the subject come along and start the same arguments over and over again. The discussion degenerates in a form of amnesia described in the book "The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat." 4. There are no rules. A serious academic or scientific discussion must follow traditional rules. Otherwise, you cannot keep score: it is like playing tennis without a net, or doing an experiment without taking data. In science, you have to present evidence, references, and quantitative analysis. When people challenge your conclusions, you have to show how you reached them. You must follow the rules of logic. And a measure of stuffy academic decorum does wonders. 5. The debate often degenerates into "debunkery" as defined by D. Drasin. 6. A Home Page reflects one author's coherent point of view, rather than a mish-mash of pro-and-con ideas mixed together in a stream of text, some contributed by people who haven't got the slightest idea what they are talking about. The Home Page is the traditional way to formally argue an issue: one side at a time. You get the pro-CF arguments on my Home Page or Infinite Energy. If you want the anti-CF point of view you go read the back issues of Nature magazine. As far as I know there is no "skeptical" anti-CF home page. A Home Page is like a book, magazine or pamphlet. Freewheeling informal discussions are also valuable. That is why we need Vortex, conferences, pizza & beer. An Internet Newsgroup facilitates *only* freewheeling discussion; it does not allow formal debate. Those are some of the structural problems with Newsgroups. Let me list one cultural problem, in an unabashed appeal to elitism. An Internet Newsgroup is a lowest-common-denominator meeting place, like an AM radio talk show or graffiti on a wall. Such forums attract extremists and people who have nothing better to do than pick fights. Many cold fusion scientists are horrified by the invective and stupidity in the open forums. I myself find it hilarious. These low standards pervade other Newgroups too, dedicated to subjects like Japanese language and U.S. history. The standards are abysmal. In one hour, you can learn more about a subject in the (small) Chamblee Georgia library than you will learn in a year poking around on Internet Newsgroups. As I said, what we want here -- and what we got! -- is a small group of smart people. Not ten thousand monkeys pounding at keyboards hoping to recreate the works of Shakespeare, Fleischmann, or McKubre as the case may be. (Thirty years ago Bob Newhart did a WONDERFUL comedy routine about that: "To be or not to be, that is the gazornanplatz. Nope, try again . . .") Just because an electronic forum exists that is ostensibly dedicated to cold fusion, science or energy, that does not oblige us to pay attention to it. There are countless non-electronic forums that specialize in appalling stupidity. I ignore them. I do not call in to rabblerousing daytime talk shows. I have never even listened to one. I do not write letters to the editors of every newspaper, journal and magazine I read. I never argue with creationists. (But I sure do vote against them when they run for the local school board.) I never watch daytime sex-life confession shows or television news and I never hang around bars gabbing with winos about whatever it is they discuss. The Klu Klux Klan meets without me. I have no plans to attend the Democratic or Republican National Conventions, but I confess, I do love those stem-winder seconding speeches. I am also crazy about fireworks and demolition derbies. Internet has bifurcated, taking the CF debate with it. Serious discussion groups have emerged leaving the non-serious shouting-match groups to stew in their own juices. I see nothing wrong with this. They have their meeting place, we have ours. Some people contribute to both. Occasionally messages posted here are copied to s.p.f. There is nothing wrong with that either. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 22:24:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08974; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 22:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 22:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607060509.WAA16443@iberia.it.earthlink.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Randall To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Brown gas for car fuel X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:54 PM 7/1/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 01:38 AM 6/29/96 -0700, you wrote: > >>2) Much is not known of how the BG generator works or how it is constructed. >>Very little independent research in the new electrolysis mechanism has been >>done. There is speculation that a unique way of charging the water, that >>once the electrolysis starts it continues for prolong periods of time >>without further input current. Could the water act as a gate to tapping ZPE, >>ether, space energy? In my hydrolysis research unit I noticed anomalies >>that are not found in conventional electrolyzers. >> >>3) The design in Brown's patent and the Rhodes/Hene's patents are >>multi-layered of metal and water, similar to Reichs multi-layered orgone >>accumulators of metal and organic material. The water could act as the >>organic material and the the device as a water orgone accumulator tapping >>into the orgone energy as a source of the electrolysis current. The orgone >>blanket I made, worked for my headaches and muscle aches while a standard >>blanket or Bayer aspirin didn't work. Little is known where it comes from >>and what the orgone energy is- chi, the life force, bioenergy? Maybe a >>"water accumulator" could tap into this energy as an energy source. >> >>Cheers >> >>Michael Randall >> >> > >Well, I hate raining on parades, but the unit we experimented with ra pretty >much exactly as you would expect, it works when you turn it one, it stops >when you turn it off. The construction is very simple, very basic, two >series of interleaved plates to provide lots of electrode surface. It does >have a clever failsafe mechanism. > Correct. My comments were for the reason why and how the device creates this unique gas. It is a mystery to me why and how a simple pulsed dc current could create this gas with all of its unknown properties. Could it also be a combination of the circuit and the series interleaved plates? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 23:05:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA13179; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 22:56:28 -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: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> Super snip: >> >> Still looking for input. >> > >Man, this looks complex, Horace! Not too much input except, in your >large spherical systems with a hot gas core - by any method - I would >think the thermal convection currents would soon be huge, no? >(Maybe this is one thing Michael S. was talking about?) > >Frank Stenger Yes, you are right, absolutely, it's complex, and maybe unworkable. But maybe it is doable with some creative designs. For example, suppose the fusion ocurred in a pillar instead of a ball. The process would occur in a tower. The rising cool gas from the bottom of the tower would cool the sides of the fusion chamber, in addition to the liquid cooling provided from the back side. Additionally, the rising cool outside layer of gas would help maintain laminar flow and insulation. At the exit to the fusion chamber, the hot "burnt" gas could then be diverted slightly to the side by a gas jet to continue rising up a second offset "flue" where water would be injected and steam made. The cool, water laden, return gas could be dehumidified and then returned to the bottom of the fusion chamber. The reluctant torus, which is a closed loop, would be wrapped around both sides of the cylinder to proximity and then back, repeating the process, creating a kind of wave shape up the sides of the fusion cylinder. A laser could then provide the initial ionized core of the tower, and continue to heat and maintain the plasma for inductive heating. This would be one tall tower, though. Still lots of problems. Best to build the small version and look for anomalies in the center. "... and then a miracle happens ..." However, what about the sonoluminescence enhancer idea? A different set of problems. Still looking for input about interlocked biased core transformers, etc. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 23:11:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA14642; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607060557.WAA18365@iberia.it.earthlink.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Randall To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Champion's claims X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 08:43 PM 7/5/96 -0700, you wrote: >Today I spoke with John Williams, the refiner of precious metals that Joe >Champion quoted here a few days ago. > >John said that samples provided to him by Champion that had originally shown >little or no precious metal content on a "standard" atomic emission >spectrometer were observed to show commercially interesting quantities of >various precious metals when a very long "burn time" was used in the >emission spectrometer. > >The apparent explanation for this is that the standard atomic emission >analysis, which involves a 15 or 20 second "burn" vaporizes only the lower >boiling-point elements in the sample, such as Fe, Cu, Pb, Zn, etc. Only >when the burn time is extended to 100 seconds or more do the more refractory >elements begin to vaporize (and thus become detectable). > >This seems reasonable but, as usual, I still have questions. Does any Vortex >member have information about this aspect of emission spectroscopy? > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > Hi Scott, In Joe's book "Producing Precious Metals at Home", ISBN 1-884928-32-3, 1994, available from ITS bookstore, he explains in fine detail 'cookbook recipe' how to make and collect the precious metals as well as work done to confirm his findings by Texas A&M professors back in 1992. In answer to your above question, of "burn" time for emission spectroscopy can be found from a lecture David Hudson gave at Dean Stonier's 1994 Global Sciences Congress in Virgina Beach, available at Discovery Publishing website: http://www.netzone.com/~discpub/hudson1.html This process is called fractional vaporization by the Russians. Michael Randall From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 5 23:19:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA15572; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:16:17 -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: the remining fields-Eachus-2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >Let me know if you guys have any good ideas for a 1/10 microsec >switch to open 200 kiloamps, across a very small gap! > >Dream on with -----------Frank Stenger Blast a high speed plasma jet transversely across the gap. Maybe an ordinary carbide cannon would do, or blank cartridge. Depends on how long and wide the gap is and how fast your pulse will drive the plasma on. An exploding fine wire is good for a supersonic shock wave. I have some great wire for that purpose if you want some. It's no. 40 wire. Just put it next to the gap with backing so the plasma will shoot into and fill the gap when you detonate the wire with one of your spare capacitors. This should give you about .6 us to penetrate .01" into the gap. However, I suspect the blast from the main bank would speed things up considerably as soon as a short formed. You might get the .1 us. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 03:42:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA05496; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 03:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 03:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31de4e9a.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Le Mort d"Amber. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Mark, I know that Amber is now in the entourage of Saint Roch and had a lot of discussions with Eric Knights Lassie and Axel Munthe's little dog which (no, correctly it is WHO!) has accompanied the writer from Capri to the Heaven. White Fang seemed to be a bit unfriendly but it's only a pose.. Sorry for you, friend.. Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck 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 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 07:48:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA23107; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 07:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 07:43:56 -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: the remining fields-Eachus-2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >Let me know if you guys have any good ideas for a 1/10 microsec >switch to open 200 kiloamps, across a very small gap! > >Dream on with -----------Frank Stenger How about zapping the gap, or the switch electrode surface, with a LASER? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 08:04:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA24397; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 07:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 07:54:50 -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: the remining fields-Eachus-2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >Let me know if you guys have any good ideas for a 1/10 microsec >switch to open 200 kiloamps, across a very small gap! > >Dream on with -----------Frank Stenger How about zapping the gap, or the switch electrode surface, with a LASER? Sorry about that I wrote above. I should have read more carefully. I was thinking the idea/question was to "close" not "open" the switch. Simply closing a switch is maybe the best answer to that question! The answer to the "open" question is easy! Simply impose a forbidden zone across the gap. How do you do that? Beats me. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 09:00:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA00906; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 08:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 08:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960706114526_350423301@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: Paths of Development: Edison & Tesla X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is a footnote to my earlier remarks about Edison's lighting systems as a metaphor for the industrialization of the new energy sources. By systematic trials, Edison developed a practical incandescent lamp. A key point was a filament with a resistance high enough so that the distribution voltage could be reasonably high and therefore the current low enough so the losses and expense of the distribution cables would be reasonable. Then, he invented and demonstrated all elements of the system; generators, meters, fixtures. This took much longer than he expected and the investors were getting restless. Tesla was a brilliant mathematician with phenomenal powers of mental visualization. He was as much of a master showman as Edison. Tesla realized the potential of high frequency AC and staged almost magical shows of lighting and other effects. There were truly clever gadgets, like an incandescent lamp with one (visible) terminal. His singular, lasting contribution was the polyphase induction motor, which ran off AC. Edison chose a DC system for its simplicity in concept and execution. But long distance transmission was out of the question, you needed a power plant every mile or so. AC enables transformers, so you can go high-voltage/low-current for the long haul and medium-voltage/high-current for local use. But Edison's motors didn't like AC at all. Tesla's motors liked AC fine, and had no brushes to wear. The incandescent lamps didn't care. Westinghouse backed Tesla to oppose the Edison interests. Edison, a stubborn man, used every publicity trick to highlight the "dangers" of AC, including the first electric chair execution. Westinghouse, however, won the contract for the power plant at Niagra Falls, and the battle was over. Westinghouse's backers didn't like the royalties in the Tesla contract, so Tesla tore it up in friendship for Westinghouse. Tesla, who first demonstrated radio, electronic remote control, and a host of other legendary accomplishments, died impoverished and alone. His hotel bills were quietly paid by the investors who made fortunes from his inventions. Tesla's lighting devices and visions of power transmission relied on strong high frequency fields which would today be forbidden as health hazards and would have made radio broadcasts impossible. So he had one important key, the polyphase motor. Edison had the invention factory and the incandescent lamp, but in his stubborness would not join forces with Tesla to create an AC system with a viable motor for industry and appliances, and long distance transmission. Ironically, long-distance, high voltage DC power transmission is now in use, enabled by efficient solid state converters at both ends. The highest transmission voltage is established by breakdowns at the peak of the AC cycle, the average being only 70% of that. With DC, the peak voltage is continuous, so more average power is transmitted. But the enabling technology came decades after the Edison/Tesla war. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 09:43:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA05462; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 09:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 09:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DE963F.4DD5@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > Snip: > Still looking for input about interlocked biased core transformers, etc. Horace, I'm a one-thing-at-a-time kind of slug (or, so says my wife!). Lets first concentrate on what happens if you interlock two normal transformer cores. This is not at all clear to me! I picture a "primary" transformer core with a single excitation winding. Let's assume that it's a simple toroidal core with plenty of hole room. Now, I loop a second core through the first and what do I have? OK, I know I will need to make the second core non-conductive some how - a resistive core material or, use a small gap of insulator, etc. If I leave the secondary conductive, I'll just have a shorted secondary turn around the primary core. Now, I know there will be an induced EMF around the second core, but, is there some magnetic effect I should see? If so, a search coil winding around the second core should output some kind of voltage, no? I think I need to understand what happens in this simple case in order to understand the SRT. I know the SRT starts with a permanent magnetic field in the big torus, but I am trying to understand the flux-gate concept. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 10:26:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA10642; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 10:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 10:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607061712.KAA09430@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: paula@southconn.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: the remining fields-Eachus-2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On 6 Jul 96 vortex-l said to paula@southconn.com >>Let me know if you guys have any good ideas for a 1/10 microsec >>switch to open 200 kiloamps, across a very small gap! >>Dream on with -----------Frank Stenger >How about zapping the gap, or the switch electrode surface, with a >LASER? How fast can you blow out an arc, across an air gap, with a blast of air ?? (or oil, or some other liquid dialectric).....steve steve&paula opelc....paula@southconn.com `[1;36;44mNet-Tamer V 1.04 - Registered From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 11:32:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18832; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 11:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 11:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DEAD95.54E1@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Heffner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > The answer to the "open" question is easy! Simply impose a forbidden zone > across the gap. How do you do that? Beats me. I think that is the key, Horace! >From what I read, this is exactly what happens in the clasic "magnetic pinch" in a plasma current. As a section of plasma column contracts from the pinch effect, the effect grows stronger as the column diameter shrinks. As the column shrinks, the plasma current carriers get squeezed out both ends of the forming neck. Finally, as the carrier population (electrons & + ions) becomes too small to carry the plasma current, the voltage across the neck surges and the bulk plasma current blows around the neck and bypasses it. I think this instability is a well-known, mainstream physics effect. If I can get to it, I might try to use some type of flat, insulating baffle transverse to the current flow. I would have a small hole in the baffle through which the discharge would start. The trick would be: 1. To build the current to near 200 kiloamps through the small hole (maybe 2 or 3 mm dia., I think.) I have done this in the past by using a necked-down copper link sized (like a fuse) to blow near peak current. 2. To get the restricting hole to withstand the blast from the blowing fuse (energy about like 7 or 8 12-gage shotgun rounds going off at once) and last long enough for the fuse vapor and plasma pressure to drop to near atmospheric again. The hole needs to remain small enough to force the current to pinch through it. 3. Then, the baffle needs to be insulating enough to prevent the plasma current from bypassing around the hole, when the inductive voltage surge builds across the hole. 4. I was thinking of using dense fiberglass for the baffle, but the ablation rate from its surface ( a-la a space re-entry heat shield) might keep too great a supply of plasma stuff in the hole for me to get my fast switching effect! It might be worth a try, though. Of course, opening a high-power circuit is no new problem for an electrical power engineer, but they don't try to do it in less than a cubic centimeter of volume without adding mass to the arc! By the way, when the copper necks blow the region is soon covered by a violently exploding plasma ball perhaps 6 to 10 inches in diameter (not sure about this - camcorder blanks to solid frame of white for the first frame or so). Still thinking, Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 11:53:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22019; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 11:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 11:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DEB0DC.2E91@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-steve X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: paula@southconn.com wrote: > Snip: > How fast can you blow out an arc, across an air gap, with a blast of air ?? > (or oil, or some other liquid dialectric).....steve A microsecond or less is pretty fast, Steve. I don't think blow-outs will work in view of the large plasma explosion going on near peak current. I think I need to use the pinch effect in some way - not easy either! And, I don't want to blow the plasma out of the arc - I just want to force it to pinch down and starve the region of current carriers. Like I say, dream----dream-----dream--- Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 12:06:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA24146; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 12:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 12:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Please post Barker Patent numbers (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Please post this. Partial information from Barker's patent. I have read the patent. One conclusion I have come to is most people who talk about Barker maybe have not read the patent. Fewer still have tried to do the work. The only ones who have posted that they tried [to vortex anyway] ...did not seem to either have read and/or have chosen to not follow Barker's protocol. Thanks, JHS ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:43:45 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: William Beaty Cc: John Schnurer Subject: Please post Barker Patent numbers > Below is an interesting message regarding macroscopic electrostatics > having an effect on nuclear decay rates. I can't recall if I forwarded > this to the list last month. > > Patent numbers for Barker 5,076,931 > and 4,91.880. I have a copy of the latter nd here is some form it. > > Firm: Skjerven, Morrill, MacPherson, Franklin and Friel. > > William A. Barker Aug 31, 1988 filed Date of patent Oct 9 1990 > > "Electrostatic Voltage Excitation Apparatus" > > Some stuff, in no order. missing some pages, will call it up again. > > Am 241 was closed 54.2 uCurie alpha emitter. Embedded in 6 mm > thick plastic cylider so as to block alphas. "The radiation which > penetrates the cylider is a discrete gamma spectrum consisting of nine > gamma lines ranging from 11.871 to 59.5364 ke V. ....... > > Pre excitation counts 595 cps. 4 weeks after excitation up to > 734, "and then it rose rather quickly to 1,490 cps and 2,508 cps ... 4 > times its initial value I later dropped to about 1576 cps, a reasonably > steady value" > > The source was examined by Dr. Peter Englert with an x ray > spectrometer t San Jose State U., a radiation chemist. > > Several plots, diagrams. > This is substantially what we have observed. One perfoms the > excitation [ 16 hours in our case ] and then NO MORE IS NEEDED! > > The stuff just does its thing. > "The poential energy of the Coulomb barrier, resisting particle > escape, is lowered by 2 | e0 | from 2 Ze sq./r > Some materials: Thallium 204 and Lead 210 Thorium 230 Polonium 210 > were tested. > get the patent. ....................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 Sat Jul 6 13:31:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA06148; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 13:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 13:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607062015.NAA05364@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: paula@southconn.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: the remining fields-steve X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On 6 Jul 96 vortex-l said to paula@southconn.com >paula@southconn.com wrote: >> Snip: >> How fast can you blow out an arc, across an air gap, with a blast >>of air ?? (or oil, or some other liquid dialectric).....steve >A microsecond or less is pretty fast, Steve. I don't think >blow-outs will work in view of the large plasma explosion going on >near peak current. I think I need to use the pinch effect in some >way - not easy either! And, I don't want to blow the plasma out of >the arc - I just want to force it to pinch down and starve the >region of current carriers. Like I say, >dream----dream-----dream--- Hmmmm, how about giving it some place else to go, am picturing a charged terminal that is closer to the gap, when you give it a charge the main current carries would have a better way to go ???...just thinking....steve steve&paula opelc....paula@southconn.com `[1;36;44mNet-Tamer V 1.04 - Registered From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 14:31:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13019; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 14:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 14:26:42 -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: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >Lets first concentrate on what happens if you interlock two normal >transformer cores. This is not at all clear to me! I picture a >"primary" transformer core with a single excitation winding. Let's >assume that it's a simple toroidal core with plenty of hole room. >Now, I loop a second core through the first and what do I have? >OK, I know I will need to make the second core non-conductive some >how - a resistive core material or, use a small gap of insulator, etc. >If I leave the secondary conductive, I'll just have a shorted secondary >turn around the primary core. > >Now, I know there will be an induced EMF around the second core, but, >is there some magnetic effect I should see? If so, a search coil >winding around the second core should output some kind of voltage, no? > [snip] > >Frank Stenger The important thing to take into account that you are missing above is the bias, that the second ferromagnetic core is magnetically biased. That core has magnet(s) in it that place it at or near saturation. Another thing is a little concept of lines of flux I am working on which in some ways does not match the conventional. You can ignore this part, but I am laying it out so you can understand the source of any conceptual mistakes. I'll just state it like it's true and let the corrections be made. In my (incomplete) concept flux is the real physical extenion of a charged particle. I see fluxlines as an extension of the charge that creates them. Therefore they are closed loops that always return to the charge of origin. They are inseperable from that charge. Furthermore they are really tubes, ballon like, but I see the terms flux line and flux tube as interchangeable. There is a tension on the ballon in the direction of flux (longitudinal) and a compression in the purpendicular (lateral) plane. The flux tubes expand laterally to fit the space available, even if it is 360 degrees. This results in a kind of flux pressure. The more the lateral compression the higher the pressure. Flux tubes have momentum, and appear to be able to slide over each other frictionlessly, yet can not cut each other, except in circumstances in which photon emission occurs. Flux lines flowing in the same circular direction, i.e. clockwise or counterclockwise have a surface attraction, those flowing in opposite circular directions repel. Flux expansion or contraction is limited by the speed of light. As the current builds in the primary coil of a core the number of lines of flux build as well. Adjacent flux lines, generated by adajacent charges in the coil, sharing the same or a nealy similar axis of rotation (poles) are surface attracted, thus elongate to make a field that eventually, via similar combined surface attractions, circles the coil. It is an aside, but maybe interresting, that by my model the field of a conductive coil is rotating at the rate of movement of the electrons creating the field, which I believe is a difference from the standard model, where the flux inside a coil with constant current is stationary. The coil flux extends inward from the coil and forces the alignment of flux from atoms in the ferromagnetic material, which are free to rotate, to align with them via surface attraction. Similarly, these lines of flux elongate to encircle the coil. The densest most concentrated area of flux is thus in the core. The flux lines are thin but densly packed. The lowest energy location for a line of flux originating from an atom in the core is to completely encircle the core. That is because, were the flux line to shorten, it would have to displace and compress adjacent formerly parallel lines of flux under great pressure. This would take energy. For this reason adjacent lines of flux tend to be parallel. If an additional line of flux is added to the core, via an additional moving charge, that line of flux, to be added to core flux, must travel (cut) through the space in the center of the core to get to the opposite side from the charge of origin. A portion of every flux line circling through the core must have at one time passed through the center of the core. I think is is typical to think of a torroidal inductor as having no external lines of flux, however, by my concept if the flux is changing in the torroidal coil then there are flux lines traversing the plane in the space in the center of the torus. What happens if you switch off the current? I think the lines of flux can collapse at light speed once in free space. However, should there be a conductor in the free space, an induced curent can generate a magnetic flux that opposes the collapse or rate of collapse. Lines of flux can move across the free space very fast, but their density is very low. Voltage induced in a conductor cut by the moving flux in the free space is a function of the number of lines of flux that cut the conductor per second, not the velocity of the actual flux line. This is why secondary coil voltage follows primary coil current. Back to the biased interlocked cores. The starting condition is permanent magnetic flux running around the second core. Current starts to flow through the primary core. The added lines of flux start to pass through the center of the first core, but are stopped by the permanent flux, which is purpendicular. In effect the permeability of the first core is reduced by the orthogonal lines of flux preventing flux closure in the core. Since it is inaccesable to the building flux lines, it is as if though some of the first core were removed, i.e. replaced with an air gap. However, magnetic pressure from the building flux lines pressing purpendicularly on the permanent magnet flux lines will eject some of them from the second core, sending them back in the direction of their charge of origin. It appears to me that, when the flux pressure is equal, then there will be equal amounts of apparent core permeability in both cores, all things being symmetrical. The flux lines in the second core will follow inversly the number of flux lines in first core, regardless of the direction of the flux lines in the first core, provided no saturation conditions are reached. The voltage in the second coil is proportional to the rate of change of the flux in the second core, so for these reasons I stated it appears that Vs = k*d(|Ip|)/dt. Note that the frequency of the secondary output is double that of the input, and there is a rather severe transition of Vs at Ip=0 for a sign wave input due to the absolute value function. It is possible to create a "magnetic circuit only" chain that will doulble the frequency at each level. One primary in, one secondary coil out, the rest all flux circuits. This creates the basis for some very interresting experiments. For example, if the output of the secondary is put into series with the primary a feedback loop is set up whereby a double frequency component is added in each feedback loop. I have been thinking about building a tesla coil type primary coil driver, but replacing the primary coil with a multi-biased-core transformer with feedback, i.e.the primary and secondary coils in a loop, stimulated by the driving ciruit in parallel. The primary driver circuit would have a spark gap, as would the two purpendicular coil feedback circuit. It is the latter gap, between circular parallel plates, that I think has a chance of generating a form of ball lightning, especially in a humid or water vapor environment. I think the chaos circuit so described would generate all manner of waveforms and if any waveform can generate a BL then it would eventuallly happen, maybe with regularity! The problems would be core meltdown and insulation loss due to HF HV transients, and massive EM radiation in a wide range of frequencies. It would also be of interest to put an electrolytic resistor (tank of salt water, two plates) in parallel with the spark gap. I thought maybe it would be worthwhile to build such a feedback loop based on an air core version of the above chaos design. No need to provide the initial magnetic bias as the coils are in series. Maybe drive it with a big pulse. Maybe you would like to try that Frank? I have several other luniacle ideas to try as well, that may also convenienly utilize a large energy bank. I'd love to buy some of those surplus giant 60 KV caps for sale for $200 on Bill Beaty's www page, but they weigh a bundle, and maybe they are the old kind with PCB's. Can you imagine the shipping cost to Alaska? Today I am chopping up some old surplus IBM 3179 terminals to get the ferrite cores out of the flyback transformers. Then I can just try a few things and see what happens, just start small, check the concepts. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 15:00:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA15206; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 14:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 14:51:41 -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: the remining fields-Heffner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The trick would be: > 1. To build the current to near 200 kiloamps through the small > hole (maybe 2 or 3 mm dia., I think.) > I have done this in the past by using a necked-down copper > link sized (like a fuse) to blow near peak current. > 2. To get the restricting hole to withstand the blast from the > blowing fuse (energy about like 7 or 8 12-gage shotgun rounds > going off at once) and last long enough for the fuse vapor > and plasma pressure to drop to near atmospheric again. > The hole needs to remain small enough to force the current > to pinch through it. > 3. Then, the baffle needs to be insulating enough to prevent > the plasma current from bypassing around the hole, when the > inductive voltage surge builds across the hole. > 4. I was thinking of using dense fiberglass for the baffle, but > the ablation rate from its surface ( a-la a space re-entry > heat shield) might keep too great a supply of plasma stuff > in the hole for me to get my fast switching effect! > If you consider the chaos circuit suggested in the earlier post, you can see that an opposing voltage from another coil might be the trick. Then it's all a matter of coordinating the timing of the two coils so they suddenly add with a very steep rise time. Maybe more than one additional coil should be involved. If you want to generate a really sharp rise time one approach is to add multiple waveforms. Just some un-worked out suggestions for starting points. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 16:11:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA23266; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 16:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 16:06:02 -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: SSE-L Users X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Looks like some interesting people are on the Society for Scientific Exploration disscussion list. No message traffic at all, though. ....................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 James Spottiswoode Andrei Apostol Henry H. Bauer Ronald F. Blackburn John O'M. Bockris George J. Bradish III Leon Brenig Frederick M. Brown Marilyn Bruner Kenneth L. Caneva Etzel Cardena Ian A. Cook Ubiratan D'Ambrosio John S. Derr Arthur M. Diamond Jr. Zoltan Dienes William K. Douglas Chris Duif Michael S. Epstein Suitbert Ertel Martyn J. Fogg Laurence W. Fredrick Bernhard M. Haisch Richard C. Henry Mitchell K. Hobish Demetrios Karis Tosio Kasahara Ervin Laszlo Charles D. Laughlin Philip S. Magee Edwin C. May Roger D. Nelson Vesselin C. Noninski Harold E. Puthoff Lev N. Pyatnitsky Dean I. Radin Theodore Rockwell Robert T. Rood Beverly Rubik Rolf M. Sinclair David Stevenson Peter A. Sturrock Charles T. Tart Jens A. Tellefson Jr. Yervant Terzian W. Reid Thompson Charles R. Tolbert Jessica M. Utts Jaques F. Vallee Nikolaus Vogt Rhea A. White Robert M. Wood Giulio Zambon Jozef R. Zon Angela Thompson Mahlon Wagner Total number of subscribers: 57 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 17:31:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA02085; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607070011.RAA00838@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: paula@southconn.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: SSE-L Users X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A On 6 Jul 96 vortex-l said to paula@southconn.com >Looks like some interesting people are on the Society for Scientific >Exploration disscussion list. No message traffic at all, though. >.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,...................... How do you subscribe to it...looks interesting if we could get something started...some good thinkers there....steve steve&paula opelc....paula@southconn.com `[1;36;41mNet-Tamer V 1.04 - Registered From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 17:42:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA03689; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607070033.TAA24303@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: 200 kiloamp opening switch X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Stenger wants a switch to open a circuit that is carrying 200 kiloamps in 1/10th of a microsecond. Assuming the circuit has an inductance of about 1 microhenry, some pertinent conclusions can be drawn about this switch: 1. The energy stored in the circuit before the switch opens is 20000 joules (1/2Li^2). The switch will have to dissipate this energy. 2. The voltage developed across the switch during opening will be about 2,000,000 volts (Ldi/dt). - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 18:10:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA08105; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 18:05:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 18:05:57 -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: 200 kiloamp opening switch X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/06/96 17:45 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: 200 kiloamp opening switch Tell Frank to get to a library and look up stuff on "power equipment" cica 1930's This was solved then. He needs to magnetically "quench" the arc. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 14:31:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA07936; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607021930.MAA03373@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: Dear Dr. Conti On Neutralization Of Radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Dr. Conti: Thank you for reminding me to answer your query. I was saving your post to answer in detail and then forgot to do it! So here goes. >>>Dear M.Mandeville, >>>please,may you inform me in detail on your "experimental methods....for=20 >neutrali- >>>zing radioactivity"?.May you inform me on your theoretical basis if you=20 >formulated >>>it? I have no theoretical basis for it. It is totally experimental. It was based on the experiments performed by Jack Keller, Roberto Monti, and a fellow named Barker (who has two patents). >>>I must say that from many years it is well known in quantum mechanics that= > the >>>halftime of a radioactive source may be modified if one accounts for the= >=20 >action of >>>the measuring apparatus on the radioctive source itself.Calculations,as=20 >example,have been performed accounting for the action of the electron cloud= > in=20 >>>atoms in the case of the beta decay and also for alpha decay;still,it is= >=20 >well known >>>in nuclear astrophysics that radioactive nuclei do not decay with the same= >=20 >features >>>as on the earth,as example,since in astrophysical conditions we have true= >=20 >ionized >>>radioactive elements instead of radioactived atoms. Such information is news to me and most likely is news to most physicists in the U.S. However, Monti alluded to that but never explained it to me. Is this based on European research and circles? Americans are terribly provincial, as I am sure you know, and if it wasn't thought of here in the U.S., it doesnt exist, right? (unless it is from Japan, for which different rules apply) Also hypothizing the=20 >role of a >>>measuring apparatus that performs continous measurements on a radioactive= >=20 >source,one arrives in quantum mechanics to the so called Zeno paradox that >>>accounts for the break of the decay for the considered radioactive= > source.For >>>completness,we must add that often the Zeno paradox has been obtained by= > no >>>truly ortodox quantum mechanical formulations.However,we may consider that= > the >>>question is posed on the theoretical ground:also at experimental level,in= >=20 >the past, >>>verifications were performed with positive results,starting with Emilio=20 >Segr=E9 a nobel >>>physicist of E. Fermi group.So,It is of regard to know your experimental= >=20 >ideas to this purpose and we are interested as research field in our=20 >institute. You should do research in this field. You should have interesting discussions with Roberto Monti (from Italy). You also should follow the work of Joe Champion. Probably also Professor Bockris. It is clear to me that Champion is emerging as the leader in this area. He knows a lot more than I do. Unfortunately, >>>I have not followed previous discussions on vortex-l on this subject since= >=20 >i did not receive the messages,so I should appreciate if you could inform= >=20 >me in detail on the >>>theoretical and experimental ideas. Sincerely.Elio Conte >>> Please use the internet to download the web page: http://www.aa.net/~mwm/dexmrad1.html This summarizes what I did and found out. Basically I tested the effects of pure infrared (heat), high magnetism, high voltage DC potential with no current flow, super-high voltage RF (from a Tesla Coil), and a sodium hydroxide based reaction. The target was trace amounts of radium from natural sources. The medium was one to two gram mixtures, using alchemical formulations suggested by Keller. Pure infrared was not expected to do anything, so it was sort of a control and in fact nothing happened to that sample. Pure high flux magnetism did not seem to accomplish anything, there was no delta above noise fluctuations. The chemical reactions showed clear delta. The Tesla coil samples showed the most interesting mood changes of all. High voltage RF definitely has a pronounced effect on the rate of decay. The Tesla sample was at the top of the coil and a path was set up so that the RF statics would bleed through the sample and then from the top of the sample into the atmosphere, which I encouraged by the use of suspended wires to maximize corona bleed. As a result of these experiments, I am convinced that electrons need substantial stimulation and they must have the capacity to actually move, to dance as it were, and then there will be the possibility of transmutations. One source of that is a pure solid state sort of energy stimulation, but I doubt that that will be very productive. Some sort of electrochemistry medium is necessary - the emf AND situ push-pull of giving/seeking atoms is the key and the "stuff" must be able to move, most likely you need to allow each atom to flux in movement momentarily as a single unit. This is probably very difficult to achieve substantially in practice, at best you will get a partial reaction, ie some atoms will be able to move, but not all of them. Champion is clearly getting the best results along these lines now on a fairly reliable basis. The use of sodium is very interesting because: It's combustion or recombinations is like a very high energy emf flux. The average engineer and scientist thinks of combustions as "heat" stuff. They do not think to remember that the heat is a secondary effect of an intense electromagnetic exchange, a radical reshuffling of chairs on the atomic deck, so to speak, a pell-mell of furiously competing force vectors which moves everything into completely new structures. So heat energy is absolutely trivial, except insofar as it helps the atoms to dance, emf is what the action is, and the vessel is a suitably reactive medium. As with all such mediums, the direction of the dance, the Weilu Master, as I call it, the end result, can be very sharply pointed by the use of catalysts...which were the secret keys of the pointy hat set (alchemists). Having said all of this, it seems that people are now finding ways to stimulate a medium with microwaves and lasers, and god knows what else, to produce results without the actual consumption of an electrolyte (maybe). That would be especially desirable for being able to transmute radioactive elements. A little birdie tells me that in September or October, pretty amazing news will come from people whom I've cited above concerning the definitive transmutation of radioactivity. I would suggest that you direct your queries to them. This is about as much as I can help you, Dr. Conti. Best wishes, ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 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 OAA08176; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31D979C6.D13@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Silly idea - some first calcs X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hey Horace! What's wrong with using Brownian-motion sized particles in a heavy-molecule type liquid instead of a gas? I-got-the-message-on-short-posts, Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 18:47:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA12383; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 18:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 18:43:44 -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: Re: the remining fields-Heffner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Stenger writes: >>From what I read, this is exactly what happens in the clasic "magnetic >pinch" in a plasma current. As a section of plasma column contracts >from the pinch effect, the effect grows stronger as the column diameter >shrinks. As the column shrinks, the plasma current carriers get >squeezed out both ends of the forming neck. Maybe this provides a possible solution. Put a coil around the switch to create a pinch. This, unfortunately, increases the inductance. However, this leaves the questions of how much current you need to start a pinch, and establishing the correct timing. Maybe one approach is to put a resistor in the circuit and put a shunt around the resistor through the pinch coil then to the opposite side of the switch. This would leave the main inductance OK. The resistor could be made of a short piece of brass rod. The problem is timing. Maybe a separate circuit for the pinch coil would be required. [snip] >Finally, as the carrier >population (electrons & + ions) becomes too small to carry the plasma >current, the voltage across the neck surges and the bulk plasma current >blows around the neck and bypasses it. [snip] Bypass would be a problem as would the small gap in the switch surrounded by all that metal. Hard to pinch I would imagine. > >Still thinking, Frank Stenger Me too. BTW, flyback transformer coils are a bear to remove, and the cores explode like glass if you put them into a vice. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 19:18:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA15577; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 19:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 19:12:03 -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: the remining fields-Heffner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I just wrote: [snip] Maybe a separate circuit for the pinch coil >would be required. There is no doubt about it! Can't have a second path for the 2,000,000 V! I must engage brain before hitting enter. I must engage brain before hitting enter. I must engage brain before hitting enter. I must engage brain before hitting enter ... Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 19:27:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA16967; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 19:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 19:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607070213.TAA15732@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Brian To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Eachus-2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: If you are looking for a fast switch in the kilovolt range, you may wish to try an X-ray tube. Of course you will want to shield yourself from the rays, but one or more of these tubes might do the job. If you want the purist's route, try making your own enclosed spark gap with tungsten disks and a hydrogen resevoir. A device such as this was researched at my university and was capable of discharging several megamps at several hundred thousand volts! Good luck! -Brian QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 20:32:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA26444; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 20:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 20:27:28 -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: SSE-L Users X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 6 Jul 1996 paula@southconn.com wrote: > On 6 Jul 96 vortex-l said to paula@southconn.com > >Looks like some interesting people are on the Society for Scientific > >Exploration disscussion list. No message traffic at all, though. > >.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,...................... > > How do you subscribe to it...looks interesting if we could get something > started...some good thinkers there....steve > > Here's my original message from last week. Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:44:24 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Listserv: Soc. for Sci. Explo. Hey, the Society for Scientific Exploration has a little-known, little-used listserv! Roger Nelson says that many SSE members are on it, so vortex-L people may want to check out another audience for Anomalies discussion. ...................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 SSE-L SSE-L (or sse-l) originated as a private, unmoderated email list for Full Members of the Society of Scientific Exploration. It is now being opened for broader participation from the community of individuals and groups interested in a range of scientific anomalies. It is intended to further the aims of the Society by providing a forum on the internet where SSE members and others may conveniently discuss topics or issues of current interest by posting (usually) short notes to the mailing list's group address (sse-l@jsasoc.com). Your message will automatically be forwarded to all list members including many scientists who are actively engaged in research on a broad spectrum of anomalous phenomena. The default "reply-to" address for public messages (identified in the message header as emanating from SSE-L) is the group's address. This means that when you read a message from the group and type "reply" at your terminal, your reply will go the group as a whole. The following are the most frequently used listserv commands that SSE-L members may wish to know. All of these commands should be sent as regular e-mail messages to the listserv address (LISTSERV@JSASOC.COM), but NOT to the address of the group as a whole (SSE-L@JSASOC.COM). In each case leave the subject line of the message blank and include no extraneous text, as commands will be read and processed by the listserv program rather than a person. To join the group send the message: ----------------------------------------- ********---> NOTE: use the address LISTSERV@JSASOC.COM *********** for all commands and queries _________________________________________ SUBSCRIBE SSE-L For example: SUBSCRIBE SSE-L John Smith To cancel your subscription send the message: UNSUBSCRIBE SSE-L To post a public message to the group as a whole simply send it as regular e-mail to the group's address (SSE-L@JSASOC.COM). To receive your mail in digest format (one message per day consisting of the whole day's posts bundled together) send the message: SET SSE-L MAIL DIGEST To change your subscription from digest format back to one-at-a-time delivery send the message: SET SSE-L MAIL ACK For a brief overview of list server commands, send the message: HELP to listserv@jsasoc.com Special thanks to James Spottiswoode for providing both technical and intellectual support for SSE-L. Comments and suggestions concerning this list should be sent to the Listowner: rdnelson@princeton.edu Roger D. Nelson, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) C-131 E-Quad, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 voice: 609 258-5370 fax: 609 258-1993 email: rdnelson@.princeton.edu ....................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 Sat Jul 6 20:52:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA28186; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 20:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 20:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DF30ED.C31@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 200 kiloamp opening switch X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > Frank Stenger wants a switch to open a circuit that is carrying 200 kiloamps > in 1/10th of a microsecond. Assuming the circuit has an inductance of about > 1 microhenry, some pertinent conclusions can be drawn about this switch: > > 1. The energy stored in the circuit before the switch opens is 20000 joules > (1/2Li^2). The switch will have to dissipate this energy. > > 2. The voltage developed across the switch during opening will be about > 2,000,000 volts (Ldi/dt). > > - Scott Little Exactly, Scott! You see my problem! (I had similar figures on an earler post you probably missed. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 20:47:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA28249; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 20:43:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 20:43:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DF3124.7121@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > Snip: > core. I think is is typical to think of a torroidal inductor as having no > external lines of flux, however, by my concept if the flux is changing in > the torroidal coil then there are flux lines traversing the plane in the > space in the center of the torus. > Snip: > Today I am chopping up some old surplus IBM 3179 terminals to get the > ferrite cores out of the flyback transformers. Then I can just try a few > things and see what happens, just start small, check the concepts. OK Horace, I think this above concept is wrong. But! This comes from conventional college physics and I have never checked it for myself. So, why don't we check this one concept and then move on! I have a variety of round, toroidal cores on hand and I could set up a test IF we could agree on one. I suggest the following: Test Object: To see if a round, toroidal feromagnetic core with a tight, single-layer wire winding, has a reasonably large magnetic field anywhere in the central bore of the core - outside of the winding. Procedure: Wind such a coil on a round, toroidal core; excite the winding with 60 hz power, transformed down to a suitable voltage; and probe the bore region with a search coil to detect any fields present. The core needs to be round because rectangular cores cause fringing fields from the exciting winding - even with conventional theory. The search coil could be tried around the core as a conventional secondary winding to adjust its number of turns to provide a good reading on, say, a DVM with an AC scale. Then, the core bore could be probed with an identical search coil to compare the ratio of flux there to the conventional flux inside the toroidal volume. Should we do a test like this, Horace? I'm game! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 22:26:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08231; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 22:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 22:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960707051527_75110.3417_CHK38-2@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: Paths of Development: Edison & Tesla X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Mike, >> His singular, lasting contribution was the polyphase induction motor, which ran off AC. << Well, if you want to include the _idea_ of polyphase AC (which was supposedly impossible according to the ideas of the time) and the entire range of polyphase equipment, including the generators, motors, transformers, frequency controllers and synchronizers, switches and breakers and the rest, then I'd agree. Don't forget that Tesla was awarded the basic patents for radio because of his practical implementation of EM energy for communications and remote control (Marconi, who was a friend of Tesla, stated that he used Tesla's designs in his work). Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 01:20:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA24201; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 01:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 01:15:41 -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: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > >The search coil could be tried around the core as a conventional >secondary winding to adjust its number of turns to provide a good >reading on, say, a DVM with an AC scale. Then, the core bore could >be probed with an identical search coil to compare the ratio of flux >there to the conventional flux inside the toroidal volume. > >Should we do a test like this, Horace? I'm game! > >Frank Stenger Sounds good, but how to be definitive? For example, a little though experiment. Suppose you put a verticle wire through the central axis of the torus. The lines of flux should all cross in a manner that generates voltage in the same direction. This is good. The problem is therefore not as difficult as detecting a spinning field, where always lines cutting a closed loop one direction are always perfectly balanced by lines cutting the other. What is bad is that to measure the voltage induced on the wire you put a meter on it, but that completes a secondary coil loop around the core and then *of course* you get a voltage. However, that very voltage should tell you lines of flux are cutting the wire *somewhere*. The problem is to prove it is happening one place and not another, inside but not outside the major diameter. Maybe what is needed is a circuit like Avromenko's plug: -------|>|------- <------ Diode Test Probe | | -------------------------| M <------ Hand Held Meter | | -------|<|------- <------ Diode There is no loop completed around the torus using this probe. Only a wire test probe is inserted into the center of the torus. Typically in an Avromenko plug M is a capacitor in parallel with a load resistance and the "test probe" is a wire driven at a high frequency, typically by the secondary of a HF transformer where the other end of the secondary is "open". For our purposes it might be useful to put a microammeter, or a capacitor in parallel with a micorvoltmeter, because you would only be running at 60 Hz. I don't think you would get much current flow as it would be a function of the capacitance of the circuit beyond the diodes taken as a single plate capacitor (about zip). However, if my thinking is correct it would give a yes/no test result for induced voltage inside but not outside the major diameter of the torus. I think you are so right about careful winding and symmetry. Even with all that I think you should still see some flux in close proximity to the windings on the outside of the torus. I belive this would be predicted even by conventional methods, which will show that there is incomplete "field cancellation" up close to the wires. Thank you very much for the offer. I would be willing to pay for wire, diodes, etc., up to say $40 on around Aug.1, if you think such a test would be definitive for this particular principle. So, if the results of such a test are positive, does it say anything new? Other suggestions? Problems? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 02:08:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA27286; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 02:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 02:04:19 -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: Re: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >> >>The search coil could be tried around the core as a conventional >>secondary winding to adjust its number of turns to provide a good >>reading on, say, a DVM with an AC scale. Then, the core bore could >>be probed with an identical search coil to compare the ratio of flux >>there to the conventional flux inside the toroidal volume. >> >>Should we do a test like this, Horace? I'm game! >> >>Frank Stenger > I missed something yet again. You are suggesting a *loop* go inside the torus. I don't think that would be meaningful. The lines of flux cutting across the center would induce opposing voltages on opposite sides of the loop. If you lay the loop flat, the flux will just go on by without cutting the loop. To generate net voltage in a wire or loop the flux cutting must not be balanced. The field geometry and motion on the inside of the minor radius is different than the flux inside the major inner radius. I don't know of a good way to compare the fields in an apples and apples way. I don't think a hall effect probe would do it - that just measures net B. At the center of gravity of the torus, where flux movement is at a maximum, the net flux vector B is zero. Maybe it would be an apples and apples thing to put the Avromenko plug probe wire under the torus loop wire and have it almost complete the major circuference. Then the same number (actually slightly more) of flux lines should cut the probe wire there as cut it when it is in the middle of the torus. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 05:05:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA06891; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 05:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 05:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31df1ffe.10917007@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: the remining fields-Heffner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 6 Jul 1996 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Francis J. Stenger wrote: [snip] >By the way, when the copper necks blow the region is soon covered by a >violently exploding plasma ball perhaps 6 to 10 inches in diameter (not >sure about this - camcorder blanks to solid frame of white for the first >frame or so). > >Still thinking, Frank Stenger > Frank, I seem to remember seeing somewhere (some medical show on TV?) that it is possible to film through an optical fibre (or a bunch perhaps?). This would allow you to place the camcorder at a distance from the "event". Another option, is to place it in a well earthed metal screen cage (flywire or fine chicken wire?). If the wire is well out of focus, it will hardly influnce the picture. 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 Jul 7 05:31:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA08197; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 05:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 05:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DFAC8D.4246@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > > I missed something yet again. You are suggesting a *loop* go inside the > torus. I don't think that would be meaningful. The lines of flux cutting > across the center would induce opposing voltages on opposite sides of the > loop. If you lay the loop flat, the flux will just go on by without > cutting the loop. Horace, I think you just snatched complexity from the jaws of simplicity! If your magnetic field exists, it is a vector quantity and it has direction and time-varying magnitude. You tell me which way to orient the search coil so the flux lines thread through it. If the the field is there, the search coil will show it. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 05:59:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA10568; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 05:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 05:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31DFAF26.7509@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Robin X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > I seem to remember seeing somewhere (some medical show on TV?) that it > is possible to film through an optical fibre (or a bunch perhaps?). > This would allow you to place the camcorder at a distance from the > "event". Another option, is to place it in a well earthed metal screen > cage (flywire or fine chicken wire?). If the wire is well out of > focus, it will hardly influnce the picture. Good ideas, Robin! The camcorder is already about 20 feet from the blast, behind a plexiglas blast shield. I think my main problem may just be that this mother-of-all-flash-bulbs (the blast) saturates the CCD guts of the camcorder. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 08:31:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA23775; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 08:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 08:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960707112227.41078746@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: Barker Patent numbers X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer has asked me to post this. His comments: Partial information from Barker's patent. I >have read the patent. One conclusion I have come to is most people who >talk about Barker maybe have not read the patent. Fewer still have tried >to do the work. The only ones who have posted that they tried [to vortex >anyway] ...did not seem to either have read and/or have chosen to not follow >Barker's protocol. > Thanks, > > JHS > > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:43:45 -0400 (EDT) >From: John Schnurer >To: William Beaty >Cc: John Schnurer >Subject: Please post Barker Patent numbers > > > >> Below is an interesting message regarding macroscopic electrostatics >> having an effect on nuclear decay rates. I can't recall if I forwarded >> this to the list last month. >> >> Patent numbers for Barker 5,076,931 >> and 4,91.880. I have a copy of the latter nd here is some form it. >> >> Firm: Skjerven, Morrill, MacPherson, Franklin and Friel. >> >> William A. Barker Aug 31, 1988 filed Date of patent Oct 9 1990 >> >> "Electrostatic Voltage Excitation Apparatus" >> >> Some stuff, in no order. missing some pages, will call it up again. >> >> Am 241 was closed 54.2 uCurie alpha emitter. Embedded in 6 mm >> thick plastic cylider so as to block alphas. "The radiation which >> penetrates the cylider is a discrete gamma spectrum consisting of nine >> gamma lines ranging from 11.871 to 59.5364 ke V. ....... >> >> Pre excitation counts 595 cps. 4 weeks after excitation up to >> 734, "and then it rose rather quickly to 1,490 cps and 2,508 cps ... 4 >> times its initial value I later dropped to about 1576 cps, a reasonably >> steady value" >> >> The source was examined by Dr. Peter Englert with an x ray >> spectrometer t San Jose State U., a radiation chemist. >> >> Several plots, diagrams. >> This is substantially what we have observed. One perfoms the >> excitation [ 16 hours in our case ] and then NO MORE IS NEEDED! >> >> The stuff just does its thing. >> "The poential energy of the Coulomb barrier, resisting particle >> escape, is lowered by 2 | e0 | from 2 Ze sq./r >> Some materials: Thallium 204 and Lead 210 Thorium 230 Polonium 210 >> were tested. >> get the patent. >.....................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 Jul 7 09:49:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA02358; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 09:44:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 09:44:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960707163530_100060.173_JHB32-1@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: the remining fields-Robin X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank, How about putting a pair of polaroid filters in front of the lens, adjusting the attenuation to give enough light to see what is happening? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 10:26:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA07386; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 10:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 10:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960707131922_571424258@emout16.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: The Correa Patents X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I have just perused the three Correa patents Gene sent me and reviewed the recent vortex postings about Correa's work. I don't want to engage in a debate with the comments of Hugo, Schaffer, and Legarde, but the following comments are mindful of theirs. I have some more work to do to prepare a appraisal for IE as Gene requested. So this is a kind of trial run and sneak preview among friends. The Correas put in a lot of work and present a lot of detail. Issue 7 of IE might be faulted for not giving more space to the '989 patent. Like all patents, the text is excruciatingly detailed and what we want has to be dug out. Instrumentation: Beckman true RMS multimeters ( models 225 and 330) with bandwidths of 30 and 100 kHz were used. A Textronix dual trace storage scope (Model 549) was also available. The batteries were 12 V, 6 Ah lead-acid gel cells stacked in series to form drive packs or charge packs. The Correas are fully aware of the hazards of drawing conclusions about energy balance from the charge/discharge characteristics of batteries. They used rechargeable batteries which they could and did calibrate. They went to great lengths with four different protocols using the batteries to verify and cross check the energy balance measurements. The term "videographic" applied to the data in Fig. 20 is apparently just a metaphor. It is a "...millisecond analysis of the singular power simultaneities occuring at both ends of the system (drive and charge packs) was performed for various 10 second samples of various PAGD runs. A typical example is shown in Fig. 20..." The immediately following text does not refer to oscillographic measurements, but to the outputs of the (RMS) multimeters. The discharge rate for Run 6 illustrated was 8 pps. It is not clear how the readings were taken or recorded to show the "singular power simultaneities". Presumeably Fig 20 shows the input and output power for a series of individual events, independantly of the charge/discharge characteristics of the batteries. Table 8 has 22 columns and is unfortunately fragmented in both the patent and IE reproductions. The supporting text is detailed about the significance of the numbers. Column 3 is called "position" but refers to 'before' and 'after' measurements and calculations. Column 5, Relative Capacity, contains some numbers in the low % range, but these should be evaluated in the context of the calibration procedures used. It is Column 11, the %Breakeven, which has the magic o/u numbers, which range up to 2,667%. Circuit configurations are shown which enable exchange of batteries from the charge to discharge function with a switch throw. The caveat is "...it being borne in mind that the nominal potential of the drive pack must be substantially higher than that of the charge pack, the former needing to exceed the breakdown potential of the tube at the beginning of the PAGD cycle, the latter to be less than the extinction potential." This is not trivial and is an impediment to glib "switch the batteries" experiments. The whole Correa development hinges on careful management of a natural phenomena which they discovered, or at least substantially clarified. It takes a high voltage, but little current to establish the initiating conditions for the abmormal glow discharge. Once the discharge ignites, substantial energy and power is manifested, which can be capacitatively coupled to an external power-using device. The discharge is self-extinguishing and can be caused to repeat at a rairly uniform rate, so the device is a pulse power source. Substantial erosion of the cathode occurs with each pulse, whereas a cleansing and polishing of the anode occurs. The cathode and anode can be switched, so that the useful life of the tube can be extended. The Correas note "Any apparent imbalance in the electrical energy input to the system and withdrawn from the system by its operator must be considered in the context of the entire continuum in which the system operates, within which it is anticipated that accepted principles of energy balance will be maintained". This is an elegant way of deflecting any attack from a patent examiner who might see in the Correa applications claims of a "perpetual motion" machine. It leaves wide open the definition of what is a closed system, which must obey the conservations laws, and an open system which can accept energy from anywhere and exhibit self-organizing behavior. On P23 of IE 7, the Correas admit the possibility of ZPF, but also offer the notion of the cathodes as fuel, since they are eroded by the operation of the PAGD. They thus offer a comfortable perch for all observers. However, it is not all obvious where the energy to erode the cathodes comes from, if not from ZPF. The tubes illustrated in IE are not immediately appealing as commercial items. There is obviously a large engineering task to develop a system for electric cars, for example. The electrodes have a finite useful life, and the discharge characteristics change during the operating life. They could be considered as a kind of battery and replaced like batteries. The PAGD tubes would be as cheap as light bulbs in large production. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 12:16:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA23847; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 12:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 12:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960707150544_429078815@emout16.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: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: About the efforts to measure flux in the center of a toroid. Try a Hall effect or magneteoresistive effect detector. Both are packaged as ICs and can be very sensitive. The magneteoresistive effect is used in some pickups for magnetic recording applications, where the flux levels are quite low. These don't involve the topological problems of wire loops intercepting flux somewhere. In principle, the magneteoresistive films could be introduced into the torus itself; however, if the torus is of high permeability material a gap is created and flux will leak out; this is precisely what is done in a magnetic recording head. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 12:16:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA23904; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 12:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 12:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960707150516_429078823@emout17.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: the remining fields-Robin X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: With regard to the problem of a camcorder blanking out the flash from an arc: get the kind of filter astronomers use for looking at the sun -- it passes 1% or less of the light. (Try Edmund Scientific, Barrington NJ) Or use the reflection off an ordinary sheet of glass -- most of the energy will pass through. Or use a pinhole aperture -- you will get a great depth of field. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 12:25:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA24927; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 12:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 12:18:44 -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: Re: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> > >> >> I missed something yet again. You are suggesting a *loop* go inside the >> torus. I don't think that would be meaningful. The lines of flux cutting >> across the center would induce opposing voltages on opposite sides of the >> loop. If you lay the loop flat, the flux will just go on by without >> cutting the loop. > >Horace, I think you just snatched complexity from the jaws of >simplicity! If your magnetic field exists, it is a vector quantity and >it has direction and time-varying magnitude. You tell me which way to >orient the search coil so the flux lines thread through it. If the the >field is there, the search coil will show it. > >Frank Stenger No, I don't think so. If you have your perfectly symmetric torus, then in the center of the torus the flux lines which I say exist are such that those coming from any one direction will be matched by flux lines pointing the opposite direction coming from another, so B = 0 continuously, so dB/dt = 0, yet an EMF is generated in a conductor in the center because the EMF generated by opposing direction field lines moving in opposite directions is additive. However, by my earlier reasoning, no EMF will be generated if the straight conductor is moved up out of the region inside the cylinder with the same radius as the inner major diameter and height equal to the minor diameter and centered at the center of the torus with the same central axis as the torus. That's a mouth full, so let's call that the "active region". It is the primary region, aside from the region bounded by the torus coil, where flux actively moves. It is an interresting consequence of my visual model (not that others may not hold the same view, I just don't know a name for it) that a single flux line through the active region would prevent collapse of flux circling the center of the torus and would significantly increase the reluctance of the torus to field growth. Therefore, no such flux line can exist. Such flux lines are swept out of the active region when the flux is initially built in the torus core. This is a direct cosnsequence of my assumtion that flux lines can not cut each other. Two unbreakable loops must remain either interlocked or separate forever. If there is a flaw in my thinking it is probably centered on this assumption. The force on a particle where there is relative motion at velocity v between the particle and a magnetic field B is given by F = Qv x B. Since net B is zero we would expect no EMF by this. However, by the same rule, if we break down the motion of the flux along a single lateral axis into it's two oncoming components F = (Qv x B) + (Q(-v) x (-B)) we can see that the component forces should be additive, even though the B and -B cancel. I think, by the superposition principle, the latter force equation is correct. You should see a voltage and current on the suggested test probe, but not on a loop in the active region. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 13:10:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA00927; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 13:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 13:05:16 -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: the remining fields-Heffner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Stenger writes: >>From what I read, this is exactly what happens in the clasic "magnetic >pinch" in a plasma current. As a section of plasma column contracts >from the pinch effect, the effect grows stronger as the column diameter >shrinks. As the column shrinks, the plasma current carriers get >squeezed out both ends of the forming neck. Maybe this provides a possible solution. Put a coil around the switch to create a pinch. This, unfortunately, increases the inductance. However, this leaves the questions of how much current you need to start a pinch, and establishing the correct timing. Maybe one approach is to put a resistor in the circuit and put a shunt around the resistor through the pinch coil then to the opposite side of the switch. This would leave the main inductance OK. The resistor could be made of a short piece of brass rod. The problem is timing. Maybe a separate circuit for the pinch coil would be required. [snip] >Finally, as the carrier >population (electrons & + ions) becomes too small to carry the plasma >current, the voltage across the neck surges and the bulk plasma current >blows around the neck and bypasses it. [snip] Bypass would be a problem as would the small gap in the switch surrounded by all that metal. Hard to pinch I would imagine. > >Still thinking, Frank Stenger I'm back at it too. The above may not be such a bad idea after all if you separate the switch from the place where the desired effect occurs. Suppose you built a triode (or purchased a gigantic SCR stack) that could withstand the 2,000,000 V reverse voltage and the 200,000 A forward current and put this in parallel to the point of effect. Now the mechanics are very different for your point of effect device. You switch one place but utilize the 2,000,000 V surge somewhere else. This has the advantage that you do not have a plasma in the gap to begin with and you could use a very hard vacuum. You could also use a ceramic or glass barrier with a hole as you suggested and it will not get blown away by the initial high current blast. You can also start building the pinch field in advance without affecting the magnetic field building current. There is also the possibility of building a transformer and taking the flyback pulse off a secondary. Expensive ideas, but getting energy from a vacuum is no picknick, at least not yet. Just curious, aren't there klystron tubes or tube banks that can switch 1,000,000 V at high current commercially available? Maybe you could switch fast enough you could build the two opposing field gradients at opposing electrodes but drop them prior to the electrostatic fields reaching the center point and prior to loss of much material from the points. When the two field fronts met in space a double strength super gradient would momentarily be built in space between the two electrodes. This is kind of what I would like to achieve in the interior of the sphere of the reluctant torus, except I would be driving a magnetic field front to generate the electrostatic field gradient in the center - just two different sides of the same coin. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 13:59:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA07789; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 13:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 13:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31E0236C.37F1@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: The Remining Fields-Carrell&Norwood X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mike Carrell and Norman Horwood both had good ideas about reducing the light intensity during the primary blast of my capacitor discharge rig. You know, I wonder what I would see if I could capture a good image of the initial blast! I would probably see a large, fuzzy, bright ball! When we made our shots, Frank Z. and I were really looking for some long-lived plasma phenomenon (like ball lightning, of course) that would last a second or two. The camcorder gets 30 frames per second and only the first or 2 frames were useless. When you think of it, I wonder if Paul Koloc was ever able to camcord his 1/4 second plasmoids? Using my shots as a guide, he might capture about 5 good frames of his shots. I looked at one of Paul's reports some time ago - I know he included some pictures - I don't remember the details. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 14:32:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA11581; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 14:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 14:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31E02901.3BD5@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Heffner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > Snip: > separate the switch from the place where the desired effect occurs. This is my big problem, Horace. I don't really want to the above! Thinking back to your comment about tearing space apart (my paraphrase is not to good), that's just what I would like to do in my small, initial plasma gap! When my copper fuse first blows, my plasma gap is probably 2 mm dia. by, say, 10 mm long. I would like to see the 2,000,000 volts across this gap, with almost no plasma current carriers left in the gap. If the plasma were hot enough, and the density were low enough, could the mean-free-electron path be long enough to produce electrons with > 1.02 Mev energy? If so, could pair formation occur to provide the much needed current carriers for the remaining inductor current? Could this small kernal break free, carrying a good chunk of the 20,000 joules of inductor energy with it, and form something like ball lightning? ------- If rabbits had bigger ears could they--------? Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 15:16:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA17579; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 15:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 15:05:55 -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: the remining fields-Heffner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> Snip: >> separate the switch from the place where the desired effect occurs. > >This is my big problem, Horace. I don't really want to the above! Why not? Any way to skin a wabbit is a good way! :) > >Thinking back to your comment about tearing space apart ... that's just >what I would like to do in my small, initial plasma gap! [snip] >Frank Stenger Yes, I know. As for e+,e- pairs supplying the current to unwind your inductor - I suggest the cathode would take one heck of a beating! The e+,e- annihilation at the cathode surface at that kind of current would make mincemeat of it and the surrounding countryside. I would expect you could only get some e+ e- pair creation at best, and it is an interresting question as to whether excess energy would result. Sure would get some gammas though. This is partially where I am coming from in regards to the hoped for " ... and then a miracle happens ... " in the SRT. It is my hope to be able to use the geometry to make flux lines collide and spin about each other to create massive electrostatic fields in small volumes. It is my hope a whip like effect on the colliding flux lines can be created sufficient to cause photon emission at a frequency the sphere will trap, and possibly to generate e+ e- pairs, which would produce power output in the gamma range. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 15:54:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA23309; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 15:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 15:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960707224422_75110.3417_CHK39-1@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: Paths of Development: Edison & Tesla X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Mike, >> It's like opera star Beverly Sills who was suddenly "discovered" after 20 years of hard work in regional opera companies. << Very true. But, unlike current inventors/discoverers/scientists, Tesla was initially fully open about his work. Only in his later years did he become secretive -- and that was due to the appellation of 'eccentric genius' or 'mad scientist' that was given him by the press. Of course, from the time of his seeing a vision of the whirling magnetic fields to that of the first patent was more than 10 years, as I recall. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 16:09:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA24473; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 16:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 16:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31E040F0.62CE@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: SRT - (Horace-makes-Stenger-crazy) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > The force on a particle where there is relative motion at velocity v > between the particle and a magnetic field B is given by F = Qv x B. Since > net B is zero we would expect no EMF by this. However, by the same rule, > if we break down the motion of the flux along a single lateral axis into > it's two oncoming components F = (Qv x B) + (Q(-v) x (-B)) we can see that > the component forces should be additive, even though the B and -B cancel. Horace, I take it that the relative velocity, v is parallel to B, and the velocity -v is parallel to (-B)? The cross product of two parallel vectors is always zero, so, the above equation might mean: F = 0 + 0 = 0. I take it you did mean B to be parallel to -B ? Horace, THESE GHOST FIELDS ARE MAKING ME CRAZY!! (just kidding!) Banging-his-head-against-the-wall, Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 16:32:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA27722; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 16:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 16:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607072320.SAA07596@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: David Hudson Lecture X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: For those of you who do not wish to read the David Hudson lecture located at http://www.netzone.com/~discpub/hudson1.html), I offer the following highlights for your perusal: He talks about emission spectrometry and the need for long burn times in order to vaporize high boiling point elements. He goes on to claim that South African gold/platinum ore, from which is typically recovered 1/3 ounce per ton of precious metals, actually contains 2400 oz/ton of such metals but nobody knows it. Further, he claims that gold can be transformed into a white powder that: (1) has a negative weight and (2) makes you live forever if you eat it. He states that, in superconductors, when two electrons combine to make a Cooper pair, they convert to light. He says there are 10^18 ergs in a gauss. He says that cow and pig brains are 5% by weight Rh and Ir but that it can't be directly measured. (this would make the brains worth about $240/lb!) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 7 17:45:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA06785; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 17:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 17:38:25 -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: Re: SRT - (Horace-makes-Stenger-crazy) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace Heffner wrote: > >> The force on a particle where there is relative motion at velocity v >> between the particle and a magnetic field B is given by F = Qv x B. Since >> net B is zero we would expect no EMF by this. However, by the same rule, >> if we break down the motion of the flux along a single lateral axis into >> it's two oncoming components F = (Qv x B) + (Q(-v) x (-B)) we can see that >> the component forces should be additive, even though the B and -B cancel. > >Horace, I take it that the relative velocity, v is parallel to B, and >the velocity -v is parallel to (-B)? The cross product of two parallel >vectors is always zero, so, the above equation might mean: > > F = 0 + 0 = 0. > >I take it you did mean B to be parallel to -B ? > >Horace, THESE GHOST FIELDS ARE MAKING ME CRAZY!! (just kidding!) > >Banging-his-head-against-the-wall, Frank Stenger My apologies. I need to be more rigorous. I meant the first equation to be generic, the second equation specific, since the in the first equation, if applied to our situation we would have B = 0, so in the second equation I "redefined" B to be the flux density of the flux moving in one direction on a lateral axis of the torus, i.e. the flux is purpendicular to the axis and moving in the direction of the axis. Any flux line not moving in that direction is ignored. Due to symmetry, we have flux B moving in direction of v and also flux -B moving in direction -v. Yes, the two magnetic fields of magnitude of B are parallel but opposite in direction. Also implicit is a charged particle lying stationary in the axis and having charge Q (i.e. a charge in the wire). Suppose we are thinking about collapsing flux. The flux in the core goes around the central wire say clockwise. Suppose we are sitting on top of the ring of the torus looking across the center of the torus at a stationary electron in the wire in the center of the torus. We see a circular line of flux collapsing to its point of origin directly beneath us. As the flux line passes the electron, pointing left to right, it pushes upward on it. Simultaneously we see a flux line released, from the toroidal core beneath where we sit, to collapse toward its point of origin directly opposite where we sit. As this flux line, pointing right to left from our point of view, passes the electron on its way away from us across the center of the circle, it *also* pushes upward on the electron. The two forces are additive. The flux lines are therefore not so ghostly but should represent hard reality to the electron. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 00:06:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27508; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 23:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 23:57:11 -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: SRT plume pinch and whip X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Previously described was a means of building a suddenly reluctant torus (SRT) which might be torroidal or warped into other shapes about an electromagnetically reflective internal sphere. The sphere is not sufficiently conductive to act as a secondary coil for the torus, yet reflects EM radiation generated within the sphere as a result of interactions of the flux within the sphere with itself, the walls of the sphere, and other matter within the sphere. As noted, one area for experimantation for such a device is to attempt to involve flux lines (flux tubes) in various forms of mechanical interaction. An underlying assumption of such an attempt is that flux lines have volume, pressure, mass, momentum, and velocity, and can not cut through each other without the release of photons, as well as various other properties, i.e. have a true physical existance. As far as I know, proving and utilizing such an existance would be new science. Another underlying assumption is that, when generated by an electron, the existence of a flux line is an extension of the existence of that electron and is tied to it, unless the flux is cut by a photon generating process. To generate a whip like effect on the collapsing flux lines I suggested wraping the SRT core around the interior sphere like the seams on a baseball, or a convoluted version thereof. This would give the snap back across the interior of the core, the active region, a degree of three dimensional entanglement. It might also be useful in driving or pumping a longitudinal wave. There is another possible method of entanglement. This method is to position special coils at the poles of the sphere which, during the period the torus flux is at a maximum, generate bidirectional flux plumes which protrude through the center of the torus. The coils at opposite poles could use upposite magnetic polarity and mirror coils to project their flux through the active region. Call such a projected flux the polax flux or the polar plume. The idea would be to fire the SRT while the polar flux was at a maximumin in order to pinch it and entangle it. The difficulty in achieving such mechanics is in achieving sufficient flux velocities. One method of achieving high flux velocities is to build the SRT very large, the other is to make it very fast. One of the advantages of the SRT is it's fast firing time for a large torus. Small transverse coils fired across the main torus are local in scope and firing time limitations, yet generate effects involving overall dimensions. By storing capacitance in a distributed form around the sphere and coordinating the firing timing, great scale can be achieved while maintaining the short constant firing time. However, even if a 1 microsecond firing time can be achieved, light can travel 300 m in that time. It is likely that special coordinated firing would be necessary to pinch and whip the central plumes, or that a ferrite core capable of much faster than 1 usec firing times would have to be used, or that an air core design would have to be utilized. The wrap-around would be like the entanglement resulting from the collision of two flexible jump ropes rotating in opposite directions colliding. Should it actually be possible to entangle flux tubes approaching each other at near light speed, it is anticipated that a wrap-around would occur with an accelerating angular velocity, similar to an ice skater pulling in her arms in a spin. EM radiation, increasing mass, and other relativistic effects could be expected, as well as very large accelerations of any charged particles caught in such a vortex. These ideas are pretty far out there, and like Michael J. Schaffer says, they require some hard physical proof. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 02:00:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA02402; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 01:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 01:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960708044530_429454848@emout13.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: EclectiKat@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: David Hudson Lecture X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-07-07 19:26:15 EDT, you write: > >Further, he claims that gold can be transformed into a white powder that: >(1) has a negative weight and (2) makes you live forever if you eat it. > > Sounds great, I'm sure not going to miss this, must be a ton of laughs. Can we please avoid citing the lunatic fringe of science on this list, as a lurker it's getting hard to take anyone of merit seriously due to all the nonsense here, making it hard to separate the sheep from the goats. Hope no one thinks this qualifies as "flaming", under the circumstances this is pretty obvious silliness. If PBS's Dr. Science put in his nonsense on here, I don't think anyone would appreciate it. Jeff Golin From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 07:06:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA29834; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 06:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 06:53:52 -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: David Hudson Lecture X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/07/96 17:37 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: David Hudson Lecture Thanks for your condensation of the D.H. lecture Scott. Too bad isn't it? I've studied some aspects of precious metals production over the years, having invested about $5000 in a claim that has 50,000 tons removed and piled next to it near Timmons Ont., but which never had an oz. sent to the mill! (The money was used up in the mining.) Neither here nor there that, BUT I did learn the difference between visible gold in an ore and the stuff you have to "extract". THAT can make or break a claim. So debates about the amount of gold/Pt/Pd/Ag in ores have been around for years, and can be valid. But when you get into the "negative weight" stuff, and the "precious metal content of pig brains"... you do suspect a high lunacy factor.... MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 07:12:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA29991; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 06:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 06:54:40 -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: The Correa Patents X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/07/96 10:26 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: The Correa Patents Do we have any way of MEASURING the amount of "errosion" of the tubes and comparing with the energy gained? Also the batteries CAN be switched with a DC to DC converter thrown in. With even a 75% effeciency on the DC to DC converter there would be no problem in sustained operation given the numbers claimed. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 07:38:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA05778; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 07:25:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 07:25:46 -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: Magnetic pinch curiosity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: An interresting curiosity, and a proof of concept test, would be to build a plain toroidal electromagnet and in the vertical central axis place two very long horse shoe electromagnets with gaps placed in the active space of the torus. While the torrioidal magnet is at peak magnetic field density, then put current into the two horse shoe magnets which are geometrically directly opposed but magnetically aligned so as to create a butterfly shaped field pattern which purpendicularly crosses the active space of the torus in two air gaps. When the current is released in the torus the field lines should pinch the field lines in the gap of the opposed horse shoe magnets. Now, there are four readily discerned possibilities. (1) the field lines cross with no problem, so the two coils operate interlocked the same as when not. This would be an end to the theory. (2) the field in the two horse shoe magnets is not strong enough to hold the pinching field so the loops are pulled apart by the crossing flux from the torus. In this case there should be a voltage surge in any coil around the horseshoe magnets as the crossing flux rips half of the flux out of each horseshoe. (3) The wierdest possibility, which occurs if the horse shoe magnets have a much stronger field than the torus, is that the magnetic flux from the torus gets "hung up" on the flux from the butterfly. This would manifest itself as a reduced size voltage spike in the coil around the torus upon the collapse of the torroidal field. (4) The flux lines can momentarily expand to a higher energy position to slide around the wide part of the "butterfly wings". If possibility (3) can occur, some interresting things are possible. For example, suppose the horse shoe magnets are permanent. The torus is iron with a coil inducing a strong field. The horse shoe magnets are placed into position, except horizontally. The torus is vertical. The current is removed from the coil around the torus, which is not a permanent magnet. However, the flux lines are trapped and can not return to the interior of the iron core. Thus the piece of iron should float frictionlessly in space, even though it is neither a permanent magnet nor superconducting. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 07:59:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA10467; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 07:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 07:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31E120CF.6550@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: SRT - (Horace-makes-Stenger-crazy) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > We see a > circular line of flux collapsing to its point of origin directly beneath > us. OK Horace, this is one thing I have trouble with! This point of origin of magnetic flux! Conventional magnetic "lines" are supposed to have "zero divergence", which I understand to mean they have no "point of origin". A line of ELECTRIC force can begin on a + charge and end on a (-) charge, but in our universe, magnetic charges are rare (at best). Magnetic lines are supposed to be continuous as a loop, in my view. Things get more complex in EM waves where electric and magnetic lines give rise to one another, as per Maxwell's equations. If your talking of moving magnetic lines, my visiualization gets foggy (like my spelling) and I am on shaky ground. I am still not clear on the SHAPE of the magnetic lines we are talking about in the center hole. I'm starting to get this picture of endless numbers of circular lines of flux, all tangent to the major centerline (or, major flux iines) within the toroidal core. You say the circles shrink towards these tangent points? - and pass through the central axis on the way? OK, then did you say we can measure this voltage in a wire along the central axis - with what kind of instrument? Tell me the most simple experimental setup you can to detect this effect. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 08:24:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA12932; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 08:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 08:07:12 -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: Mike Carrell and Patents...Correa/Otherwise X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Mike Carrell and Patents...Correa/Otherwise - Mike: - I had a hard time deciding what patent info on the Correas is published, and what was proposed/withdrawn. - Could you list the published numbers if you have time? - A generic comment to all Vortexians: I have a top notch patent reference at the Mpls public library. Takes me a noon hour to do anything, so let's put a $25 price tag on taking the time to do it. (Latest example, Correa patent, 40 pages, $.25 per page, or $10 to do the copying. If I do it for someone else I figure $3 for mailing, $10 for copying, and $12 left over for lunch....reasonable?) - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jun 10 02:09:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA01842; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199606091350.IAA19714@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: CETI and U Missouri X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:22 PM 6/8/96 -0700, Marin wrote: >A few days ago I saw a rare post of relevance to CF on spf. In it Bob >Sullivan claimed..... Martin, I found that post and decided to "publish" it here to intensify the discussion: from Bob Sullivan on spf: >That's the University of Missouri at Kansas City. Contrary to the Rothwellian >fantasies, UMKC has never attempted replication in the sense of independent >construction. The have attempted runing several CETI-constructed cells. > >The first cell (with CETI-installed thermocouples) 'appeared' to give a small >excess (assuming 100% Faraday efficiency using the CETI heat balance >calculations) before the shell broke. > >They accidently pulled the one of the leads out of the second one and returned >it to CETI presumably without testing. > >The third cell (with CETI-installed thermocouples) was destroyed when they >reversed the cell voltage in an attempt to stop perceived 'heat after death.' > >UMKC used their own thermisters instead of the CETI-supplied thermocouples on >the fourth cell. For some mysterious(?) reason the cell failed to work. They >didn't check operation with the thermocouples. The cell was returned to CETI >with the thermocouples attached. > >When CETI supplied the fifth cell they did not return the UMKC thermisters. New >thermisters applied to this cell showed the same negative results as for the >fourth cell. > >Activities at UMKC have been non-existent for some time. No funding. No >interest. > >Before anyone asks, the (multiple) sources are confidential. If you want >conformation (or denial) go to UMKC. > >The same contacts are further removed from the source for info on Miley's group >than for UMKC, but again, contrary to the Rothwellian fantasies, the reports I >get indicate that their 'results' don't climb above a reasonable estimate of the >noise. Ignoring the unVortexan slurs in this post, I find it absolutely riveting! If what Sullivan says is true then CETI's oft-touted "independent replications" are junk! Come on Vortex, let's hear some more reports on this matter. Surely, others have heard rumors that they're willing to share...? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jun 10 02:10:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA01890; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:06:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:06:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960610041319_72240.1256_EHB141-1@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: CETI and U Missouri X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Martin Sevior writes: "A few days ago I saw a rare post of relevance to CF on spf. In it Bob Sullivan claimed that his sources "close" to U of Missouri report that the group has stopped all investigations of the CETI Cell. Does anyone out there have any comments?" Sullivan's claims are nonsense leavened with just enough truth to make them sound plausible. The business about the cell being destroyed with reverse electrolysis, for example, is true. Mike McKubre suggested they try that, and reportedly it did destroy the thin film, much to Mike's embarrassment. It is also true the Bowles has not done much lately. However, he has not retracted a word as far as I know. We should believe what he himself said on national television rather than these anonymous rumors spread on Internet. He had been working for a year when he went on television and said it has "never *not* worked." If all those alleged problems had cropped up he would never have said that! Sullivan's technical claims about the thermocouples "not working" are absurd. Of course they worked! Tom Passell and others brought thermistors to the site, and inserted the probes into the fluid with the TCs to verify that they were both accurate and precise. The Delta T temperatures were several degrees which is large enough to detect with confidence using any type of thermometer. More to the point, why should anyone take these statements about non- functioning TCs seriously? Has anyone ever heard of the TC bimetallic probe not working? How could it "not work?" More to the point, how could it pretend to work? The only screw ups I have ever heard of are short circuits and problems in the interface card which senses the level of voltage produced by the TC. I presume U. Mo. stuck their own computers and meters on to the wires coming from the TCs. CETI supplies cells made up with the TCs stuck into those narrow spaces adjacent to the beads. I suppose you might have a build-up of crud on the TC, or a short circuit . . . But in any case the temperatures were verified independently by trustworthy EPRI people, so everyone can rest assured they were real. Frankly, I no longer take reports seriously if they had not been independently verified. At this point, we have so many triple-checked and independently verified reports of excess heat and transmutations that we have the luxury of ignoring all reports that are *not* independently verified -- as I think we should. I accept reports of excess heat from bulk palladium and heavy water at face value because so many people have seen them. But when it comes to unusual approaches, like those employed by Arata, E-Quest, or CETI, I demand independent verification, or replication, or a very least a detailed technical paper. As it happens, Arata and E-Quest refuse to allow qualified, objective outsiders to verify their calorimetry, and E-Quest hasn't even taken a stab at describing it, so I wish them the best of luck and I ignore them. (E-Quest's helium measurements at Rockwell are described in detain in Hoffman's book, so that part is fine.) Three years ago we needed people with promising devices, even when they were uncooperative. Now I think it is best to ignore them, along with the certified lunatic fringe like Meyer and "No-Show" Potapov. There are so many people willing to play the game properly and allow independent testing that I cannot handle them. I don't have the money and time to check them all. So why should we waste time trying to get information from people who do not want to give it? I feel that way all the more since I spent the last few days working on a comprehensive review of this EPRI publication, which is a gold mine of interesting stuff encased in a mass of repetitious verbiage. Regarding the triple checking of transmutations, I should point out (as I probably have before) that the cathodes from experiments by Mizuno and Enyo were analyzed independently by Hitachi, using three different methods, as described in the paper. Samples have been sent to others for additional verification, but I do not know where that work stands. I asked Bowles if he has any comments or updates about his work for publication in Infinite Energy. If he responds I will post a note about it here. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 6 18:27:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA10196; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 18:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 18:21:40 -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: SRT - some follow-up and questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/05/96 19:58 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: SRT - some follow-up and questions A suggestion for Horrace and anyone else trying to achieve a "warm" fusion....Build a plasma device with vaporized lead, mercury, sodium etc. Put in a nice dash of D2 or D2O, "stand back". I'm quite convinced this simple contrivance will work, and the nitwits who have been human generated methane-gassing (that's a polite way of saying something not nearly so polite) around with the pure D2 in "bumpy torus'" and the like have gotten NOTHING because the "hot" fusion of the sun is really a "warm" fusion which goes on in the core and is sustained by having a lot of other nucleii around and plenty of electron flux from the associated electrons of these higher number nucleii. (OK, this is seat of the pants, has NO theoretical backing, and is just a hunch.) MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 10:36:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA11310; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607081554.LAA26103@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I've been trying to remember the answer to Frank's question, and Steve jogged my memory--you abuse a thyratron tube. A thyratron usually contains mercury with an igniter and a main current path. The igniter creates a plasma which conducts until the voltage reverses. However, Mercury gas is a good insulator. So if you vaporize too much Mercury, the tube will be a good insulator until it cools down. So if you hit a thyratron with too much power, you get exactly the phenomena you want--a low inductance, low resistance path for a few milliseconds, followed by a fast quench. (As the pressure in the tube builds, the resistance increases resulting in faster heating, until all the Mercury is in gas form.) Safety warnings... (Yes, I'm a safety nut. That is WHY I still have ten fingers, ten toes and two eyes. I've had enough experiments go BOOM! to know that if I wasn't a safety nut, I'd be missing a few parts.) 1) The Mercury gas becomes a very good insulator, but when you put tens or hundreds of kilovolts a few inches apart, you need very good insulation practices to avoid flashover. I recommend using an epoxy potting compound with sufficient resilience once you have everything working. Until then, good lab practices, and plenty of fresh air will help you avoid breathing large amounts of HCN, NOx and the like. 2) Back to Faraday cages. Do this right, and you are radiating lots of power. Any unshielded wires nearby will pick it up. Lightbulbs popping are neat in sci-fi movies, and fun to do once, but starting fires in the walls of the building you are in is no fun at all. Wide mesh, including chicken wire is fine, just remember to ground it well. Jacketed wiring is fine, Romex is asking for trouble, and remember to disconnect your TV antenna or put in a lightning arrestor. 3) Chemists have a technical term for a glass container full of high-pressure gas. It is called a bomb. If you misuse a thyratron correctly you will have thousands of pounds of pressure inside. Most thyratrons have metal jackets designed to deal with ordinary failures, but you are not planning an ordinary failure. Best is an open enclosure which is designed to direct the blast upwards. (I had a capacitor fail under test in an enclosure like that, but we made a silly design mistake. Part of the roof overhead was too solid in the form of a wooden beam. Part of the capacitor embedded itself in the beam but one chunk ricocheted and narrowly missed me. We covered the beam in crushable foam so that it couldn't happen again. Another choice considered was a deflector.) 4) Ramp up slowly. As you increase the current, the thyratron will cut off faster. This will allow you to see potential failures before they become too spectacular. 5) Wear safety goggles, and get the kind that are all plastic. If glass starts flying you will be glad you did. Also the plastic ones are much better at cutting down the UV, and welder's flash is no fun. (Welder's flash is effectively sunburn inside your eyes. A mild case will have you avoiding bright lights for a few days. In a more serious case, you can't open your eyes, and topical tannic acid or other treatments will get you out of bed in a few days. Of course, the stage beyond that is permanent blindness. I got to the second stage twice, using all the precautions I knew of... Oh, just so I don't get accused of scare mongering: You are much more likely to run into trouble if you have blue eyes, dark brown eyes add a natural filter. But mine are in between--hazel.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 10:37:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA11910; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:29:45 -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: Another Thought on Correa**2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Another Thought on Correa**2 - Getting back to the "nuts and bolts". The output goes to about 300 volts worth of Lead/Acid batteries. The input is 500 volts. Could not a parallel set of 300 volts of output (receiving) cells be put in series to get 600 volts and then made to run the device? A "daisy chain" could be built with this and a NET gain affirmed after a period of time..... - Anyone find fault with this logic??? - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 10:40:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12115; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:30:46 -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: Re: SRT - (Horace-makes-Stenger-crazy) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> We see a >> circular line of flux collapsing to its point of origin directly beneath >> us. > >OK Horace, this is one thing I have trouble with! This point of origin >of magnetic flux! Conventional magnetic "lines" are supposed to have >"zero divergence", which I understand to mean they have no "point of >origin". A line of ELECTRIC force can begin on a + charge and end on >a (-) charge, but in our universe, magnetic charges are rare (at best). >Magnetic lines are supposed to be continuous as a loop, in my view. >Things get more complex in EM waves where electric and magnetic lines >give rise to one another, as per Maxwell's equations. If your talking >of moving magnetic lines, my visiualization gets foggy (like my >spelling) and I am on shaky ground. It is probably I who is on the shakey ground! However, the concept that EM fields have a true physical existence based in and an extension of the quantum world is just too curious to ignore for an newcomer to this stuff like me. I think each flux line, unlike the arbitrary units assigned to flux, is generated by a single electron. In the case of parmanent magnets or ferromagnetic cores this is in most cases (since mu is typically greater than 2) in atoms within the core. In the case of electron motion in a coil, I just can not see how the flux line (flux tube don't forget) generated by an electron moving in the coil can not be tied to it because it is truly a part of its existence, its quantum wave function. But that is a separate issue, and maybe a personal problem of mine as a student, and a complexity unnecessary to the understanding of or operation of the proposed SRT. > >I am still not clear on the SHAPE of the magnetic lines we are talking >about in the center hole. I'm starting to get this picture of endless >numbers of circular lines of flux, all tangent to the major centerline >(or, major flux iines) within the toroidal core. You say the circles >shrink towards these tangent points? - and pass through the central axis >on the way? OK, then did you say we can measure this voltage in a wire >along the central axis - with what kind of instrument? Tell me the >most simple experimental setup you can to detect this effect. > >Frank Stenger You have it exactly correct. The curves, once released into space, shrink to their point of origin, which in the case of a permanent magnet core SRT would be to the magnet of origin. The idea is to alternate magnets with sections of ferrite core material from which the field lines can be quickly ejected. In a perfect world all the field lines would be ejected simultaneously and instantaneously so would form sligtly dented circles flying across the active space like rubber bands to their magnet of origin. The idea would also work using a core made up of homogeneous magnetic material, in which case the flux lines released would be heading back towards their atom of origin. In practice though they would really just come back to a segment of magnet of origin accessable to them which is between the two transverse coils surrounding the point of origin. In other words, with N transverse flux ejection cores there would be N points of origin between them for the flux lines about the main torus. It would be like having N bundles of rubber bands, each bundle glued to the big ring at its corresponding point of origin out of N points. All the bundles of rubber bands would be held by hooks around the ring. Suddenly and simultaneously, levers would push the rubber bands off their hooks and they would fly to their point of origin. The simplest detector I can think of is the following: Test Probe (Insulated Wire) D Stripped Wire ---------------------------------|>|---------------- Grab here, wet fingers | | -----| |-------- C Since you would be using 60 Hz there may be some difficulty. The higher the frequency the better this probe will work. The big problem is the current beyond diode D is a function of the single body capacitance beyond diode D and the frequency. It would be nice to have a large metallic sphere where it says "grab here". Also there is the forward bias of D to overcome. By grabbing the conductor beyond D you should significantly increase the single body capacitance, and thus the voltage and initial current beyond D, but you need to be sure you are insulated (rubber soled shoes?). For safety the test probe should be completely insulated, including the tip. A piece of electrician's tape extended beyone the tip should do. You may be able to gain continuous measurement by putting a microammeter in parallel with capacitor C, which would be an R in parallel with C and diode D. Alternately, you could take a measurement by charging capacitor C and then quickly measuring the voltage to take a reading. I would use a small germanium diode for D and ceramic capacitor for C due to low leakage resistance. Th actual voltage generated on the wire should be that for a *full* turn on the core being sampled. However, since there is no loop, just a "single plate" capacitor, it is like having a loop with another very small capacitor at "grab here" connected back to the end of the test probe. You could not directly measure the voltage on the wire without creating a loop. This probe is good for a yes/no test. If it generates a charge on C when the probe is inserted into the center of active area, but not when in the same proximity to the core on the outside, that should be a positive test. True? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 10:40:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12219; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607081614.JAA05103@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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:45 AM 7/5/96 -0700, you wrote: snipped >It is one of those curiosities of life that the 'cop-out' of the 'skeptical' >view is regarded as sober and responsible, whilst any error made in the other >direction is jeered mightily. A 'cop-out'? Of course it is. The 'skeptic' - a >word now so debased that its true meaning often is 'one who takes refuge in >adherence to the accepted view' - can vilify or condemn anyone who steps out of >line, safe in the knowledge that he can later change his view without losing >credibilty, and will be able to say: "Despite my previous reservations, I am now >delighted to see that more careful and competent work has indeed confirmed my >original inner feelings that ... bla bla." > >I well recall one occasion when a person with whom I had sparred for years said >quietly, "What a bloody idiot I have been." An honest opponent, and I admired >his saying that. I'd like to feel I would do that, and I wish I were *sure* I >would. (Or *will*?) > >Chris > Skepticism was a school of thought orginially attributed to Socrates (ala Plato). The object of Skepticism was to subject religion, ethics, politics, and science to the merciless examination of the philosphical assumptions, use of logic, and assorted factual presumptions which were present in the passionate arguments of those who were advancing some particular point of view or some general claim of knowledge. It was intended as the best possible excercise of philosophy "on the street", so to speak, where it mattered. Reportedly, Socrates and his students were so good at it, people traveled from through out the Mediteranenean region to have him tear ideas to shreds to find the "legs" on which an idea could be soundly advanced. Try reading some of Plato's dialogues in which Socrates reportely dissects an idea or claim of knowledge. The adherents of a notion often end up appearing foolish, because Socrates/Plato made no waste of time in backing adherents right up into contradictions in their assumptions, but the tone is generally positive and the exercise of the art was collegial, designed to have a positive outcome. In Socrates hands, the skeptic did not begin with a rejoinder, such as "you are wrong". The skeptic claimed nothing and advanced no particular presumption of his own. He just explored the other's claims to reveal where the columns of hot air began to climb. I believe that the discourse of Western Science would improve considerably if those who assert themselves as professional scientists would take a little time out and read with real attention one book of Plato's Socratic dialogues. Human thought has never exceeded the quality of those essays. The dialogues present about as pure a form of the method of pure thought as humanity has ever produced. I my opinion you have to go to Eastern sources to find anything which matches it. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 10:45:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12360; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607081615.JAA05153@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: Brown gas for car fuel X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 10:17 PM 7/5/96 -0700, you wrote: >> >>Well, I hate raining on parades, but the unit we experimented with ra pretty >>much exactly as you would expect, it works when you turn it one, it stops >>when you turn it off. The construction is very simple, very basic, two >>series of interleaved plates to provide lots of electrode surface. It does >>have a clever failsafe mechanism. >> > >Correct. My comments were for the reason why and how the device creates this >unique gas. It is a mystery to me why and how a simple pulsed dc current >could create this gas with all of its unknown properties. Could it also be a >combination of the circuit and the series interleaved plates? > > I don't think the gas is unique. It is the same two gases which have been boiling off electrolysis cells since Lavoisier (?) "discovered" ogygen by means of simple electrolysis. The properties relate to the stocio mix - pure, perfect - which creates "recombination" dynamics which are distinctively different, very ordered, compared to the pell-mell of the typical dirty "burn" of randomly present elements. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 10:42:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12619; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:33:52 -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: Mike Carrell and Patents...Correa/Otherwise X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Mike Carrell and Patents...Correa/Otherwise >- >Mike: >- >I had a hard time deciding what patent info on the Correas is published, >and what was proposed/withdrawn. >- >Could you list the published numbers if you have time? >- >A generic comment to all Vortexians: I have a top notch patent reference >at the Mpls public library. Takes me a noon hour to do anything, so let's >put a $25 price tag on taking the time to do it. (Latest example, Correa >patent, 40 pages, $.25 per page, or $10 to do the copying. If I do it >for someone else I figure $3 for mailing, $10 for copying, and $12 left >over for lunch....reasonable?) >- >MDH I just did the Shoulder patent in the same manner. I did it that way because I robbed my piggy bank to get the copying money. What you are offering is a bargain. If your library is like mine (they have to change the lenses, put in special paper, etc.) you will be late back to work. What you are offering is a real bargain, especially considering your time is $12/ hr. and you won't be able to eat lunch! However, the patent office offers some very good services at a much lower rate. You can get patents for $3 a piece or $6 for faxed patents or FEDEX'ed patents, up to tweleve per bundle. You can pay by credit card for faxed patents or FEDEX'ed patents. The USPTO now has a form available on www suggested for use in ordering patents. You can just fill it out and fax it to them or mail to the indicated address. If you want FEDEX I think you have to call to get pricing and to charge it. I will post the USPTO form separately on vortex for those without www access. Soon to follow ... Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 10:43:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12846; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:35:00 -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: USPTO Patent & Trademark Copy Order X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent & Trademark Copy Order Complete all information requested below. For additional information, call (703) 305-4350. Return the completed form, using one of the following addresses: Internet to: ptcs@uspto.gov FAX to: (703) 305-8759 Mail to: U.S. Patent & Trademark Office BOX 9 PTCS , Washington, D.C. 20231 _____________________________________________________________________________ CUSTOMER INFORMATION Company or Name: ____________________________________ Phone : (____)_____________ Street: ______________________________________________ City/State: _____________________________________________ ZIP____________ Contact Person, if different or not listed above: _______________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ PREFERRED DELIVERY METHOD (Select One Delivery Method ONLY) ____ Fax FAX #________________________ U.S.A. delivery rates: $6.00/copy for overnight; $25.00/copy for 3-hour delivery; Foreign fax is available. Call or e-mail to the PTCS. ____ Fed Ex (cost varies by order size. Delivered to address given above) ____ U.S. Mail ($3.00/copy. Delivered to address given above) ____ PTO Box, List Box #:_________ Box delivery rates: $6.00/copy for 24 hr delivery; all other $3.00/copy) _____________________________________________________________________________ PAYMENT INFORMATION (Select ONE Payment Method ) 1. Charge Card Amount $____________ on ______VISA or ______Mastercard Card #: _________________________ Expr. Date: _______________ Amount $_________ Provide Card Holder's Name/Address if different from Customer Information above NAME_______________________________________ Street: ______________________________________ City __________________ State_______ 2. PTO Deposit Account Deposit Acct #: _________________________ Amount Authorized: $_________ Authorized Signature: ____________________ 3. Check or Money Order sent via mail in the amount of $ ___________ Maill the Order Form and Check/Money Order together . Allow 4 - 8 weeks for the mail. ____________________________________________________________________________ ORDER INFORMATION List the patent and/or trademark numbers, along with the appropriate prefix, next to the "ITEM" numbers listed in the space provided below. Be sure to indicate a prefix for copies of documents other than utility patents. The prefixes are: Utility Patent - Use No Prefix ; Plant Patent - PP; Design Patent - DES; Reissue Patent - RE; Trademark - TM #1 _____________________ #2 ______________________ #3 _____________________ #4 _____________________ #5 ______________________ #6 _____________________ #7 _____________________ #8 ______________________ #9 _____________________ #10 _____________________ #11 ______________________ #12 ____________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ OPTIONAL DELIVERY LOCATIONS To Request Delivery to Address(es) Other Than the one given in the Customer Address Section or to multiple FAX Numbers, complete the information below. If you are requesting delivery to multiple locations, photocopy this sheet and submit one sheet for each location. Company or Name: ____________________________________ Street: ______________________________________________ City/State: __________________________________ ZIP____________ OR Company or Name: __________________________________ FAX NUMBER: ( )_________________ Telephone number ( )________________ Internet to: ptcs@uspto.gov FAX to: (703) 305-8759 Mail to: U.S. Patent & Trademark Office BOX 9 PTCS , Washington, D.C. 20231 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 12:52:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA06950; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960708173927_72240.1256_EHB152-1@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: How to order patent copy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Current patents can be ordered for $3 each from: The Library Connection Deerchase - Route 629 P.O. Box 976 Saluda, VA 23149 Tel: 804-758-3311 Fax: 800-325-2221 This is a branch of the British Library. As far as I know, the price is $3 no matter how many pages long it is. When you order an old, out-of-date patent the price is much higher and the copy comes from England via an overnight delivery service. In the U.K. the address is: The British Library Science Reference and Information Service 25 Southampton Buildings London WC2A IAW Account Enquiries: 0171-412-7937 Fax: 0171-412-7990 - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 12:49:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA07308; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Heffner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Stenger wants to interrupt 200 kV in 0.1 usec at about 2 MV. This is not possible with any known technology today. DoD has spent untold millions of $ trying to develop ideas to do things like this, but nothing is particularly successful. Perhaps the closest are special fuses. However, these still take a few usec to open, and they also absorb a lot of the energy you are trying to switch. Power companies can interrupt high powers, but their technologies typically take more than 0.01 sec. Plasmas typically take msecs to recombine. Plasma devices genereally do not make good opening switches. The fundamental problem is that there is no fundamentally FAST way to eliminate charged carriers from a conduction volume. An unstable pinch CAN have transient high electric fields. These are generated by the I dL/dt effect as the diameter of the conducting plasma shrinks rapidly. The usual result is x-rays (from energetic electrons) and neutrons (from fast ions, if you have some deuterium around). 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 Mon Jul 8 12:49:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA07700; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: SRT - (Horace-makes-Stenger-crazy) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >I think each flux line, unlike the arbitrary units assigned to flux, is >generated by a single electron. Horace, I think you are way off base. I don't see how your picture can account for the well known case of circular, closed magnetic flux lines around a long straight conductor. These don't start and end on any electron... In fact, magnetic lines have no beginning and no end, unless someone discovers a magnetic monopole. People have looked very hard for one (it would be a cinch for a Nobel prize), but so far none has been found. 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 Mon Jul 8 13:01:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA08041; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607081914.PAA26524@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 200 kiloamp opening switch X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Scott Little said: > 1. The energy stored in the circuit before the switch opens is > 20000 joules (1/2Li^2). The switch will have to dissipate this > energy. No, the idea is to have something connected in parallel with the switch disappate the energy... > 2. The voltage developed across the switch during opening will be about > 2,000,000 volts (Ldi/dt). And I gather Frank's goal is to put that energy into an arc that creates a plasma ball. The problems occur when the energy is dissipated in the switch. ;-) Incidently, an added note to my previous message. One step along the way should be to use the thyratron in its intended mode: ___| |______()_()_()_()_____> <__________ | | | | | | | |_|\|_| | ----- |/| ----- --- --- - - Capacitor Inductance Spark gap & thyratron If everything works as intended, you fire the thyratron and the capacator discharges to ground through the inductor. When the current across the thyratron reverses, it will open and you will get an arc across the spark gap. Since thyratrons don't close immediately on current reversal, you should get a faster rise time than from the LC circut alone. (But as I said earlier, if you overdrive the thyratron, it will switch off at or near maximum current. Get it right and everything will happen in less than one video frame...) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 12:57:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA08359; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960708192416_100433.1541_BHG87-2@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: Re: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Michael writes about Plato 'n' all that stuff. Yes, I've read them. In fact I made a big study of that whole field when I was around 20. (Not long after Plato'n'that haha). It happens I believe (with how much justification I'm not sure) that present-day scientists could *seriously* do with studying the subject. They have usually heard of Ockham's Razor, but usually only in some grossly distorted form. They also think that logic is a branch of mathematics. I have tried discussing QM and relativity from a 'logic' point of view, but people usually just get all upset. This could make quite a serious subject for a book, I reckon. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 16:01:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07911; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 15:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 15:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960708162952.13f7da4c@mail.airmail.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dan York To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: David Hudson Lecture X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:54 AM 7/8/96 -0700, you wrote: >*** Reply to note of 07/07/96 17:37 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: David Hudson Lecture >Thanks for your condensation of the D.H. lecture Scott. Too bad isn't it? >I've studied some aspects of precious metals production over the years, >having invested about $5000 in a claim that has 50,000 tons removed >and piled next to it near Timmons Ont., but which never had an oz. >sent to the mill! (The money was used up in the mining.) Neither here >nor there that, BUT I did learn the difference between visible gold >in an ore and the stuff you have to "extract". THAT can make or break >a claim. So debates about the amount of gold/Pt/Pd/Ag in ores have >been around for years, and can be valid. But when you get into the "negative >weight" stuff, and the "precious metal content of pig brains"... you do >suspect a high lunacy factor.... MDH In fairness to David Hudson it should be pointed out that he does not make any claim to being a scientist. He is an Arizona farmer. Hudson 'claims' to demonstrate some unusual phenomena and comes up with some metaphysical explanations as well as some pseudo-scientific explanations. His basic unverifiable claim is to have discovered monatomic non-metallic forms of all of the platinum group elements. The percentages of Ag, Pb, Rh and Ir that he claims are in pig brains and carrots are supposedly in this non-metallic monatomic form. When you read the transcripts from his lectures IF you accept that he is giving a 'truthful' report of the experimental procedures followed and the results then you have to come to the conclusion that he has found something unusual. Another possible analysis is that he is full of crap. Dan From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 16:06:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA08566; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 15:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 15:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31E17D50.12A@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Michael X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > Snip: > An unstable pinch CAN have transient high electric fields. These are > generated by the I dL/dt effect as the diameter of the conducting plasma > shrinks rapidly. The usual result is x-rays (from energetic electrons) and > neutrons (from fast ions, if you have some deuterium around). Michael, I think my 200 kamp got typoed to 200 kV in your post, but I get the idea - mission impossible! But wait: My old reference Time out for those interested in clasic work on pinches see: "Neutron Production in Linear Deuterium Pinches" by O. A. Anderson (and others) PHYSICAL REVIEW VOL. 110, NO.6 June 15, 1958 says plasma tube pinches generated deuterons with energies of 200,000 ev - which led to neutron production. The deuterons were accelerated by the very strong electric fields you mention above (I dL/dt generated). Now, Stengers speculation is simply, what is the most far-out (hair- brained?) extension of this effect Nature (or man) could ever come up with? Suppose we had a lightning return stroke of around 500 kamp (I've seen > 200 kamp reported) with a channel several kilometers long.Further speculate that a length of the channel was dang near a geometrically straight line, because about 20 meters of it had followed a cosmic ray track. Suppose most of the 20 meters pinches to the nominal limit for the channel density, temperature, current level, etc. Now, I invision the circular lines of flux around the channel as being a form of super insulation - as long as the stability lasts, which won't be long! Now, lets say a centimeter or so quickly developes the sausage-type instability and further pinches down. The only limit this pinch has is: 1. Are there enough carriers in the pinch neck to carry the current at the available delta voltage as: 2. delta volts = L dI/dt + I dL/dt where the L here is a bit complicated by the time it takes the speed of light to transfer inductive energy (and there's a lot of it!) from the near-by main channel to the pinch neck. 3. How long can my super-insulating-self-flux keep my huge unknown delta voltage from blowing around the small pinch and disrupting the whole configuration? By past experiments, we know the delta voltage can exceed 200 kV - but just WHAT IS THE UPPER LIMIT WITHOUT VIOLATING NATURES RULES?? I guess I see in this current pinch thing something analogous to the gravitational colapse of matter into a black hole. Not quite, of course, - I don't expect to see some sort of a "black line"! But, if the delta voltage could exceed a few megavolts across a short channel, maybe we could see pair formation as Nature's way of solving her problem of too much current and no place to put it! Maybe she could come up with some new string-like, QM form of matter-energy as, I think, has been previously proposed in the ball-lightning literature. At least, it should be more clear why I wanted to generate this magic effect in my capacitor bank. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 16:09:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA09168; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 15:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 15:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31E18106.4B40@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 200 kiloamp opening switch-Eachus X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Robert Eachus: Robert, you have posted several good points on the 200 kamp opening thing and I need to clear up just what my basis for this work was. Please see my recent post subject: Re: the remining fields-Michael and see if I have made my daydream any clearer! Sorry for the confusion. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 16:09:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA10505; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 15:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 15:58:13 -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: SRT - flux line detachment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: In earlier posts I said flux lines in the core of an SRT, once ejected from the core should snap back to their atom (electron) of origin. There is another possibility, one which could possibly be used to test the hypothesis regarding the connectedness of flux lines to their electrons of origin. If a flux line is tied to an electron which is tied to an atom, and the force on the electron due to the flux exceeds the ionization potential, then the electron connected to the flux line should be ripped right out of its atom or conduction band by the force from the flux line. Lets call such an event a deteachment - as it is a detachment of the electron from its local environemt and a detachment of the flux line from the local environment as well. If a sufficiently powerful SRT were built the detachment phenomenon would be clearly visible upon firing of the SRT as a sudden change of potential of the core to positive. In addition, the collapsing flux lines, now free loops in the air would collapse toward the center from all directions, but lagging in the direction of the electron due to its momentum and thus drag, but still bringing the electrons along toward the center. If there were an impeding central plume, the electrons would cause a strong negative potential to suddenly accumulate at the pinch in the central plume. As the flux lines collapse inwardly axially, they should also expand vertically simultaneously. This would increase the thickness of the active zone. Eventually, as they neared the common point of collpase, they would eventually shrink to nothingness as a purpendicular electrostatic field is built in the center of the collapse. There is also the possiblity of separation of the flux from the electron itself. In such a case the free flux would be part of an EM wave - it would then consist of one or more photons. I don't know of a simple test for this condition, should it exist. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 16:12:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA11850; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 16:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 16:04:07 -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: 200 kiloamp opening switch X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > If everything works as intended, you fire the thyratron and the >capacator discharges to ground through the inductor. When the current >across the thyratron reverses, it will open and you will get an arc Frank said he wanted to switch when the current was at its peak - switching at current reversal is switching at the minimum current. That is why I suggested a triode, except it would have been between the capacitor and the inductor. When you close the gate on the inductor field building current by raising the potential on the grid the resulting field collapse and corresponding voltage reversal generates the desired huge potential at the point of delivery, which is connected in parallel to the inductor. I know Frank said this is not what he wanted so I seem to be missing something here. Any idea where my problem is? >across the spark gap. Since thyratrons don't close immediately on >current reversal, you should get a faster rise time than from the LC >circut alone. (But as I said earlier, if you overdrive the thyratron, >it will switch off at or near maximum current. Get it right and >everything will happen in less than one video frame...) > > > > Robert I. Eachus > Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 16:14:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA12582; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 16:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 16:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607082237.PAA15955@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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 12:45 PM 7/8/96 -0700, you wrote: >Michael writes about Plato 'n' all that stuff. Yes, I've read them. In >fact I made a big study of that whole field when I was around 20. (Not >long after Plato'n'that haha). It happens I believe (with how much >justification I'm not sure) that present-day scientists could >*seriously* do with studying the subject. They have usually heard of >Ockham's Razor, but usually only in some grossly distorted form. They >also think that logic is a branch of mathematics. > >I have tried discussing QM and relativity from a 'logic' point of view, >but people usually just get all upset. This could make quite a serious >subject for a book, I reckon. > >Chris > > Three dialogues are enough to get you hooked. Usually you can connect with something which will affect you personally, as our "enlightened" West has some of the same holes in its thought processes which Socrates/Plato could drive an Army of Macedonian Warriers through. We have better facts, but our ideas and logical stuctures are scarcely better. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 20:38:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA03641; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960708184722_572322435@emout17.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: cammera X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: We used my cam recorder to take pictures of Stenger's shots. To my dismay a yellow spot remained on the middle of all subsequent pictures taken with the cammera. Then, to my amaqzement, after a period of about two weeks the yellow spot went away. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 20:41:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA03847; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607090009.RAA23727@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: paula@southconn.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Brown gas for car fuel X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On 8 Jul 96 vortex-l said to paula@southconn.com >At 10:17 PM 7/5/96 -0700, you wrote: >>>Well, I hate raining on parades, but the unit we experimented >>>with ra pretty much exactly as you would expect, it works when >>>you turn it one, it stops when you turn it off. The construction >>>is very simple, very basic, two series of interleaved plates to >>>provide lots of electrode surface. It does have a clever >failsafe mechanism. >> >>Correct. My comments were for the reason why and how the device >>creates this unique gas. It is a mystery to me why and how a >>simple pulsed dc current could create this gas with all of its >>unknown properties. Could it also be a combination of the circuit >and the series interleaved plates? > >I don't think the gas is unique. It is the same two gases which >have been boiling off electrolysis cells since Lavoisier (?) >"discovered" ogygen by means of simple electrolysis. >The properties relate to the stocio mix - pure, perfect - which >creates "recombination" dynamics which are distinctively different, >very ordered, compared to the pell-mell of the typical dirty >"burn" of randomly present elements. I just read a msg on one of the other newsgroups (don't have it now) about "ultra pure water", and about how the properties of this "stuff" was different from normal water....anyone know about this, and would it explain brown gas ?......steve steve&paula opelc....paula@southconn.com `[1;32;44mNet-Tamer V 1.04 - Registered From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 20:43:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA03996; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607090022.UAA27807@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Michael X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > By past experiments, we know the delta voltage can exceed 200 kV - but > just WHAT IS THE UPPER LIMIT WITHOUT VIOLATING NATURES RULES?? Lightning bolts typically switch off, then restart hundreds of times a second, due exactly to magnetic self disruptions. HOWEVER, there are so called super-bolts which apparently do not interrupt themselves until all or almost all of the charge is dissipated. These easily hit TFTR central current levels... > I guess I see in this current pinch thing something analogous to the > gravitational colapse of matter into a black hole. Not quite, of > course, - I don't expect to see some sort of a "black line"! > But, if the delta voltage could exceed a few megavolts across a short > channel, maybe we could see pair formation as Nature's way of solving > her problem of too much current and no place to put it! Maybe she > could come up with some new string-like, QM form of matter-energy as, > I think, has been previously proposed in the ball-lightning literature. > At least, it should be more clear why I wanted to generate this magic > effect in my capacitor bank. The effect exists, and I have seen it, so don't give up hope. But it is frustratingly difficult to duplicate. GE had a nice display at the 1964 World's Fair in New York with a very simple linear pinch device. It fired every few minutes while the Fair was open. But when you look at the statistics, you will see that 99% of the time they got the expected flash, bang, and neutrons from stripping. Some of the "failures" were true equipment failures, although a capacitor blowing could be just as spectacular as the intended effect. The other cases are the interesting ones. The pinch remained stable and there were no neutrons produced... This is the exact opposite of the ball lightning effect. I'm not going to try to present a mathematical model here, but essentially what happens is that you have a VERY small thread of current carriers mostly electrons, confined by the self-magnetic field. As long as no collisions perturb the conducting thread, all the current flows through the center of the plasma with little or no energy exchange. Basically, the pinch instabilities occur because the plasma is "hot" in directions transverse to the current flow. But if you get this phenomena, all of the current is carried at very low resistance through the center of the plasma. If you get probes close enough, you will find that the net resistance of the current thread is negative. Yep. Negative. I've measured reverse voltage drops in the 10 KV range! (And yes this can play holy hell with your power supply if you are not careful. Ever seen a 200 lb. power supply jump three feet in the air? Don't sit things that can create a huge magnetic field on an aluminum bench.) Of course this is not a free lunch. What you are seeing is that the energy you initially put in the magnetic field can be reversibly extracted. If you have enough inductance in the circut to keep things stable, and can stabilize the plasma everything runs smoothly. I have measured voltage fluctuations in the Kilovolt per microsecond range while the current smoothly varied from zero to one kiloamp to zero over a range of several milliseconds. But net power in still equaled net power out, over half as heat and light. The easiest way to see this is with a wall-stabilized arc. Not much use for (hot) fusion, but interesting physics nonetheless. The most we ever stored in a pinch field was 1-2 Kjoules, but it turns out to be one of the most weight efficient storage systems ever. One watt-hour is 3600 Kjoules, and we were storing that in much less than a gram of plasma. But it is hard to hold it there long, as the tokamak folk can tell you. ;-) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 8 20:44:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA04206; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607090038.UAA27820@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 200 kiloamp opening switch X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I said: > ...If everything works as intended, you fire the thyratron and the >capacator discharges to ground through the inductor. When the current >across the thyratron reverses, it will open and you will get an arc >across the spark gap. Since thyratrons don't close immediately on >current reversal, you should get a faster rise time than from the LC >circut alone. (But as I said earlier, if you overdrive the thyratron, >it will switch off at or near maximum current. Get it right and >everything will happen in less than one video frame...) Horace Heffner said: > Frank said he wanted to switch when the current was at its peak - > switching at current reversal is switching at the minimum > current... > I know Frank said this is not what he wanted so I seem to be > missing something here. Any idea where my problem is? No problem. I was just pointing out that you should be able to test the whole setup without overdriving the thyratron. If and when you do overdrive the thyratron you will get switching at or near peak current. This occurs because the gas pressure inside the thyratron reaches a point where it snuffs the (conducting) plasma out like a candle. The reason I was discussing normal mode operation is that a thyratron that shuts down like this is not something to fool with. (Did I say that you have a bomb? I did didn't I. I used to have a thyratron on my desk that had blown out--sitting on the bowed side plate from a 19" rack that was a little too close. A quick look at the thyratron, you would think it had been hit by a 20 mm cannon round, but there was no entry, just the exit.) Debug everything, then ramp the capacitor voltage up from shot to shot. With luck, err, good design, you will reach the overdrive effect before you overvoltage the caps, if not, add more capacitors. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 00:19:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA14114; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960709064447_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: David Hudson Lecture X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott, >> He says that cow and pig brains are 5% by weight Rh and Ir but that it can't be directly measured. (this would make the brains worth about $240/lb!) << So Hudson has found the solution to the BSE/CJD problem of funding the compensation to the farmers. >> Further, he claims that gold can be transformed into a white powder that: (1) has a negative weight and (2) makes you live forever if you eat it. << Of course - its called crack! If you add the pot you get crack-pot! Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 00:39:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA16906; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:30:20 -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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Michael writes about Plato 'n' all that stuff. Yes, I've read them. In > fact I made a big study of that whole field when I was around 20. (Not > long after Plato'n'that haha). It happens I believe (with how much > justification I'm not sure) that present-day scientists could > *seriously* do with studying the subject. They have usually heard of > Ockham's Razor, but usually only in some grossly distorted form. They > also think that logic is a branch of mathematics. > > I have tried discussing QM and relativity from a 'logic' point of view, > but people usually just get all upset. This could make quite a serious > subject for a book, I reckon. Quite often, when someone says that a given subject ought to be studied, it has been. As to QM, there are, for example, a book or two by Max Jammer, on the history and the philosophy thereof. No doubt relativity has been written about endlessly. We have here a whole library full of books on the history of science, and it's amazing what has been written about. As for Far Eastern thought, suggested by MM, my advice is not to overrate it. No doubt they have had their Platos there. One of the points made by Joseph Needham about China (he wrote a mammoth work on the history of science there) is that China has generally seen similar development to that in Europe, not - as some people believe - far superior. So they discovered some stuff, and we discovered some stuff. I must say I got very unimpressed when reading a book about Kung Fu Tsu ("Confucius"), where he lays down that a man must wear, when in bed, a night shirt one and a half times the length of his body. After that, I don't expect any very deep thought from the man. OK, that's only him; as I say, no doubt they had their Platos too. A final comment: About a fortnight ago, I wrote here about my Zap Theory; how zaps (sparks), high voltage discharges, magnetic fields, fluxes, toroidal coils seem to be today's magic. What have we had since, but non-stop zaps, discharges, toroidal coils, fields, etc etc. Powerful magic, eh what? My point being, that physicists understand these phenomena pretty well, and can predict what happens to matter subjected to them. No magic, no ou just because you're impressed by a high-voltage zap. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 9 00:37:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA17190; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I6URM6EKIQ8YGZ6U@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: Champions claims X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 20:43:09 >Scott Little >This seems reasonable but, as usual, I still have questions. Does any >Vortex >member have information about this aspect of emission spectroscopy? Scott, I can put you in touch with the guy who runs our atomic absorbtion lab. Then you can ask him directly the questions you have on your mind. He's very experienced at flame spectroscopy. If this sounds like what you want let me know and I will email his phone # directly to you. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 00:55:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA19681; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:52:02 -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: USPTO Patent & Trademark Copy Order - Fixed up X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent & Trademark Copy Order Complete all information requested below. For additional information, call (703) 305-4350. Return the completed form, using one of the following addresses: Internet to: ptcs@uspto.gov FAX to: (703) 305-8759 Mail to: U.S. Patent & Trademark Office BOX 9 PTCS , Washington, D.C. 20231 _____________________________________________________________________________ CUSTOMER INFORMATION Company or Name: _________________________________ Phone :(____)_____________ Street: ______________________________________________ City/State: _____________________________________________ ZIP____________ Contact Person, if different or not listed above:____________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ PREFERRED DELIVERY METHOD (Select One Delivery Method ONLY) ____ Fax FAX #________________________ U.S.A. delivery rates: $6.00/copy for overnight; $25.00/copy for 3-hour delivery; Foreign fax is available. Call or e-mail to the PTCS. ____ Fed Ex (cost varies by order size. Delivered to address given above) ____ U.S. Mail ($3.00/copy. Delivered to address given above) ____ PTO Box, List Box #:_________ Box delivery rates: $6.00/copy for 24 hr delivery; all other $3.00/copy) _____________________________________________________________________________ PAYMENT INFORMATION (Select ONE Payment Method ) 1. Charge Card Amount $____________ on ______VISA or ______Mastercard Card #: ______________________ Expr. Date: ____________ Amount $_________ Provide Card Holder's Name/Address if different from Customer Information above NAME_______________________________________ Street: ______________________________ City __________________ State______ 2. PTO Deposit Account Deposit Acct #: _________________________ Amount Authorized: $_________ Authorized Signature: _____________________ 3. Check or Money Order sent via mail in the amount of $ ___________ Mail the Order Form and Check/Money Order together . Allow 4 - 8 weeks for the mail. ____________________________________________________________________________ ORDER INFORMATION List the patent and/or trademark numbers, along with the appropriate prefix, next to the "ITEM" numbers listed in the space provided below. Be sure to indicate a prefix for copies of documents other than utility patents. The prefixes are: Utility Patent - Use No Prefix ; Plant Patent - PP; Design Patent - DES; Reissue Patent - RE; Trademark - TM #1 ___________________ #2 ____________________ #3 ___________________ #4 ___________________ #5 ____________________ #6 ___________________ #7 ___________________ #8 ____________________ #9 ___________________ #10 ___________________ #11 ____________________ #12 ___________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ OPTIONAL DELIVERY LOCATIONS To Request Delivery to Address(es) Other Than the one given in the Customer Address Section or to multiple FAX Numbers, complete the information below. If you are requesting delivery to multiple locations, photocopy this sheet and submit one sheet for each location. Company or Name: ____________________________________ Street: ______________________________________________ City/State: __________________________________ ZIP____________ OR Company or Name: __________________________________ FAX NUMBER: ( )_________________ Telephone number ( )________________ Internet to: ptcs@uspto.gov FAX to: (703) 305-8759 Mail to: U.S. Patent & Trademark Office BOX 9 PTCS , Washington, D.C. 20231 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 01:52:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA25666; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 01:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 01:49:05 -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: SRT - flux lines around a long straight wire X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >>I think each flux line, unlike the arbitrary units assigned to flux, is >>generated by a single electron. > >Horace, I think you are way off base. I don't see how your picture can >account for the well known case of circular, closed magnetic flux lines >around a long straight conductor. These don't start and end on any >electron... > >In fact, magnetic lines have no beginning and no end, unless someone >discovers a magnetic monopole. People have looked very hard for one (it >would be a cinch for a Nobel prize), but so far none has been found. > >Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com I know I am probably way off base, Michael. However, I am just learning this stuff, so I will never have the chance to see this with new eyes again. I'll be brainwashed all by myself. Hopefully this has been a thought provoking exercise, and maybe will give someone that magical spark of inspiration. The chain of assumptions has already run pretty deep, and there is already a basis for some experiments, so I hesitate to jump off of this particular cliff of circular flux lines in space because it is a tall one, but what the heck. I think magnetism must be a macro world extension of a quantum world existence. Every charged particle has a magnetic field, in fact numerous magnetic fields depending on your reference frame. Similarly every particle has a quantum wave function, which also varies in wavelength and other characteristics depending on you reference frame velocity. As I said earlier, I think flux lines are really very flexible flux tubes, with mass, momentum, pressure, and many other physical characteristics. These flexible tubes should be accounted for in an overall combined quantum electoodynamic theory (I know QED exists), which due to the importance of frame of reference to quantum wavelength, mass, magnetic field, momentum, etc., should be thorougly integrated with relativistic and gravitational force models. Of course I don't have a clue about how to do that. What I can offer is a possible extension of the visualization model that can account for the apparent flux lines in space around a log straight wire. Since every charged particle has a magnetic field (different in various frames of reference) then therefore every charged particle has at least one line of flux. It does not appear necessary to assume that there as anything other than a one to one relationship, i.e. one line of flux per electron (charged particle) is enough when you consider it is longitudinally stretchable and laterally expandable to fill a full 360 degrees. Since every electron has spin it is reasonable that such spin can generate the flux line if you assume the charge is distributed in the quantum waveform of the spinning electron, and thus the spinning charge cloud generates a flux line through its axis which explodes outwardly in all directions laterally, surrounds the electron and returns to the center at the opposite "pole", all this from a relatively non-moving frame of reference. The flux tube and charge clouds are just different forms of the same quantum stuff, having no natural firm boundary, and yet also having differing properties depending on your reference frame (relative velocity) and boundary conditions. Now, if we approach the electron in the plane of the charge cloud rotation, i.e in the plane purpendicular to the pole or axis of that rotation, part of the charge cloud will be coming at us, the other receding. Part will have an increased (additive) relative velocity (tha part coming at us), part will have a reduced relative velocity (the part going away). This enlargens and makes more magnetically powerful the portion of the flux loop on one side than the other. Note that this is all relative to the frame of referance. Therefore, in effect, magnetic flux loops issue from the edges of the electrons, and vice versa, the electrons are attached to the edges of such flux loops, with greatly reduced apparent size flux loops on the opposite sides. Now, if you are in an environment where the are many of these loops within a wire, their own pressure will force them out of the wire, sticking out laterally, like a bunch of porcupine quills of varying lengths. Now, the edges of one flux tube going radially outward will be exactly balanced by the adjacnt "return edge" of the adjacnt loop returning radially inward. The outward and inward portions of the loops cancel, leaving only the apparent tips of the loops in space around the wire. Not only does this leave one set of what appears to be circular flux loops in space, it leaves multiple, depending on your frame of reference. The above is just food for thought. I don't want to get too far down the pike here. :) I just want to determine some good tests/configurations for an SRT, assuming such is even buildable. Hope I am not upsetting anyone with the speculation. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 02:11:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA27664; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 02:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 02:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960709083707_100433.1541_BHG104-1@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: Re: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Dieter, > Quite often, when someone says that a given subject ought to be > studied, it has been. As to QM, there are, for example, a book or > two by Max Jammer, on the history and the philosophy thereof. Thanks for the tip. I was actually talking about the formal logic behind modern physics, though, rather than its history and philosophy. Maybe Jammer covers that too. > What have we had since, but non-stop zaps, discharges, toroidal > coils, fields, etc etc. Powerful magic, eh what? My point being, > that physicists understand these phenomena pretty well, and can > predict what happens to matter subjected to them. Sorry, Dieter, they simply do NOT understand them. That is not to say there is any magic in them - although such systems are often non-linear and therefore the physics of them is essentially an extrapolation from linear systems. You have too much faith! I have often pointed out here that one reason why people with wild and whacky electrical machines get a hearing is that few physicists have the faintest idea how such things work anyway, so they can't spot the mistake. For example, read Alan Lightman's "A Modern Day Yankee In A Connecticut Court" (Penguin), where he points out that as a physicist he has no understanding of the physics of C19th technology, let alone C20th. Ask a physicist if a spinning sphere has axial stability, ask him about the phenomenology of the Faraday disc, or even (in some cases) whether power is needed to sustain the field of an electromagnet. Bear in mind that Physical Review (of all places) has published such stuff as a mathematical derivation of inertia from zpf, suggesting that *all* the forces may be fundamentally electromagnetic in origin, so I for one would keep an interested eye on non-linear em effects. My problem is that if I read up on fields and photons with a suitably jaundiced eye, I get the very strong impression that people are *having* to talk philosophy. That looks to be the only way to smother the contradictions and paradoxes - pile on great wodges of philosophical bollocks until the contradictions are hidden. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 04:25:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA09115; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 04:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 04:21:28 -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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > What have we had since, but non-stop zaps, discharges, toroidal > > coils, fields, etc etc. Powerful magic, eh what? My point being, > > that physicists understand these phenomena pretty well, and can > > predict what happens to matter subjected to them. > > Sorry, Dieter, they simply do NOT understand them. That is not to say > there is any magic in them - although such systems are often non-linear > and therefore the physics of them is essentially an extrapolation from > linear systems. You have too much faith! I have often pointed out here > that one reason why people with wild and whacky electrical machines get > a hearing is that few physicists have the faintest idea how such things > work anyway, so they can't spot the mistake. For example, read Alan [...] I still say you overstate this. You are getting into the deep stuff: What is the "real" cause of all this? What is matter? What is a force? Etc. Noone can answer these questions. But physicists have an operational understanding of a lot of stuff, anyway - certainly not all and I'm the last to claim that there are no new phenomena left to discover, even grossly amazing ones. But they do have pretty good handles on what effects to expect from electric forces, mag fields, gravity, etc. Almost everything you can think of involving these, has been tried back in the good old days. To now discover something entirely new, you have to either be very very lucky, or try really hard. I don't for a minute believe you can simply set up an electrolysis, wave a "magnetic field" at it, and break down water without the customary delta-H. For example. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 9 04:37:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA09781; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 04:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 04:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607091126.GAA02338@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: Champions claims X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 12:31 AM 7/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >Scott, I can put you in touch with the guy who runs our atomic >absorbtion >lab. If you don't mind, Joe, first just ask him if he knows much about the problem we're talking about...i.e. does he know if the modern versions of the emission spectrograph (they go by 3 letter acronyms like ICP, and DCP) have a "built-in" problem analyzing high-boiling point elements because the lower boiling point elements vaporize out of the sample first. If he's not specifically familiar with the sample introduction techniques used on these analyzers (which are not atomic absorbtion analyzers) he won't be any help. Thanks. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 05:35:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13473; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 05:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 05:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607091202.HAA03232@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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 04:21 AM 7/9/96 -0700, Dieter wrote: >I don't for a minute >believe you can simply set up an electrolysis, wave a "magnetic field" at it, >and break down water without the customary delta-H. For example. I have to side with Dieter on this one....with the caveat that I am one of those "fossils" who thinks he actually understands magnetic fields....at least from an energetic viewpoint. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 06:43:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA24477; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 06:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 06:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960709132031_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: Re: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dieter, > You are getting into the deep stuff: What is the "real" cause of > all this? What is matter? What is a force? Etc. Sorry if I gave that impression. My point was that working, qualified physicists are often pretty hazy about *basic* physics. I quoted three examples - the Faraday disc, the rotational stability of a sphere, and the power needed by an electromagnet. In each case, I've been puzzled to find that not only do well-qualified men get these hopelessly wrong, but also insist loudly that they are right. On the matter of electrolysis, it happens I agree with you very strongly! Chris From billb@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 22:47:37 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 WAA29477 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Default (moon-c22.aa.net [204.157.220.122]) by big.aa.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA20943 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:47:21 -0700 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199607100547.WAA20943@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, 09 Jul 1996 22:46:54 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Electric Fields/Electromagnetism Debate/Discussion... Status: O X-Status: At 02:07 PM 7/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Electric Fields/Electromagnetism Debate/Discussion... >- >OK, I'll throw out some bait. What is CHARGE? MDH > > an astute question more subtle than appears. let the formalists begin the wordsmithing here BUT I hope that they can convey the absolute relativety of the condition, and do it in a way which encompasses natural elemental emf as well as trivial circuit definitions. Perhaps the beginning point is, what leads you to believe that you have "Charge"? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 07:49:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA05231; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 07:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 07:38:12 -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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > You are getting into the deep stuff: What is the "real" cause of > > all this? What is matter? What is a force? Etc. > > Sorry if I gave that impression. My point was that working, qualified > physicists are often pretty hazy about *basic* physics. I quoted three > examples - the Faraday disc, the rotational stability of a sphere, and > the power needed by an electromagnet. In each case, I've been puzzled > to find that not only do well-qualified men get these hopelessly wrong, > but also insist loudly that they are right. OK, gotcha. While you can't expect every scientist to be completely au fait with every branch of his/her subject, you might expect a bit of humility there. Bullshitting is unforgivable. Apart from the obvious (arrogance), I can however think of a reason why otherwise reasonable men & women might mistakenly and without arrogance froth at the mouth: ignorance of the holes in their own knowledge. I found some horrendous holes I didn't know about when I started teaching the stuff. Once you know you have these holes, there is every reason to be cautious when pronouncing on something. That is, if you find out. Some people don't or, like Neddy Seagoon, "don't wish to know that!". I don't know enough to comment on your three examples, I'm not a physicist, just a humble electrochemist with one physics book on the shelf. Electrochemists have their holes too. I asked a rather famous one (in the class of Bockris) about the famous "electrochemical pressure", and got the authoritative answer, that this is a misuse of the Nernst equation, a confusion of dynamics with equili- brium. Upon long reflection, I am pretty sure he was wrong and P&F are right, except that they should have said fugacity, not pressure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 9 10:41:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA10200; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:34:27 -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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >At 04:21 AM 7/9/96 -0700, Dieter wrote: > >>I don't for a minute >>believe you can simply set up an electrolysis, wave a "magnetic field" at it, >>and break down water without the customary delta-H. For example. > >I have to side with Dieter on this one....with the caveat that I am one of >those "fossils" who thinks he actually understands magnetic fields....at >least from an energetic viewpoint. > > - Scott Little We all have to go where our perception of the odds points us. However, nature does things here own way, regardless of our perceptions. Making a priori choices has its cost. Should there be some wave of a "magnetic field" that breaks down water cheaply, you have both crossed yourselves off the list of potential discoverers. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 10:44:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA10292; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Steve Ekwall To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cammera X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 8 Jul 1996 FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:34:45 -0700 (PDT) > From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: cammera > > We used my cam recorder to take pictures of Stenger's shots. To my dismay a > yellow spot remained on the middle of all subsequent pictures taken with the > cammera. Then, to my amaqzement, after a period of about two weeks the > yellow spot went away. > > Frank Z > Using 'older' Tube technology (don't know your camcorder make/model), But sounds like you just 'BURNT-In the image' 'older cam-systems' use a 10 to 1 ration from Black to white (i.e indoor=10-1 & outdoor=10-1 Exceed either or have your setting to indoor will recording outdoor (BRIGHT LIGHT) you not only see just a BRIGHT LIGHT / recording.. you can actually damage your recorders tube- If the spot WENT AWAY.. (you got lucky!!) sound like you don't have to buy a new recorder!.. good luck & ALWAYS try a filter that is too strong (dark) then work down from there (cctv hints) -=steve ekwall=- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 11:45:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA21605; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607091740.KAA00408@shell.skylink.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Robert Stirniman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: All That Zitters X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hal Puthoff (Puthoff@aol.com) writes: > Picking up on an earlier idea about diodes and capacitors rectifying and > using ambient fluctuation energy sources, > See: > Yater, Power conversion of energy fluctuations," Phys. Rev. A 10, 1361 > (1974); Comments by EerNisse, Phys Rev A 18, 767 (1978); Rebuttal by Yater, > Phys Rev A 20, 623 (1979). > See also articles by Maddox in Nature with titles "Directed motion from > random noise," and "Bringing more order out of noisiness," both in vol 369, > pp. 181 and 271 (1994). > Finally article J. Travis, "Making light work of Brownian motion," Science > 267, 1593 (1995). It's a seductive idea. With a small enough ratchet-and-pawl, and a sufficiently energetic random noise source -- we could tap energy from waste heat, or zpe, or wherever. The bacteria discussed in the last of the articles referenced above, manages to make a living doing this. Maybe it doesn't care about the second law of thermodynamics, and recognizes intuitively that there is no such thing as a closed system. Life itself violates the second law. It is possible to build a machine, which operates in a fashion similar to this bacteria -- creating linear motion from vibration. See US patent #3404854, by Alfiero diBella, "A Device for Imparting Motion". It is a type of mechanical rectifier. There are a variety of other inventions which claim to do this. In the first article referenced above, Yater presents a model for for tapping the thermal energy of electrons, by using a potential bias across diodes which are at different temperatures. In the later article, EerNisse remarks that Yater's concept is impractical -- due to stray capacitance, and other problems. Impractical? Yes, but what of the merit of the idea itself -- at some point it may become merely a matter of implementation. If you can build a large enough lever, you must still find a place to stand on. Anyhow. About the Kawai generator -- US patent #5436518, Teruo Kawai, "Motive Power Generating Device", July 1995. It claims to be an over-unity device. It might work. Does anyone know if it does? If it does, how does it? I have speculated since first looking at this thing -- that the magnetic domains in the teeth of the rotor are pulled forward by the timely energization of the stator coils, which causes a rapid switching to magnetic saturation in the direction of the hook of the teeth -- creating a force in the forward direction of rotation due to precession of the magnetic dipoles in the teeth. Following which, the stator coils are timely de-energized, and the magnetic material in the rotor reverts back to its initial condition due to some kind of random noise energy or brownian motion. The Kawai devices uses a DC biased magnetic field. It is a unipolar/homopolar circuit. Take Yater's model, and devise a magnetic circuit analog, with permanent magnets and DC energized coils, in place of diodes and bias potentials, and/or the difference in electron energy level between Ni and Fe (or other core materials) as the bias potential or temperature difference. And/or a timely on-off switching of the stator coils, as a temperature difference. Well, that's already farther out than I am able to take this. Below are some possibly related references about noise in magnetic cores. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) References: Yoshihiro, Kajiwara, et al. "A System for Measuring Magnetic Core Noise as a Function of the Magnetization Level", IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol 31 No 4 Page 2389. July 1995. T. Higuchi, "Analysis of Core Noise in 50% Ni-Fe -- Effects of the Maximum Magneto-Motive Force on the Postsaturation Branch on Core Noise", Transactions IEE Japan, Vol 92-B No 1 Page 15. 1974 Birsan, Szpunar, et al, "Magnetic Barkhausen Noise Study of Domain Wall Dynamics in Grain Oriented 3% Si-Fe", IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol 32 No 2 Page 527. March 1996. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 12:04:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA27270; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Chris wrote: >Sorry if I gave that impression. My point was that working, qualified >physicists are often pretty hazy about *basic* physics. I quoted three >examples - the Faraday disc, the rotational stability of a sphere, and >the power needed by an electromagnet. In each case, I've been puzzled >to find that not only do well-qualified men get these hopelessly wrong, >but also insist loudly that they are right. I'm a physicist, and I know about electromagnets, because I work with them a lot. I am humble enough, like Deiter, to recognize that I have only an introduction to many other subjects in physics. I have designed complicated electromagnets, and I know many others who have done so, too. I have never heard of one that required more (or less) power than expected; and this is an important point when your magnet comsumes 500 MW! I have also worked a lot with high voltage (up to 1 MV) high current (up to 500 kA) capacitor and pulse discharge systems. I do not know of any magic here. It IS very easy to get erroneous readings on your instruments, though. Even much less than 1% of stray pickup in a signal cable or an instrument front end can give truly wierd apparent signals. I've seen an oscilloscope trace where the time sweep went backwards. This was not physics, but inadequate shielding. The experimentalist must know his or her equipment, and test, test, test! 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 Jul 9 13:18:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA11274; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 13:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 13:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <23587@oroboros.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: CRSM@oroboros.demon.co.uk (Chris Morriss) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: EH What?? Surely an electro-magnet consumes NO power. The only power used is in heating the wire because it has resistance. That is, of course, if nothing else is causing a flux change in the electromagnet (such as a moving armature). -- Chris Morriss From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 14:04:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA18292; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 13:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 13:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960709203955_100433.1541_BHG72-1@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: Re: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Michael Schaffer writes: > I have designed complicated electromagnets, and I know many others > who have done so, too. I have never heard of one that required > more (or less) power than expected; and this is an important point > when your magnet comsumes 500 MW! Yes, of course. The point I was making was that the electromagnet itself doesn't need any power to sustain its magnetic field. In other words, the device is current-driven, not power driven at all. Naturally, you need power to create the field, but in theory you can recover that power when the field collapses. Any real power taken by the device is for losses - or for the work done by the electromagnet. As a simple example, consider a parallel resonant circuit, the inductor of which is an electromagnet. Stimulate this circuit with a sine wave at its resonant frequency, and it will present a near-infinite impedance - any losses being accounted for by an imperfect sine wave or by various losses in the circuit. A nice demonstration of the fact that quite powerful magnetic fields can be produced without any power at all. Obviously, if they needed power, a permanent magnet would wind down pretty fast. So I got mildly irritated at being lectured by physicists who had no concept of how em actually operates. As to the question of 'spiky' stuff - yes, I take your point, especially about the problems of measuring them. All I was suggesting is that I would imagine that if there really is any 'magic' hiding in em, that's about the only place it could be hiding - I'm certainly not saying it is. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 14:11:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19655; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:05:34 -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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/09/96 12:04 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Correas' Experiments Guys: Could we be careful about continuing this "off the topic" discussion on the "Correas' Experiments" lable? If you want to continue an esoteric debate on magnetism, fields, etc. Please do it under a proper title. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 14:14:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19921; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Electric Fields/Electromagnetism Debate/Discussion... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Electric Fields/Electromagnetism Debate/Discussion... - OK, I'll throw out some bait. What is CHARGE? MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 14:19:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA20469; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:11:03 -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: CETI Cell Info/Tests/Developments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: CETI Cell Info/Tests/Developments Is this getting clearer what I am suggesting? - Archive this note and use it to send info on CETI cells.. - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 14:27:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA20671; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:12:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:12:24 -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: Classic Pons and Fleishmann Work (Pd/D with electrolysis) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Classic Pons and Fleishmann Work (Pd/D with electrolysis) Comments or developments in the P&F area... - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 14:34:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA23737; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:28:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:28:30 -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: Theory ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Theory ! - Put pure theory here! From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 14:39:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA23825; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:29:03 -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: Real Experimental Results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Real Experimental Results - Reserve this title for any REAL data from ACTUAL experiments. - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 14:37:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA23945; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:29:33 -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: Griggs/Potapov Devices, Cavitation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Griggs/Potapov Devices, Cavitation - Comments On Griggs or Potapov or the like. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 14:37:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA24013; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:29:52 -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: Proposed Experiments: X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Proposed Experiments: - Put proposed experiments here. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 15:20:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA02258; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:14:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:14:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607092212.SAA26642@lux> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: ron@dvcorp.com (Ron) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: the remining fields-Robin X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >With regard to the problem of a camcorder blanking out the flash from an arc: The dark glass in a welders mask might also work well although it does add a greenish tint. I got some nice shots of an eclipse using this method. Using a pinhole may not make full use of the field of view of the camera; when I put a pinhole in front a 35mm camera lense it only exposed the center of the film. Some video cameras have a high speed shutter option which will also reduce the light input. Ron From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 15:46:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07590; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960709182920_573137801@emout13.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: potapov X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I'm planning to visit with Yuri, Vlad, and Peter when when they come to Detroit next week. I'm also planning to go to LanL if possible. I looking forward to the visit. I hope the Lanl texts go well and that the group of investors I put together can begin to help Yuri extablish his technology in the US. Ron McFee, my partners, and I hope that the Lanl test's will be a resounding sucess. I'll try to get some pictures for Gene. Frank Znidarsic Hugo...you want to impose to may rules...That Bill B's job if he want's to do so...I went to see Stenger's ball lightning machine, went to see the CETI cell at Power Gen, went to visit with Puthoff, and went to visit with Reed Huish. Each time I learned something about things that appeared to be unrelated. Perhaps after I visit with Potapov a clear picture will emerge that will link the various technologies. Perhaps not. Let's keep the dialog open. The greeks have a word Logos. This word means that there is a relationship between all things in the physical world. I believe it and I want to learn. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 17:43:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA27472; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31E2EF8E.7A41@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Electric Fields/Electromagnetism Debate/Discussion... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: > OK, I'll throw out some bait. What is CHARGE? MDH Answers the question: Cash or Charge? FJS From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 17:49:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA27587; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31E2F816.256B@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Apologies to Mark Hugo/Agreement X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Mark! In spite of my dumb joke, I agree with your intent! (As one of the worse offenders,) I think more pointed subjects would be good, But I doubt this group could fit their comments into any FINITE number of categories. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 18:42:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA07667; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:35:17 -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: Equipment/Hardware Requests---Locating, Finding, Buying, Len X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Equipment/Hardware Requests---Locating, Finding, Buying, Lending - Put requests for equipment here. - MDH From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 18:39:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA07997; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9607100040.AA01024@janus.cqu.edu.au> Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mutchg@Topaz.Cqu.Edu.Au (G.D.Mutch) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Neurophone X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hello T-H listeners. My Name is Grant Mutch. I live in Rockhampton Aust. I have been hearing Taos hum of around two months now after being involved with a energy research group. The group has been doing extremely sucessful work in the over-unity energy area. I'm reluctant to say much more than this as I know my T-H is intelligently controlled, and this email will cause an increase in the T-H noise level again. Much to my dismay and extreme discomfort. The purpose for this email is to give some information that I have found on the web. PLEASE VIEW THIS SITE AS SOON AS YOU CAN. It may help fellow T-H suffers http://www.throne.com/muse/neuro/neuro1.html If you have trouble gettin on to the site, tell me and I will email the site to you. Grant ========= Email : Mutchg@Topaz.Cqu.Edu.Au =================================== People who hear Diesel Engines are Hearing * HAARPS of the self proclaimed gods.Tolerate their music for they know * * their songs will be short. May those who hear their tunes come together . and sing as one voice. ============================================ * =============== -Anon.======== From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 19:56:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA24523; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 19:52:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 19:52:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dave Dixon To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Neurophone X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, G.D.Mutch wrote: > The purpose for this email is to give some information that I have found > on the web. PLEASE VIEW THIS SITE AS SOON AS YOU CAN. It may help fellow > T-H suffers http://www.throne.com/muse/neuro/neuro1.html > Allright now, let's let everyone have a look at this site and decide for themselves whether there is something WHOAAAAAAAA-NELLLLLLLLY! OOPS. (of value there.) Sorry, everyone. Guess my knee-jerk BS detector went off, there. Dave From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 22:00:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19413; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 21:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 21:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Steve Ekwall To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Apologies to Mark Hugo/Agreement X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:40:17 -0700 (PDT) > From: Francis J. Stenger > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Apologies to Mark Hugo/Agreement > > Mark! In spite of my dumb joke, I agree with your intent! (As one of > the worse offenders,) I think more pointed subjects would be good, But > I doubt this group could fit their comments into any FINITE number of > categories. Frank Stenger > Touche~ for the/our group..... sounds of open mindedness are all to silent. -=good luck to ALL who DO; WHATEVER! - may we serve with GOOD ADVISE=- :) en guard! From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 22:13:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA21942; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607100456.XAA01696@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: crossed off the list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace remarks that Dieter & I have crossed ourselves off the list of people who might possibly discover a new way to electrolyze water using magnetic fields. I, for one, do not regret this loss, because it is synonymous with me also being crossed off the list of people who will spend some of their time trying to make such a discovery. Each of us picks his own path through the universe of possible research directions stretching out before us...guided by past experiences, knowledge, and speculation. Scott (have you noticed how philosophical we tend to get when there's not much experimental work to discuss?) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 22:56:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA00523; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607100547.WAA20937@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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 02:05 PM 7/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >*** Reply to note of 07/09/96 12:04 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Re: Correas' Experiments >Guys: Could we be careful about continuing this "off the topic" discussion >on the "Correas' Experiments" lable? If you want to continue an esoteric >debate on magnetism, fields, etc. Please do it under a proper title. > > or maybe we should be clever enough to lable the subject honestly, such as, Tinsley's Tangent On Correas' Experiments? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 22:56:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA00607; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607100547.WAA20947@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: Tinsley's/Dieter's Tangents X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 12:30 AM 7/9/96 -0700, you wrote: > >A final comment: About a fortnight ago, I wrote here about my Zap Theory; how >zaps (sparks), high voltage discharges, magnetic fields, fluxes, toroidal coils >seem to be today's magic. What have we had since, but non-stop zaps, >discharges, toroidal coils, fields, etc etc. Powerful magic, eh what? My point >being, that physicists understand these phenomena pretty well, and can predict >what happens to matter subjected to them. No magic, no ou just because you're >impressed by a high-voltage zap. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >| 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 | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > I think you are about 90% on this. There is 10% more, though...I have seen high voltage (real high) standing waves in complex geometries do amazing things, including turning steel into jello without much apparent heating. The problem is, this research is all secret. I predict you will see some real magic come up during the next five years or so. Common to everything being poked around in transmutation, cold fusion, other strange stuff, is THE COULOMB BARIER AND ENERGETICS OF THE INNER SHELLS AINT WHAT QUANTUM CRACKS IT UP TO BE. There is something else beyond theory, almost beyond our ability to even notice, which makes matter more dynamic, less stable, than we think. We are in a position of accidentially noticing tiny things once and while, like the "floaters" on our eyeballs which we notice once in a while and then we generally ignore. Cold fusion and transmutation is now stabilizing so that we can get the floaters on command, even if we don't know what the heck about why, except assorted odd notions of mixtures and potentials. Without theory, it is all very much in the realm of inventor's alchemy. Both are necessary ultimately, which is perhaps why both exist. Some guys think the floaters are just noise, others think the floaters can be harnessed. Some guys really like the empirical investigations, others don't. Look at Scott Little, he obviously loves his gear and the reward is in the doing, even if he never wins the lottery. Some people would think he is wasting his time (not me). ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 9 23:49:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA09103; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 23:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 23:46:50 -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: This & that X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, MHUGO@EPRI wrote: > *** Reply to note of 07/09/96 12:04 > From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > Subject: Re: Correas' Experiments > Guys: Could we be careful about continuing this "off the topic" discussion > on the "Correas' Experiments" lable? If you want to continue an esoteric > debate on magnetism, fields, etc. Please do it under a proper title. Good point, so sorry. How's this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 10 00:11:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12034; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:07:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:07:54 -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: Where do babies really come from? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: > From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > Subject: Electric Fields/Electromagnetism Debate/Discussion... > - > OK, I'll throw out some bait. What is CHARGE? MDH I'm glad you asked [me] that {:] This is a good example of our trying to understand what something "really" is but noone really can answer. We have heard the word "charge" since we were kids and think of it as a lump of something with these little things stuck on them, negative ones and positives ones (I hope I can speak for more than just me). When we get down to elementary particles, though, we have to stop trying to imagine, and just make do with what we know. Not too long ago, physicists discovered more properties of particles that distinguish them from one another: they gave them names like "charm" and "color". These are brand new and noone really believes that actual charm, or colour, is meant. They are just names for the property. What we have to do now is to extend that open- mindedness to "charge". Charge is a property of particles. There are two kinds, and they lead to certain behaviour, well studied and understood. That's all we know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 10 00:11:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12077; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960710065426_100060.173_JHB66-2@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: Tinsley's/Dieter's Tangents X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Michael, >> Some guys really like the empirical investigations, others don't. Look at Scott Little, he obviously loves his gear and the reward is in the doing, even if he never wins the lottery. Some people would think he is wasting his time (not me). << Hear, hear !! Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 10 00:11:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12147; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960710065424_100060.173_JHB66-1@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: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Chris T.: >> any losses being accounted for by an imperfect sine wave or by various losses >> in the circuit. << I'm not certain about that - any waveform, however "imperfect" can be represented as a Fourier sum of any number of "perfect" sine waves, so the losses must be the only source of power consumption i.e. Ohmic resistive and/or hysteresis and/or dielectric (I nearly said Hysterical but stopped in time). Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 10 02:45:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA26243; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 02:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 02:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960710093459_100433.1541_BHG72-1@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: Re: Correas' Experiments X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Norman comments: > I'm not certain about that - any waveform, however "imperfect" can > be represented as a Fourier sum of any number of "perfect" sine > waves, so the losses must be the only source of power consumption > i.e. Ohmic resistive and/or hysteresis and/or dielectric (I nearly > said Hysterical but stopped in time) Sorry. Casual use of English. I should have separated out impedance (which peaks at the resonant frequency) and losses (resistive etc). Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 10 06:21:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA21030; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 06:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 06:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31e38579.10126123@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: Magnetic pinch curiosity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 8 Jul 1996 07:25:52 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >the iron core. Thus the piece of iron should float frictionlessly in >space, even though it is neither a permanent magnet nor superconducting. [snip] Horace, Aren't you assuming here that the field lines can't stretch? 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 Jul 10 06:29:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA21502; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 06:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 06:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31e3891f.11059515@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: SRT - (Horace-makes-Stenger-crazy) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >I think each flux line, unlike the arbitrary units assigned to flux, is >generated by a single electron. In the case of parmanent magnets or >ferromagnetic cores this is in most cases (since mu is typically greater >than 2) in atoms within the core. In the case of electron motion in a >coil, I just can not see how the flux line (flux tube don't forget) >generated by an electron moving in the coil can not be tied to it because >it is truly a part of its existence, its quantum wave function. But that is >a separate issue, and maybe a personal problem of mine as a student, and a >complexity unnecessary to the understanding of or operation of the proposed >SRT. [snip] Horace, If flux lines really can't cut each other, then shouldn't it be impossible to pass two horseshoe magnets through one another? After all each magnet has flux lines passing from one pole to the other, then completing the loop through the body of the magnet. 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 Jul 10 07:59:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA05052; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Where do babies really come from? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/10/96 00:11 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Where do babies really come from? Deiter---this is a great example of an "unanswered" question, and you've hit it on the head! Thanks for the "non-answer" answer, which illustrates the fundemental cunundrum. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 10 08:22:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA14630; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 08:15:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 08:15:49 -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: Where do babies really come from? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, MHUGO@EPRI wrote: > *** Reply to note of 07/10/96 00:11 > From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > Subject: Where do babies really come from? > Deiter---this is a great example of an "unanswered" question, and you've > hit it on the head! Thanks for the "non-answer" answer, which illustrates > the fundemental cunundrum. MDH I get this from one of my favourite comedians, whom younger people don't know, to their loss: Shelley Berman. Playing child psychologist "Dr. Benjamin Sprocket", asking for questions and getting this one, he came back, quick as a shot, with "If your child asks you this, we've had some success with pointing". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 10 11:07:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA18589; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960710151306_72240.1256_EHB165-4@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: Second Internat. Low Energy Nuclear Reac X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I mentioned the upcoming conference at Texas A&M. It is the Second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference. It will be held at the Holiday Inn, College Station, Texas, September 13-14, 1996. The notice says "by invitation only." Dr. Lin tells me that serious scientists should please feel free to call and ask for an invitation. In practice I think they just want to know who you are before you show up. And I suppose they want the hundred dollars in advance so they can plan the banquet. Judging by the last Bockris-sponsored conference & meal I attended at TAMU it is probably worth going just for the food. GENERAL INFORMATION Chairmen: Dr. J. Bockris, Texas A&M University Dr. G. Miley, University of Illinois Assistant Chairman & Treasurer: Dr. G. H. Lin, Texas A&M University Location: The Holiday Inn, 1503 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas is the meeting venue for the conference. This conference is by invitation only. Please contact Dr. Lin if you wish to attend. REGISTRATION FEE For conference attendees $100.00 For companion's meals only $40.00 For more information, contact: Dr. Guang H. Lin Department of Chemistry Texas A&M University College Station. TX 77843-3255 ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 10 16:20:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA20315; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 16:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 16:12:49 -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: Correas and Koloc X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I have read the description of the Correas' device and have been keeping informed on Paul Koloc's experiment. I last visited Koloc's lab a couple of weeks ago and was impressed with the progress he has made. However Paul does not wish to disclose any details so I will not say anything about his experiment. But I will comment on the Correa device which is similiar in many respects to the Koloc device. The report of particle energies (expressed in ev) greatly exceeding the input voltage seems implausable at first inspection but I believe it may be valid. The best way to detect this is to measure the X-ray spectrum. The plasma will have considerable X-ray emission from ion Bremsstrahlung which will be easy to measure. I would recommend that the Correas obtain some sort of X-ray detector if they don't already have one. I have to wonder a bit about pictures that show their lab with the apparent absence of any shielding surfaces. Either they have been exposing themselves to very unhealthy levels of X-ray radiation or their claim of high particle energies (as high as .5 mev) is false. A properly equipped lab, such as Paul Koloc's, would have massive quantities of shielding, typically concrete and lead plating. And of course such a lab would have a good X-ray spectrometer and the investigators would be well aware of the existance and danger of any X-rays of anomalously high energy. I guess soon the Correas will be getting cancer or they will be exposed as fakes. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 10 20:10:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA05083; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960710232031_100433.1541_BHG50-1@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: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I saw this reposted on the Compuserve Science forum. I dunno - I just thought somebody here might find it interesting. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------ Subj: Anti-Gravity & Crystals Section: Research & New Tech To: D. EMLINGER, 75401,715 Wednesday, July 10, 1996 12:43:23 AM From: Robert J. Martin, , 75662,3352 #58244 Dyke, From Innovation Forum Thanks for sending along the copy of the article mentioned. As promised, here is the scanned and OCR'd text -- which is posted here as an aid to discussion. A gif of the scanned page should be in your e-mail even as you read this. You might consider posting the gif to the forum library. Might I ask just exactly where you got this page? I'm having more than a little difficulty finding the magazine in any index available, nor have any references to Dr. Kowsky popped up, nor does there seem to be any available linkage to the Nessartsaddin-Werke -- although WW2 may have erased what was once there. There is simply not enough information in this one page to replicate the original experiment, so it will be necessary to track down more from the original sources. Help, please? --------Begin Text of Scanned Page-------- Reprinted from the September, 1927 issue of Science and Invention. Gravity Nullified Quartz Crystals Charged by High Frequency Currents Lose Their Weight Although some remarkable achievements have been made with short-wave low power transmitters, radio experts and amateurs have recently decided that short-wave transmission had reached its ultimate and that no vital improvement would be made in this line. A short time ago however, two young European experimenters working with ultra short-waves, have made a discovery that promises to be of primary importance to the scientific world. The discovery was made about six weeks ago in a newly established central laboratory of the Nessartsaddin-Werke in Darredein, Poland, by Dr. Kowsky and Engineer Frost. While experimenting with the constants of very short waves, carried on by means of quartz resonators, a piece of quartz which was used, suddenly showed a clearly altered appearance. It was easily seen that in the center of the crystal, especially when a constant temperature not exceeding ten degrees C. (50 degrees Fahrenheit) was maintained, milky cloudiness appeared which gradually developed to complete opacity. The experiments of Dr. Meissner, of the Telefunken Co., along similar lines according to which quartz crystals, subjected to high frequency currents clearly showed air currents which led to the construction of a little motor based on this principle. A week of eager experimenting finally Ied Dr. Kowsky and Engineer Frost to the explanation of the phenomenon, and further experiments showed the unexpected possibilities for technical uses of the discovery. Some statements must precede the explanation. It is known at least in part, that quartz and some other crystals of similar atomic nature, have the property when exposed to potential excitation in a definite direction, of stretching and contracting; and if one uses rapidly changing potentials, the crystals will change the electric waves into mechanical oscillations. This _piezo_ _electric_ effect, shown in Rochelle salt crystals by which they may be made into sound-producing devices such as loud speakers, or reversely into microphones, also shows the results in this direction. This effect was clearly explained in August, 1925 _Radio_ _News_ and December, 1919 _Electrical_ _Experimenter_. These oscillations are extremely small, but have nevertheless their technical use in a quartz crystal wave-meter and in maintaining a constant wavelength in radio transmitters. By a special arrangement of the excitation of the crystal in various directions, it may be made to stretch or increase in length and will not return to its original size. It seems as if a dispersal of electrons from a molecule resulted, which, as it is irreversible, changes the entire structure of the crystal, so that it cannot be restored to its former condition. The stretching out, as we may term this strange property of the crystal, explains the impairment of its transparency. At the same time a change takes place in its specific gravity. Testing it on the balance showed that after connecting the crystal to the high tension current, the arm of the balance on which the crystal with the electrical connections rests, rose into the air. The illustration, Fig. 3, shows this experiment. This pointed the way for further investigation and the determination of how far the reduction of the specific gravity could be carried out. By the use of greater power, finally to the extent of several kilowatts and longer exposure to the action, it was found eventually that from a little crystal, 5 by 2 by 1.5 millimeters, a non-transparent white body measuring about ten centimeters on the side resulted, or increased about 20 times in length on any side (see Fig. 4.) The transformed crystal was so light that it carried the whole apparatus with itself upwards, along with the weight of twenty-five kilograms (55 lbs.) suspended from it and floating free in the air. On exact measurement and calculation, which on account of the excellent apparatus in the Darredein laboratory could be readily carried out, it was found that the specific gravity was reduced to a greater amount than the change in volume would indicate. Its weight had become practically negative. There can be no doubt that a beginning has been made toward overcoming gravitation. It is to be noted, however, that the law of conservation of energy is absolutely unchanged. The energy employed in treating the crystal, appears as the counter effect of gravitation. Thus the riddle of gravitation is not fully solved as yet, and the progress of experiments will be followed further. It is, however, the first time that experimentation with gravitation, which hitherto has been beyond the pale of all such research, has become possible, and it seems as if there were a way discovered at last to explain the inter-relations of gravity with electric and magnetic forces, which connection, long sought for, has never been demonstrated. This report appears in a reliable German journal, "Radio Umschau." Don't fail to see out next issue regarding this marvelous invention. Figure 1. The gravitation nullifier is shown in this illustration. The quartz crystal may be seen supporting a 55-pound weight. Dr. Kowsky is shown in a top coat because of the temperature at which the experiments were performed. Fig. 2. The schematic diagram of the experiment is shown in this illustration. The high frequency oscillator has been omitted for clearness. Fig. 3. This shows how the quartz crystal lost weight when subjected to the high frequency current. The original crystal was balanced onthe scale. Fig 4 This illustration shows the relative sizes of the crystal before and after the experiment. lt is approximately twenty times its original length on any side. --------End Text of Scanned Page-------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 10 22:25:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA00620; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:17:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:17:33 -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: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/10/96 20:10 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. This write up smacks of an "April Fools" article. I would give it NO CREDANCE whatsoever. Mark Hugo From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 10 22:26:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA00952; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:19:47 -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: Correas and Koloc X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/10/96 16:20 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Correas and Koloc Larry W: The claim about the MeV particles is at best SPECIOUS. The voltages involved in the Correas' work would NOT in general create an Xray hazard. - I have previously commented, and will do so in a more abbreviated and direct form here that the Correa's experiment can be made or broken by the simple expedient of "daisy chaining" the battery packs on several cycles of use. I.e., starting with two 250 volt packs in SERIES to drive and charging to two 250 volt packs in parallel. The parallel packs can then be "split" and put in series to obtain the needed 500 volt "driving" voltage. - I hate to use that old academicrubric, but I will: The result should be obvious to the most casual observer. (I.e. this one should be transparent to anyone who has charged batteries, worked with electric circuits, etc.) - Either one can DO this and start with a nominally "discharged" set of cells (discharged to say virtually 0% and then recharged to perhaps 30%, and as one can imagine this should not be too hard to moniter this amount of power used for the initial charging). Likewise, after "daisy chaining" the system for several charging rounds the battery packs could be discharged to a load resistor and a simple voltage versus time graph would tell the tale. - Frankly, the more I think about the simplicity of this arrangement and the lack of anything approaching this, the more I tend to doubt that the Correa's results are real. ALAS! Why do we keep coming up with so many cranks and eccentrics who can't deal honestly with the world????? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 00:25:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA22732; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:22:33 -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: Re: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, MHUGO@EPRI wrote: > *** Reply to note of 07/10/96 20:10 > From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > Subject: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. > This write up smacks of an "April Fools" article. I would give it NO > CREDANCE whatsoever. Mark Hugo > > What about the Electronic Times Jan 25, 1996 article on GaAs that generates black light and absorbs IR, is that true? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 03:27:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA07630; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 03:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 03:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31e4ce41.25171956@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: Theory ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Theory ! >- >Put pure theory here! Ok you asked for it! Consider for a moment that TFDs are totally reflecting at some angles to the internal surface, and you can imagine that they might resonate only at frequencies with a wavelength small enough to fit within the droplet. IOW they exclude all longer wavelengths. This may give rise to a Casimir force, just as between two polished surfaces. This force would be strongest when the droplet was tiny, and slowly diminish as the droplet grows. The rest I leave to your imagination (partly because I'm having problems with it myself :) 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 Thu Jul 11 03:26:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA07658; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 03:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 03:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31e4d230.26179283@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: Where do babies really come from? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:07:57 -0700 (PDT), Dieter Britz wrote: [snip] >When we get down to elementary particles, though, we have to stop trying to >imagine, and just make do with what we know. Not too long ago, physicists >discovered more properties of particles that distinguish them from one >another: they gave them names like "charm" and "color". These are brand new >and noone really believes that actual charm, or colour, is meant. They are >just names for the property. What we have to do now is to extend that open- >mindedness to "charge". Charge is a property of particles. There are two kinds, >and they lead to certain behaviour, well studied and understood. That's all we >know. [snip] That makes a good start. I think we can go a little further though. Because there are only two varieties (+ and -), it seems to me that this involves some form of natural two dimensional symmetry, which I also think goes deeper than particles alone. This symmetry is also present in electromagnetic waves. Suffice it to say, that I wouldn't be in the least surprised, if the appearance of charge on specific particles, were directly related to the way in which photons were "folded up" to form those particles (There are a number of theories along these lines currently running on the Net). 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 Thu Jul 11 05:14:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA16174; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 05:02:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 05:02:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960711115346_100060.173_JHB119-1@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: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris, >> Don't fail to see out next issue regarding this marvelous invention. << Noo!? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 05:13:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA16193; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 05:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 05:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960711115950_100060.173_JHB129-1@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: Correas and Koloc X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Mark Hugo, >> ALAS! Why do we keep coming up with so many cranks and eccentrics who can't deal honestly with the world????? << Because enthusiasts are blinded by their enthusiasm and refuse to follow up any avenue which might disprove their theories. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 05:53:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA22502; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 05:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 05:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I6XUXPY5XE935D76@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: Second Internat. Low Energy Nuclear Reac X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Dave, the easiest way for Wayne to meet the Jakels is to offer to show them our new motors to see if they are interested. Of course we well let them know we are showing them to everyone, and that we can't afford to tie up our technology while any one company study's it. Wayne could accompany me on a visit under this premise. It would also kill two birds with one stone. Joe From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 08:13:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19314; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31e4e53b.31054153@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: Second Internat. Low Energy Nuclear Reac X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:00:37 -0700 (PDT), Jed Rothwell wrote: At various times in the last few weeks, people on this list have hinted that Dr. Bockris would make some major announcement in Sept.-Oct. Is this to be the venue? >To: Vortex > >I mentioned the upcoming conference at Texas A&M. It is the Second >International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference. It will be held at the >Holiday Inn, College Station, Texas, September 13-14, 1996. The notice says >"by invitation only." Dr. Lin tells me that serious scientists should please [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 Thu Jul 11 08:10:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19458; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31e4e9d4.32231309@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: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:19:19 -0700 (PDT), MHUGO@EPRI wrote: >*** Reply to note of 07/10/96 20:10 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. >This write up smacks of an "April Fools" article. I would give it NO >CREDANCE whatsoever. Mark Hugo I would agree, were it not in the September issue of the magazine. > > 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 Thu Jul 11 08:13:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19587; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31e4ea8d.32416617@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: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:22:55 -0700 (PDT), Tony Rusi wrote: [snip] >What about the Electronic Times Jan 25, 1996 article on GaAs that >generates black light and absorbs IR, is that true? You mean it acts as a frequency doubler? Surely this is quite common. > > 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 Thu Jul 11 08:24:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19782; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960711104437_235464698@emout19.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: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Re the article on antigravity from piezoelectric effect: I believe that I have seen this page reproduced in the book "Anti-Gravity" by Childress. I have always thought it to be a hoax just because of the face improbability of it. Maybe I was too hasty? Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 17:32:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA07365; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 17:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 17:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960711161952_356064338@emout12.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: Correa Patents, Fig. 20 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I talked to Dr. Correa about Fig 20, p37 of IE #7. What he did was to set up four Beckman multimeters to measure the power output of the drive pack and the power input to the charge pack, and videotape the dials during a run. He thus sampled the input and output power at 30 times/second. He measured the voltage and output current of the drive pack, and voltage and input current of the charge pack, using the circuit of Fig.9, p36. In Fig. 20, the irregular line near the bottom is the output power of the drive pack. The open circles are the power input to the charge pack for each video frame. The black squares are the percent over breakeven calculated for each frame. The multimeters utilize Analog Devices AD737 function modules, which perform the rms measurement. The measurement is reliable for signals of modest crest factors, but would be questionable for the fast spikes in the PAGD, *except* for the filter capacitors C7a and C7b across the charge pack. These were each 5,500 mfd and adequate to smooth the spikes to fall within the operating range of the multimeters. This clarifies Fig. 20, which indicates that the power yield is noisy, yet substantially above unity. Dr. Correa indicated that he has made significant progress in extending the life of the cathodes and in reducing the size of the reactor. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 17:31:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA07658; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 17:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 17:06:52 -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: SRT - test results negative X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I finally got two good ferrite cores out of some surplus IBM 3179 terminals. They come apart into 2 C cores each. Two C cores were wrapped with 50 turns of insulated copper bell wire. One coil was connected to a code oscillator (ouptut 2 V) the other to a small 8 ohm speaker. The two C's were placed together to make an ordinary transformer and it worked fine. You could hear the speaker loud and clear at all frequencies. It was like having no trasformer at all. The 2 spare C's were joined with the coil wrapped C's to make two interlocking core inductors. Two small magnets were placed in each break between the two C's of the secondary core. When the oscillator was turned on it appeared the speaker could be heard but only faintly. It was difficult to tell if it was the speaker or the core making the noise, as the primary ferrite core was producing the sound at the oscillator frequency as well. A DMM was connected to the secondary and without the speaker connected showed 1.3 mV. With the two magnets removed you could hear the speaker slightly. Without the speaker connected and without the magnets the secondary generated 8.7 mV. This indicates the secondary core was saturated when the magnets were present. Oddly enough, when the C containing the secondary coil was rotated away from the other half of the secondary core, through which the primary core lay, making the secondary an S shape with the primary core laying in the bottom cup of the S and the secondary coil wrapped around the top inverted cup, the signal increased in strength to .38 V. Note that in this S configuration the two coils are purpendicular. If the S is rotated away from the purpendicular the voltage diminishes. Also, with the two magnets placed on the ends of the lower C the voltage in the S configuration reduces to 6.8 mV. Then the empty C of the secondary core was removed and the C containing the secondary coil was moved around in the vicinty of the closed loop primary core. It was clear the signal induced in the secondary was simply via a large air gap from the primary core. The secondary core, except in the case where it was an S shape purpendicular to the primary core, was simply acting as a another branch in the core. I do not understand why the secondary coil produced a significant voltage in the S shaped configuaration, but not in a closed loop. It seems almost like there is a wave going through the S core, possibly acoustic/piezoelectric, however this explanation does not seem to fit in that at the 90 degree angle the signal is maximum and others less. Conclusions: The central idea of the Suddenly Reluctant Torus (SRT) is bogus. The secondary core, at least when ferrite, does not increase in reluctance. It still appears possible to build a large torus with conventional windings and distributed capacitors and central metal sphere or opposing parabolic reflectors to achieve some of the initial goals of the SRT. It appears that from this experiment no conclusion can be drawn about whether flux lines can cut flux lines or whether flux lines are even a "real" phenomenon. I am curious about these points and would like to know if any definitive experiments have been done to answer those questions and which clearly demonstrate the answers. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 23:33:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA21779; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:28:47 -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: Correa Patents, Fig. 20 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/11/96 17:32 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Correa Patents, Fig. 20 Good work Mike....Is there anything wrong with my "daisy chain" suggestion? - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 23:33:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA21886; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:29:29 -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: SRT - test results negative X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/11/96 17:31 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: SRT - test results negative Horace-do you have the (bigger) torus? MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 23:35:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA21933; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607120247.TAA15960@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Where do babies really come from? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:07:57 -0700 (PDT), Dieter Britz wrote: >[snip] >>When we get down to elementary particles, though, we have to stop trying to >>imagine, and just make do with what we know. Not too long ago, physicists >>discovered more properties of particles that distinguish them from one >>another: they gave them names like "charm" and "color". These are brand new >>and noone really believes that actual charm, or colour, is meant. They are >>just names for the property. What we have to do now is to extend that open- >>mindedness to "charge". Charge is a property of particles. There are two kinds, >>and they lead to certain behaviour, well studied and understood. That's all we >>know. >[snip] >That makes a good start. I think we can go a little further though. >Because there are only two varieties (+ and -), it seems to me that >this involves some form of natural two dimensional symmetry, which I >also think goes deeper than particles alone. This symmetry is also >present in electromagnetic waves. Suffice it to say, that I wouldn't >be in the least surprised, if the appearance of charge on specific >particles, were directly related to the way in which photons were >"folded up" to form those particles (There are a number of theories >along these lines currently running on the Net). Greetings folks; This article caught my eye and I wanted to interject a few things about the theory I have been working on to get some feedback. If you think about particles and about space, it is amazing that the whole things works in the first place. For example, when I drive my car and apply the brakes, what was it about the motion of my car that led to the property of inertia? Why doesn't my car simply and literaly stop on a dime? There must be some sort of momentum that we do not observe that is tied to the structure of space it seems to me. And this leads directly to there needing to be some structure to space itself. This last comment seems self evident from predictions of curvature made by GR. And yet for some reason, the concept that geodesics are real live Planck scale (E-35m) physical structures seems abhorant to most physicists today. Again, from the overview vantage point, what is the most energetic process we know of for the amplification of energy density? Answer, spherical convergences like in sonoluminescence. So, if we wanted to amplify the energy density of space and the QV, then perhaps a spherical convergence would be a good manner in which to accomplish that. But if such a process is going to be a stable one there are a couple of requirements. First, there must be some medium to resonate. Second, the particle thus created must be resonant and not simply a one time convergent collapse. And third, there must be some amount of energy coming into the particle to balance the radiated energy moving away from the resonating, or pulsating, sphere. Grains of sand on a vibrating plate will accumulate in the nodes of that plate. Likewise, little pulsing spheres in an aether would accumulate in the nodes in the aether. But if you notice, with any fluid with density waves moving through it acoustically, there are two, and only two, primary nodes that will form. One can be taken to represent zero degrees and the other 180 degrees phase angle. This property could be taken to be "charge" if and only if there is a structure to space that is phase angle continuous across the universe. If the universe was born in a big bang explosion from a giant ball of condensed aether, then the boiling liquid would have sent shock waves through that expansion, and created acoustic nodes within which the evaporating liquid would be forced just like the grains of sand on the vibrating plate. That, is a back stop against which incident wave energy can converge and reflect. And, if such an evaporation did indeed occur, then you would have been able to pack more aether droplets into that volume if they alternated their phase angle such that every other droplet had the opposing motion. In this manner, expansive emissions from one resonant droplet will act to compress an adjacent resonant droplet. This could be the birth of positrons and electrons, and as well, the birth of a continuous space nodal structure that persists today and with which our matter is meshed and resonating. Another key point is that many of the models for aethers, or particle physics including QCD wind up using sine and other trigonometric functions to describe cyclic behaviors of interactions, fields, and field amplitudes. Most people think in terms of spinning tops, or rotating vectors because that is how we were taught trig. But all of those same equations apply equally to spherically convergent and resonant processes like sonoluminescence. I have made a calculation for the electron family that I find hard to set into words the justification of the derivation though I have tried a few times. But what I wound up with was a seventh power amplification of the energy of a standing wave and integer increases in the extent of the standing wave. If you apply this to electron, muon, and tau with radii of 1,2,3, there is an interesting pattern that develops. Tau mass = muon mass * (3/2)^7 I condensation is taking place in the aether, then muon and tau would have a slightly different geometry than electron, ie they would have a core that remains condensed and is surrounding by a spherical shell where the pressure is just critical and that shell is condensing and evaporating. Whereas electron would only have a core that is condensing and evaporating on each pulse and no continuously condensed core. This leads to the following approximations; Tau mass = (electron mass)/0.6 * 3^7 muon mass = (electron mass)/0.6 * 2^7 In any case, if matter is spherically resonant and meshed with a nodal structure, then there is an obvious reason for the property inertia. I must alter the pulsing frequency of the matter in my car, and in my body, as compared to the resonant frequency of space at the Planck scale (~E45 Hz). To alter the resonant frequency of a pulsing object requires energy be input or taken out just like in a super conductor ring current. If you think about this kind of a particle there is another very interesting thing that you should notice. I never had to invoke the concept of "field". All I had to do was to describe the particle as resonant spherically and this required a huge surrounding structure that falls off in amplitude according to a normal 1/R^2 profile. The model also requires, (since it begins with the expansion and evaporation of the condensed liquid aether), that exothermic reactions be aether evaporating due to the combination of two or more standing waves in proximity of each other. Using the standard model, every one knows that this is so. But there is no "requirement" that it had to be so from first principles. This model requires this release of aether when two standing waves shield each other from the external source of wave energy. There is one thing that must be proved. That one wave in aether will refract another into slightly better alignment with the origin of the first. Most people treat the interaction of two compression waves as a linear process. And indeed it is nearly so. But there is a slight refraction that is not linear. That fact is the key that would allow the structure of space, and the resonances of matter to remain coherent for these billions of years, combined with the continuous emission of new aether in the nuclear reactions in stars. Those emissions, by the way, would give rise to a thrust due to the expansion of the universe originating within stars due to aether emissions sort of like the formation of new "contenental crust" in the expansion of two plates apart from each other where magma oozes and solidifies under the oceans. Such an effect in space would lead to anomalous gravitational observations since there would be an unknown force opposing gravitation that was falling off more rapidly than gravitation. Such a force, viewed upside down as an attractions, would appear like the force of gravity was **increasing** at greater radii. We know this problem as the "dark matter" problem in galactic dynamics. Finally, if aether could condense into a much more dense form given sufficient energy density, then the collapse of a very large star would lead to a sonoluminescent type spherical collapse of a tremendous amount of aether. But if the condensation pressure were reached, then a constant pressure process would initiate just like in a saturated steam process where a piston forces the condensation by slightly exceeding the condensation pressure. All of the vapor condenses at that constant pressure. In other words, if a star could initiate a constant pressure condensation due to a spherical implosion, then all of space would flow into that "black hole". But rather than a singularity, you would find inside, a growing core of condensed aether. And as they say, what goes up (or in), must come down (or out). If you think in these terms and then take a look at some of the images of active galactic nuclei (AGN), or quasars and their associated jets and lobes, you will come to an entirely different conclusion about the origin for the energy in those jets. And once you come to be able to visualize a black hole as a highly pressurized thing rather than an all pulling singularity, then you will come to view the big bang in a new light as well. A single, large, breach of confinement of a gigantic black hole core that exploded spherically all at once instead of slowly out of the jets at the pole vortices. And thus you see we come back to the beginning of the universe after having fallen into a giant black hole. Just something to ponder, Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 23:35:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA21983; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607120247.TAA15963@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: snip I found the article interesting, but flawed. He stated that the specific gravity of the crystal changed but didn't cite whether that accompanied a corresponding increase in volume, ie sg * V = mass or weight depending on how you want to account for it with the balance or scale. Then, he said that the crystal (which was very small), lost most of its weight, ie a large percentage, but in another statement had the whole balance lifted and levitating in the air. Such a change would be a tremendous (ie -E6 or so percent depending on how much the mass of the balance was) negative percentage multiplied by the mass, not a small percentage. But this makes no sense, you don't attempt to measure the mass of something by placing it on a balance if it is already floating. So why would you ever have tied it down to the balance in order to float the balance? That said, I have studied some manners in which atomic lattices could be used to fabricate an anti gravity device. So I am wondering about the change in transparency of the quartz center. Do you know if there was any angular dependence with respect to the axis of the crystal on the "brightness" of the white color? And how well reputed is the journal that supposedly published this info? ie is this from some Omni magazine purporting to be a physics journal? Thanks, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 11 23:35:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA22029; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:30:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:30:21 -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: Serious Researcher willing to try Hugo's Alledged P/F repeat X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Serious Researcher willing to try Hugo's Alledged P/F repeatable Cold Fusion experiment. - Back in '90 I performed a dual sided charging experiment with a Pd tube from a Milton Roy high purity hydrogen generator. Although I believe I obtained 15 to 35% excess (in the 8 to 10 watt input range) and demonstrated repeatability, many things have interfered with my repeating this work. - I have a couple of Pd tubes left and would be happy to share them with any serious individual who would wish to follow my (simple, straight forward) protocal for obtaining the "P&F" effect. One should be forwarned, however, I am planning on spending about $2000 by Oct./Nov. on setting up and performing this experiment, it is not for the feint of heart! (It involves TWO CC power supplies, the need for D2O, and a recombination catalyst, plus a cell WELL designed and built to position the two anodes and keep them physically away from the Pd cathode.) ONE of our "members", who shall go unnamed has one of my tubes already, but I am beginning to suspect he has realized the complexity of this effort compared to his other work and is unlikely to actually run my suggested protocal. - I believe that my method allows a dependable reproduction of the P&F effect for several reasons: - 1. The "magic" metallurgical change which needs to occur under high hydrogen charging and "250 to 300 hours" of high current flow has already occurred in these samples (under high "normal" H2 charging during their service life.) - 2. The Milton/Roy Pd pieces are treated with a "proprietary" surface treatment that helps the ingress/egress of H2 (or D2). - 3. The charging system I recommend gives much more control over the final D2 to Pd ratio, at the same time allowing for a controlled imposition of "non-equilibrium" conditions. - It should be noted that this method was suggested to the BIG researcher in the SKY, M. McKubre in '91, and (because I am small potatoes and NOT a Phd, and NOT a researcher, just a "grunt" engineer) was subsequently ignored. - Thus as time has worn on I have become more and more anxious to have SOMEONE BESIDES MYSELF try this method. - A gamble people! A demanding one! What of it Deiter, do you have some "graduate grunts" who might be interested? - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 12 01:35:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA12745; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 01:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 01:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I6YWZ8DZ9U91ZM4M@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: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Subj: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. >The experiments of Dr. Meissner, of the Telefunken Co., Of general interest, Telefunken Co. is alive and well, producing Electronic Components. They have an office in Hong Kong. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 12 01:31:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA12934; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 01:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 01:28:09 -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: SRT - test results negative X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >*** Reply to note of 07/11/96 17:31 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Re: SRT - test results negative >Horace-do you have the (bigger) torus? MDH Not yet. The cores I used were rectangular 3" by 1.75" by .5", with the core roughly .5" square in cross section, pretty crowded when linked together. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 12 15:11:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA01087; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Correa Patents, Fig. 20 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I talked to Dr. Correa about Fig 20, p37 of IE #7. What he did was to set up >four Beckman multimeters to measure the power output of the drive pack and >the power input to the charge pack, and videotape the dials during a run. He >thus sampled the input and output power at 30 times/second. He measured the >voltage and output current of the drive pack, and voltage and input current >of the charge pack, using the circuit of Fig.9, p36. However, true power is NOT (rms volts) x (rms current). (This is true only for a linear resistor.) True power is the time average of ((instantaneous potential) x (instantaneous current)). So we still have to doubt the ou worth Correas' Fig. 20. 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 Jul 12 15:13:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA01413; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:05:06 -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: SRT - test results negative X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Earlier I wrote: >Oddly enough, when the C >containing the secondary coil was rotated away from the other half of the >secondary core, through which the primary core lay, making the secondary >an S shape with the primary core laying in the bottom cup of the S and the >secondary coil wrapped around the top inverted cup, the signal increased in >strength to .38 V. Note that in this S configuration the two coils are >purpendicular. If the S is rotated away from the purpendicular the voltage >diminishes. Also, with the two magnets placed on the ends of the lower C >the voltage in the S configuration reduces to 6.8 mV. > >Then the empty C of the secondary core was removed and the C containing the >secondary coil was moved around in the vicinty of the closed loop primary >core. It was clear the signal induced in the secondary was simply via a >large air gap from the primary core. The secondary core, except in the >case where it was an S shape purpendicular to the primary core, was simply >acting as a another branch in the core. I do not understand why the >secondary coil produced a significant voltage in the S shaped >configuaration, but not in a closed loop. It seems almost like there is a >wave going through the S core, possibly acoustic/piezoelectric, however >this explanation does not seem to fit in that at the 90 degree angle the >signal is maximum and others less. > After further investigation it appears the .38 V reading was an error. I have been unable to recreate it, however saw similar results near .038 V, so assume the .38 V was an error in recording a decimal point. Also, I have found that the secondary voltage did increase as the top C was rotated from 0 to 180 degrees away from a full loop position as recorded above, which is counterintuitive, but that was not a sufficient test because the core is not completely symmetrical. As the top C continues rotating beyond 180 degress the voltage continues upward until reaching nearly 360 degrees when the core closes into an O and the voltage drops back to 8.7 mV. The maximum voltage occurs when the open end of the C is nearest a circular cross section portion of the core. The core has a square cross section everywhere except in one of the long legs where the cross section is round to better receive the original windings. It appears that, due to the lower cross section, thus higher reluctance, more of the magnetic field extends into the space around this section of core, thus is available to complete a linkage with the open end of the C. When the second core closes into an O shape, however, the shape is nearly symmetrical, so what flux enters the second core enters both legs in opposing directions for the most part, so thus result in almost no voltage induced in the secondary. It appears no magnetorestrictive or acoustic/piezoelectric explanation is appropriate. Though what remains unexplaind is small, it is still curious that if the explanation for the induced voltage is that the secondary core was just acting as a second leg on the primary coil, but with a large air gap, it is strange that the flux would not be at a local maximum when the air gaps are the smallest at both near 0 degrees and near 360 degrees, as opposed to continually increasing across the range. The same results were obtained even when the leads were exchanged on the primary coil, ruling out DC bias. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 12 15:21:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA01593; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607121852.NAA05671@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: Serious Researcher willing to try Hugo's Alledged P/F X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 23:30 7/11/96 -0700, Mark Hugo wrote: >Back in '90 I performed a dual sided charging experiment with a Pd tube >from a Milton Roy high purity hydrogen generator. >ONE of our "members", who shall go >unnamed has one of my tubes already, but I am beginning to suspect he >has realized the complexity of this effort compared to his other work >and is unlikely to actually run my suggested protocal. Thanks for the protection, Mark, but I don't mind naming myself as the recipient of one of these tubes. Yes, the protocol you suggest is non-trivial but it is not excessively complex, especially as compared to my other work, and I do intend to set it up as time permits. Unfortunately (for your tube experiment), Earthtech now has two paying projects not related to energy research which are demanding my full attention, and will continue to do so for a couple of months more. Since we're on the subject, please share with the group your thinking on this two sided charging scheme....why will that be better?` Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 12 15:14:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA01786; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960712203610_100433.1541_BHG64-1@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: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: One or two people have asked about that 'antigravity' stuff I put up here. Sorry, I don't have any more information. On the matter of the 'black LEDs', I can only comment that these were reported in more than one technical magazine. As a non-subscriber to Bill's 'free energy' list, I wonder if anybody would be willing to comment on this stuff. Nearly every day I get a call about either the Potapov or Meyer devices. Those interested in the latter have, oddly enough, often built stuff to Meyer's patents. In all but one case, they have accepted failure. In the case of the Potapov device, people are interested and I tell them of our various experiences. I do wish people were ever interested in things for which there is good evidence - and not these doubtful machines. To be honest, though, I rate the Potapov device higher than (say) the Takahashi motor. The *circumstantial* evidence for the former is a lot better. My question is this. In the case of CF we have all manner of positive papers in serious journals, and even those who would be its strongest opponents would accept that CF comes out of the best traditions of science - with an FRS at the helm. But in the case of 'free energy', we have essentially anecdote and confusion - I think. Am I wrong? One interesting thing I happened to notice. There is a programme on BBC TV with the female lead from that nasty X-Files show presenting. The series makes me wince, I must say. Sort of dubious science with a terrible deadpan nasal delivery from this lady. But one thing did strike me, and that is that ultra-cheap energy would make possible one truly hideous machine - the flying car. All that would then be needed would be some fancy anti-collision computing systems, and we would have people zipping around the globe at speeds barely subsonic in such contraptions. After all, somebody tell me what could possibly stop that happening? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 12 15:16:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA01961; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960712170152_236475655@emout18.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: Antigrav crystals - sheesh. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The description in Chris' posting matches p 295 of The Free Energy Device Handbook, compiled by Childress and published by Adventures Unlimited Press. The page is as described, with some photos. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 12 19:58:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA24076; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607122213.PAA11953@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Funding for SL exp?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Suppose that I could demonstrate mathematically a manner in which it seems possible to amplify the energy density in a sonoluminescent bubble by a million fold driving the temperature of the plasma in the water bubble up to 100 E6 K with pressure making up the balance. I know that the numbers sound absurd, but for the sake of argument suppose they could be shown via device modification. Are there any contacts in this group that are associated with large organizations that could sign a non disclosure to review the possibility of funding a test device? I contacted Westinghouse Nuclear Products division outside of Pittsburg PA, but they would not sign an NDA so we could not disclose the technology. Nonetheless after 6 hours of discussions, they could poke no holes in the concepts that we did relay that were in the public domain. Their approach was simply that if this moron could do it then so could we. But my approach is not intuitive. It is a bit upside down and I have read over a hundred CF and other papers and no one has mentioned these techniques. That said, I have noticed in their papers many little nuances in their experiments which imply that what I anticipate will indeed work. I just need to get hooked up with a more major organization. I tried EPRI, but again no willingness to sign an NDA. I understand this point of view, from our bogus legal system vantage point. If anyone knows of a way I could get hooked up with either a more open minded organization, or with an individual who could independently fund a $100K plus effort please point me in the direction required. I think I have a large clue as to what makes CF devices tick for a number of configurations and I have read a lot of papers that demonstrate the phenomena I expect. Any way, any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 12 19:58:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA24158; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607122218.PAA00211@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Where do babies really come from? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Return-Path: tessien@oro.net >Received: from tessien.oro.net (tessien.oro.net [204.119.229.167]) by hg.oro.net (8.7.4/8.7.4) with SMTP id PAA11950 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:13:31 -0700 >Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:13:31 -0700 >Message-Id: <199607122213.PAA11950@hg.oro.net> >X-Sender: tessien@oro.net >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >To: Steve Ekwall >From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) >Subject: Re: Where do babies really come from? > >>On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Ross Tessien wrote: >> >>> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:29:49 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: Ross Tessien >>> To: Multiple recipients of list >>> Subject: Re: Where do babies really come from? >>> > >snip > >>The Universe is a __________system (open?) Why would >>any 'matter' (balloon / air) RUSH to reoccupy that void (BLACKHOLE's), if >>GREATER VOIDS Lie AHEAD of WHERE IT JUST WAS FORCED(BLASTED) FROM? >> Hope this little story, might be a giggle for the kids in the car! >>I still like to PONDER IT! (+positive / -negative) > >OK, here is an answer to your question, and as well an answer as to why I >bothered to present it here in the Vortex group. First, your question. > >In the black hole model presented in my original post, we find that a BH is >in essence a constant pressure condensation of the aether filling the >universe and indeed making up the structure of matter. (There is a lesson >there to those who wish to alter the configuration of this matter with the >goal of extracting energy. ie, it is good to know what that matter really >looks like on scales smaller than nuclear, ie Planck scale of E-35 m if we >can dare look that far down.). If you have a piston supported on top of >saturated water vapor with all in perfect critical balance, and you add a >single grain of sand to the piston on top of that long column of steam over >water, then many people expect the steam to compress a little, build up >pressure, and then support the small additional weight. > >This is not what happens. One grain more weight and you exceed the >condensation pressure of the water. So the piston condenses the entire >length of the column of steam (I am ignoring any possible heating of the >total system that would lead to a second order change in T to make clear the >point of how a constant pressure condensation process works to those who do >not understand it). Thus, if you have a convergent flow of aether in space >where there is a radius at which the velocity of that flow exceeds c, then >you have a condition where the kinetic energy of that aether exceeds mc^/2 >where m is the mass equivalent of the fabric of space itself, ie aether. >That is a description of the KE available as you cross the event horizon of >the BH. > >In other words, that horizon is a point of no return where the KE has >exceeded the energy density at which aether will condense. But that creates >a highly pressurized core, not a singularity. > >The point here is that the fact that the BH was there is not what induced >the aether to flow in that direction. It is the fact that surrounding the >BH highly pressurized core is a rarefaction region in the space where the >aether is accelerated inward due to the greater pressure to the outside. In >other words, space is forcing its own implosion from the outside. > >So why does this matter to anyone in the Vortex group? > >It is fairly simple if you look carefully at a broad range of greater than >unity energy devices. They all, each and every one, have something in >common. Any one notice what it is? It is accelerations of matter. And the >most powerful devices induce convergent accelerations of matter. > >You may call your device an electrically resonant thingamjig, but in that >resonance are material motions not just of the electrons, but as well of the >atomic lattice carrying the electrons. > >When you get things in resonance, (assuming that space is composed of an >aether) you are inducing a resonance in space too. But this is normally >trivial because the velocities and accelerations are normally trivial when >compared to light. > >If you wish to get excess energy I believe that you must accomplish one of >two things. Either you must force the combinations of standing waves into >more compact structures that emit aether, ie nuclear reactions or nuclear >transmutations, or you must induce an interference with the wave energies of >the quantum vacuum. The former can be had by attaining large velocities >(which implies large accelerations if we are dealing with small devices >other than macroscopic accelerations in linear and other accelerators). The >latter can be had simply by inducing large accelerations. This is known as >the Unruh effect. > >I believe that the Unruh effect is an observation of the excess heat >generated on the leading edge of a particle that is accelerating into the >space nodal structure, which acceleration requires a change to the resonant >frequency of the standing wave of the matter involved so that it remains >meshed with the geodesics of the quantum vacuum at the Planck scale. > >If you consider some of the devices you have been discussing in this group, >and which I am trying to understand, then I think you will find that there >are always resonances and accelerations being induced. > >Later, Ross > > > > > > > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 12 19:58:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA24304; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960712200956_433115996@emout07.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: Correa Patents, Battery Exchange X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Mark has commented several times that it should be possible to run the Correa system for extended periods, and demonstrate an o/u energy source, by exchanging the batteries from the 'drive' to 'charge' function and back. Those who have the full text of the '989 patent should look carefully at Fig. 12 and the text in Column 9, lines 17-40, which were omitted from IE #7. For those who don't have the full text, Fig. 12 shows a circuit which has two reactors and two center-tapped battery packs, and a six-pole, double-throw switch. In position A, one battery pack energizes (drives) both reactors, whose outputs each charge half of the second battery (charge) pack. In position B, the previous charge pack now energizes both reactors, which each charge half of the former drive pack. After I studied the above, I discussed it with Correa. He refers to this as the "ping-pong" mode, which is used in several of his later developments. He said that he had operated the system of Fig. 12 for eight hours, with both battery packs gaining energy. (He did get tired operating the switch, but that doesn't count in the energy balance). This is a direct answer to Mark's concerns. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 12 19:59:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA24485; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960712211636_433150860@emout07.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: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-07-12 18:08:57 EDT, Cris wrote: << - the flying car. All that would then be needed would be some fancy anti-collision computing systems, and we would have people zipping around the globe at speeds barely subsonic in such contraptions. After all, somebody tell me what could possibly stop that happening? >> Well, aerodyanmics, for one thing. You need true VTOL capability to land and take off from your driveway. Such existed for the flying platform (a big ducted fan) which could be managed by a person's normal balancing reflexes, or by a helicopter. I don't think Harriers would be allowed, even if Scwartzenegger did fly one in downtown Miami a few seasons ago (the special effects for that one were a feat in themselves). If someone has true anti-grav in their pocket, the time is approaching. Just park it next to the massively parallel computer needed for the 3-D collision avoidance problem. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 12 20:02:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA24587; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960712211818_433150879@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: Correa Patents, Fig. 20 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-07-12 18:06:07 EDT, Michael Schaffer wrote, quoting my post << True power is the time average of ((instantaneous potential) x (instantaneous current)). So we still have to doubt the ou worth Correas' Fig. 20. >> Technically true, one would prefer a wideband wattmeter. However, if you look again at the actual circuit and the position of the meters as I indicated them, you will see that the waveforms they see are not highly spiked. It would be nice to have oscillograms, and I will talk to Dr. Correa about the point. However, the drive pack is isolated from the reactor by diodes, so it puts out nearly DC to sustain the initial conditions of the glow discharge. The current out of the drive pack will be briefly interrupted when the discharge occurs, but the duty cycle seen by the drive pack is nearly 100% and the V x I measurement is valid. For the charge pack, the pulses from the discharge are soaked up by the 5,500 mfd capacitors across the charge pack battery. These capacitors have an impedance of about .01 ohm at 3 kHz, so what the rms ammeter will see is some small ripple and the voltage across the charge pack will change hardly at all. So, again, one could nit-pick about a less-than-ideal measurement, but an actual study and understanding of the circuit and process at hand will fail to find a source of error great enough to invalidate the conclusions to be drawn from the graph shown. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 01:45:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA18141; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 01:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 01:37:20 -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: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >My question is this. In the case of CF we have all manner of positive >papers in serious journals, and even those who would be its strongest >opponents would accept that CF comes out of the best traditions of >science - with an FRS at the helm. But in the case of 'free energy', >we have essentially anecdote and confusion - I think. > >Am I wrong? > [snip] > >Chris Maybe you are both right and wrong? While CF has been a cornucopia of anomalies for research, there are other areas which seem to show serious promise as energy sources. A good example is ball lighning (BL). In the case of BL there is much anecdote and confusion, yet the subject is much researched and there is a growing body of evidence and data that show the phenomenon is both real and represents an unknown energy source. There is no known mechanism to account for the radiant energy of some observations. There is also reason to hope for the artificial creation of BL. That is because it has been observed in connection with various man made devices, especially high current switches. The best examples are perhaps the ball lightnings generated by the reverse current relay between the battery banks and the generators on the USS Cutlass, and by Norwegian power engineer A. Nielson who created ball lightning at will by shorting out contacts on a high power DC generator by placing a water resistance in parallel with the shorting device. It is from these and other examples I have suggested here on vortex some possible experiments. The first step with BL is finding a means to reliably produce the phenomenon for further study, just as it is with CF, or AIDS or any number of objects of investigation. BL generation is one area I think this particular group or a similar group might be able to directly solve if everyone gave freely of their ideas. It seems to me the important thing is not to worry about 99 bad ideas, only the sifting to find the good 1 percent, or 0.1 percent. In the energy field the potential payoff for humanity is so high that the expected value for wasting your time searching in a broad solution domain is still very high. The key is in getting enough people constructively and cooperatively involved in the search. Maybe it would be worthwhile to create a spinoff listserv group for concentrating on BL or other specific energy subjects, or maybe such a group exists, a group dedicated to unrestrained brainstorming, public domain work, and to creative synergy. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 03:39:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA25817; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 03:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 03:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607131015.DAA00114@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >In a message dated 96-07-12 18:08:57 EDT, Cris wrote: > ><< - the flying car. All that would then be needed > would be some fancy anti-collision computing systems, and we would have > people zipping around the globe at speeds barely subsonic in such > contraptions. After all, somebody tell me what could possibly stop > that happening? >> > >Well, aerodyanmics, for one thing. You need true VTOL capability to land and >take off from your driveway. Such existed for the flying platform (a big >ducted fan) which could be managed by a person's normal balancing reflexes, >or by a helicopter. I don't think Harriers would be allowed, even if >Scwartzenegger did fly one in downtown Miami a few seasons ago (the special >effects for that one were a feat in themselves). > >If someone has true anti-grav in their pocket, the time is approaching. Just >park it next to the massively parallel computer needed for the 3-D collision >avoidance problem. It is obvious that the earth is involved in the effect we know as gravitation. However, there are actually three different manners in which gravitation could function from first principles. The most commonly accepted is that the earth attracts bodies toward it. But, this is not proved, and from a first principle concept "attractive" gravitation makes no sense. In other words, the only reasonable mechanism to induce attractive gravitation are some form of gravitons that are thrown by the earth and when they strike the matter recoils in the direction of the origin of the graviton. There are no tensile fibers reaching up and pulling me down toward earth, the sun, the Milky Way core, or Andromeda. Such makes no sense. There is another manner in which to induce gravitation which is a shielding mechanism which many of you in this group probably already understand is mathematically equivalent, exactly so. The question arises, however, "what is being shielded?". And again our inclination is to invoke "particles". This is because we are so adept at QM and treating the material world as "particulate". There is, however, a second manner in which one can treat the concept of matter. but it is today as abhorent to physicists as the concept of there being no static solutions to GR was to Einstein long ago. This concept leads to the assumption that there exist in nature, no attractive forces, and therefore no static solutions to matter either. If you adopt this concept and work with it for a while, the first thing you will notice is that sub atomic matter will explode instantaneously if it were a pea like particle that was attractively pulled together and then you ban attraction forces. But particles do not explode, so you slam everything back in again. It explodes again etc. What you get is a spherically resonant particle that is phase and frequency matched with the surrounding space and which is forced into the acoustic nodes of space. To cut to the chase (250 pages in a book I am writing on the concepts are a bit much to put down here), such a resonant universe would wind up with matter being resonant, under damped, oscillators in an aether medium. It also winds up with space being a nodal structure of organized acoustic waves which take on the properties very much like Einsteins geodesics, AND, de Broglies and Bohm's "pilot waves". The oscillators, ie matter, are forced into nodes and forced to accelerate in directions away from wave energy attenuations or reflections. It turns out that there is a unique source of interfering wave energy coming from the QVF of distant frequency shifted matter, ie red shifted galaxies. That is the energy that is filtered and which induces a compressive effect. I know Feynman analysed a similar concept in that it dealt with shielding, but he did not consider a highly pressurized universe as is considered here. He also did not consider the concept of phase and frequency meshed particles and space nodal structures. These lead to "super fluidic" properties just like in a superconductive current. To alter the current, energy must be added or removed from a current loop. This, if you think about it, is identical to what we must do to alter our momentum in a car, ie this is the same property as inertia. Now, above you mention "helicopters". How does a helicopter work? It shears the air around the rotors and deflects it in a downward direction. If there exists an aether, and a space nodal structure, then one should expect to find an interaction with it during accelerations. Indeed, the Unruh effect does give us an increased radiance in the forward direction of a detector at velocity v if it is accelerating, as compared to the same detector at the same velocity if it is not accelerating. How could that be if not an interaction with something that exists in and around us? Here is the gist of it. In order to make a rotor to deflect a superfluidic aether one must come to grips with how slippery such a fluid really is. Also, one must come to grips with the fact that if it exists, then it is acoustically synchronized with the resonances of matter. What this means is that shearing it is not a simple matter. Also, my model considers that the structures involved are on the Planck scale, so E-35 m can easily slip right on through any atomic structure. This is the bad news. The good news is that the energy density of the quantum vacuum is tremendous. So deflecting just a very tiny percentage will lead to a tremendous thrust. In short, I have designs for these kinds of devices too, but one would need access to IC manufacturing equipment to fabricate the atomic level structures required to interact with the nodal structures of spacetime. Any one have some vapor deposition equipment in their lab and want to watch a toy car float up to the ceiling? I will be happy to share these concepts in a confidential manner to any one who has access to equipment to produce the devices. A 6 inch IC wafer fab machine should suffice, but a 4 inch machine would do for a prototype too. I have a degree of confidence in this construct, but would'nt bet the farm on it at this point. Still, I am not aware of anyone who understands my concepts of spacetime, and have read about a number of devices that claim to be antigravity but have found only extremely trivially powered devices. By the way, "anti gravity" I believe is a misnomer. It implies that gravitation is a unidirectional force which I believe is not true. Thus, one should be able to shear against the structure of space and gain lift in much the same manner as a helicopter. What I advocate is not really that strange. Take a helicopter back and show it to Newton and you would get all the same responses that I get and others get who advocate "anti grav" Well, if interested, send me an email and I can send an NDA. BTW, this device, if it works, has o/u potential usage as a ZPE device. This is because there is a net flux of energy coming from space into the earth. That is like a waterfall of energy flowing right through us all the time and being responsible for the effect we call gravitation. Buckle up and get ready for a ride. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 03:48:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA28302; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 03:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 03:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607131041.DAA28042@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: snip BL generation >is one area I think this particular group or a similar group might be able >to directly solve if everyone gave freely of their ideas. It seems to me >the important thing is not to worry about 99 bad ideas, only the sifting to >find the good 1 percent, or 0.1 percent. In the energy field the potential >payoff for humanity is so high that the expected value for wasting your >time searching in a broad solution domain is still very high. The key is in >getting enough people constructively and cooperatively involved in the >search. Maybe it would be worthwhile to create a spinoff listserv group for >concentrating on BL or other specific energy subjects, or maybe such a >group exists, a group dedicated to unrestrained brainstorming, public >domain work, and to creative synergy. > Horrace; I can give you a non conventional idea or two coming from a unique vantage point of my model, for what it is worth. My model treats space as a resonant nodal structure, and matter as resonant standing waves coupled to that structure. One powers the other and all were created in the big bang. I know this is not explanitory but think this is enough of my model for this post. In short, I look at space as a resonant structure not unlike de Broglies and Bohms pilot waves except that the pressure is huge and not tiny like they proposed. So, what might ball lightning be in such a structure? Within the nodes I have been studying the manners in which energy in the form of waves in aether, can move from here to there. It turns out that they primarily remain coherent with the nodal structure. But there is an appreciable amount of energy that is out of phase with the energy that we can perceive with our "real" matter. In other words, there is "imaginary" energy to the universe in this model. Another key point is that since matter is pumped by the resonances of the nodal structure, what is implied is that the nodal structure is of greater energy content than matter within that structure. Thus, it is like matter is hiding in the eddies behind the wave fronts. If you can do something to get matter out of the eddies in the QVF and into the flow of the waves, then it will be tossed about very violently. this model (if found correct) requires that stars emit aether during their nuclear reactions. I mention this because we observe that galaxies seem to require dark matter, but such a supposition has been shown to be unnecessary if one assumes that the gravitational potential is other than Newtonian. The clincher though occurs much closer to home in the solar corona. High above the surface of the sun, the corona climbs to several million degrees K. There is no good model for how this could be. If a star is emitting aether according to this model, then the interior of the star will be of a greater pressure than free space. Therefore, there should be some region at which that aether expands out and reduces its pressure. Wave energy converging on the sun from deep space will try to preclude this, but at some radii, fail. Thus there will be a region of sharp expansion of the aether and matter caught in that region will be highly accelerated, ergo the coronal heating. Regarding ball lightning, if this model is accurate, then a sudden distortion to the shape of the nodal structure of space due to a sudden short as you mention might be able to induce a region of space that is out of phase synch with the resonances of "our space". If such an event did occur, then there would be a tremendous heating observed just like in the solar corona. To initiate this, acceleration of matter is key. In the devices you mentioned, the electrons are being accelerated and space vortices should be shed from the particles sort of like smoke rings. Perhaps a group of arcs that surround a region of space and which move in different directions, ie orthogonal to one another, might do the trick. If I could read some of the research on what *has* been observed, I could consider what they saw based on what my model would predict. From that I should be able to offer some better insight. I don't have access to a U library, so if you have a paper you might email me or a web site to read up on this I could look into it if you desire. Again, throwing the electrons around and past each other should be able to create some interesting things but I don't know how you might sustain such a ball. That said, if you could create a ball that was interfering with the QVF, then you would get a tremendous amount of energy out just like the solar corona. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 09:35:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA09099; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 09:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 09:29:00 -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: Correa Patents, Battery Exchange X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/12/96 19:58 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Correa Patents, Battery Exchange BINGO! OK, Mike, that DOES make things much more interesting. It DOES bring up the matter that Correa is somewhat of technical genius ----albeit perhaps not the worlds most gifted technical writer! As I have always felt visa-vie Malloy's "Dress for Success", WOE unto the world for judging things on the SURFACE (i.e., clothing, credentials, appearance, "perception" etc.) - Since you seem to have a good rapport with Dr. C., you may pass on to him the concept that the "daisey chain" operation, with starting charge versus a final "discharge" V*I graph has been discussed with several "utility engineers" and they all agree, such data would be convincing. HOWEVER, there is that "3rd party" bug-a-boo.....Again, I hope Dr. Correa understands that just because HE does things right, and that indeed the effect is real, organizations will come knocking at his door. It DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY with a major paradigm change. - I'll talk to some contacts at SouthWest Research Inst. this week and try to come up with a contract price to run a "certified" test of the Correa device. That would be interesting. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 09:36:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA09281; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 09:30:50 -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: Funding for SL exp?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/12/96 19:58 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Funding for SL exp?? Ross: Sorry, it doesn't work that way. As an individual you have NO chance to obtain funding based on "theory". Maybe if you self fund some experiments and publish, and come up with SOME results you can get somewhere. But getting funding on the basis of theory? NO SUCH LUCK.... Now if you could connect your theory with Bovine Belching and the greenhouse effect. MDH:) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 11:14:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22744; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 11:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 11:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607131802.LAA05861@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Funding for SL exp?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >*** Reply to note of 07/12/96 19:58 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Funding for SL exp?? >Ross: Sorry, it doesn't work that way. As an individual you have NO chance >to obtain funding based on "theory". Maybe if you self fund some experiments >and publish, and come up with SOME results you can get somewhere. But >getting funding on the basis of theory? NO SUCH LUCK.... Now if you >could connect your theory with Bovine Belching and the greenhouse effect. MDH:) Yes I am aware, all too well, that this is for the most part the case. I could perhaps veil the device as an interesting mating call for mosquito eaters so that I might scare mosquitos away and get funding as a non poluting insect repellent for the jungle, and might imply applications in agrigicultural pesticide replacement. I'll think about that. In the mean time, I am serious about the E/V amplification in the devices I am describing. I need to find some individual, or organization that could provide substantial funding. EPRI has a division but after the mediocre results of McCubre the people over there are not funding things with any ferver. I can demonstrate data in actual experiments which show the phenomena I am advocating can be amplified to fusion levels as these levels have already been attained, albeit at dramatically low power output levels which render the devices curiosities and the researchers reeling to justify their results in the eyes of the public (physics community). The reason I am so confident, in short, is because people have already succeeded at building low power versions of what I am talking about but they did not know they did it. They did not know what was responsible for the anamolous heating and MeV level particle ejecta from a mechanistic point of view. I cannot describe which of the many devices out there I am referring to and in deed, I am not referring to any one device. There is one piece of data on this side of the globe, and another piece on the other side of the globe and so on. The simple fact is this. There exist manners in which to increase the energy density dramatically. And, this has been demonstrated in real devices with dramatic certainty no one on the planet will doubt when exposed to the fundamentals of the concepts because the base design is simple and common in applications of other effects. There is no radical engineering required, but still we would plan to be working with potential for neutrons and gamma's so one must take the prudent precautions before succeeding only to find oneself dying of cancer in a hospital. That is the low budget approach and that glory is not worth very much to me. I am describing a real technology where all of the pieces have been tried, the basis has been applied and works, and which can be configured for personal power sources at best, or central power sources at worst. (The variance will depend on the types of reactions and the resulting half lives but short half lives are anticipated for products, ie minutes to hours, and not kyears. Yes, we are talking fusion) I am aware that the probability of attaining funding through normal channels is nil. However, from the expertise I have read in this group discussing cutting edge concepts openly and with intelligence, I am going to assume that out there are a couple of people who indeed have access to this sort of funding. I have received one such response so far and expect others once the people in those positions take my comments seriously. I appreciate the concern regarding the difficulty of attaining funding, but I assure you this project will be funded. It is only a question of "By whom?". The reason is that sooner or later I will be funded, or else others who have funding will figure out what I have discovered. One way or the other, this technology is on our horizon. What remains to be seen is how much utility can be had. In other words, can a $100 production device power a car, or will one need a million dollar device to power a central power station. I suspect the former based on the lack of complexity of the design. To get to that point, of course, is a major R&D effort to develop a commercially safe device. But, there is good evidence of that possibility. We all know, however, that nothing is certain in cutting edge technology like this and so this technology is no exception to that rule. That said, a $1.6 trillion market place for energy annually should get a couple of maverick investors of the dime if they can be exposed to the possibility. Hopefully a few of them are listening in on this group. Time will tell and keep up the good work. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 11:22:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23995; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 11:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 11:17:40 -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: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: As ususal, I'll blurt out some assumptions and let the corrections fall where they may. The following is partially in response to Ross Tessian, and partially to address some issues maybe long overdue. This listserv is a terrific resource. Most of the people here are very learned and experienced and have primarily an experimental bent. They are very polite and have been silently tolerant of unconventional theories or assumptions, and/or novice amateur thinking, which I especially have been guilty of concocting and espousing on various occasions (sorry), usually when nothing in particular seems to be a really hot prospect. I'll do most anything to clang the bell to see what might resonate forth, but don't expect to ever match Chris, the initiator of this thred, in clanging skill. He has the amazing ability to do that with great economy of words. However, the main focus of this group is discussion of experimental results and experimental methods, and design of specific devices. This is really good, and I regret having muddied and clogged the bandwidth so much. I think there is justification for another kind of listserv with a different focus, a blue sky brainstorming focus. Sci.physics.fusion might be used for that now, since it is nearly useless otherwise, but you have to put up with meaningless attacks and improper crossposts from unrelated groups. Besides, critcism is anathema to brainstorming in the creative phase, even though vital in the analysis phase. One possibility is a moderated pair of listservs with different yet complimentary rules. A creativity listserv could be dedicated to positive reinforcement and building idea upon idea. No criticism would be allowed. A second list could be used to critique the ideas generated on the first list and cull the chaff and select (vote for?) topics or ideas for further brainstorming. It is standard practice to focus on very specific topics when brainstorming. Unfortunately, all this would require time to moderate and may be unworkable. It would be good to create some kind of nearly automatic scheme to achieve brainstorming efficiencies. Maybe reliance on the integrity of the participants to adhere to the charter, "light moderation", a method most effectively used here by Bill Beaty, is sufficient. Another issue for such a group is intellectual property. Maybe a useful method might be to declare all material posted to be, by such posting or uploading, made public domain with implied permission to copy and use, patented material excluded. There would be a ban on copyrighted postings. It would then be possible to set up an incoming and outgoing FTP/website for sharing of documents in the public domain. Such would be especially useful for scanned documents like US patents, government reports, and other public domain information. Maybe such a collection of listserv and www functions could be run by a nonprofit or government organization? Ideas or comments? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 12:16:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA03410; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 12:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 12:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607131905.OAA03213@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: Funding for SL exp?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:52 PM 7/12/96 -0700, Tessian wrote: >If anyone knows of a way I could get hooked up with either a more open >minded organization, or with an individual who could independently fund a >$100K plus effort please point me in the direction required. Why do you think you need $100k? Without revealing any of your secrets could you describe the apparatus needed? My organization, EarthTech, specializes in proof-of-principle experiments which can often be performed far more economically (and rapidly) than the typical feasibility study that a large corporation would undertake. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 12:46:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA08646; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 12:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 12:41:59 -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: How well does the US Mail work? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: How well does the US Mail work? - Well, we sent the big torroids to HH on Tuesday, priority mail. Alledged to go by airplane....hummmmm? Horace, it's Sat., 5 days later, got anything? - (PS, if he does get it today, it shows def. proof of the mail system eccentricities, as an occasional letter from my brother in Chicago sometimes takes a week..) MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 15:21:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA01010; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 15:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 15:14:19 -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: Global Warming Report... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Global Warming Report... - YES! As much as I'd like to push Cold Fusion as a "cure all" for alledged Global Warming, the truth is I believe the global warming claims to be non-sense. - For any of your Nordiphiles (people who appreciate Nordic life, and Nordic lifestyles) this year we have had: - 1. A record low temperature, -60 degrees F. in Sudan MN 2. A record nightime summer low (49 about 2 days ago) 3. The longest stretch of Spring weather below 60 degrees F. we have ever had.. 4. Today's July 13th Temp. of less than 72 degrees F. - Do you know what we call people worried about "global warming" in MN? CRAZY! (Next comment to be made after the coming 3', Oct. 25th snowstorm.) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 15:35:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA03401; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 15:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 15:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960713222534_100433.1541_BHG37-1@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: Antigrav etc X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On the matter of antigrav crystals, this came up on the Cserve Science board: "The Kowsky-Frost 'experiment' was a practical joke that was perpetrated by the German-language science magazine Umschau. Ever since then, it has been referred to by cranks as if it were a genuine piece of research. Forget it." However, the poster was somebody (David Fisher) who seems to have his own agenda, so although I'd reckon this was a further negative it probably isn't conclusive. Horace has kind words, but I must assure him that I wasn't trying to trash the 'free energy' field, I just wanted to know where it comes from, and how well-attested ANY results are. May I also heartily concur with Scott's comments on funding for experiments. As a notorious penny-pincher myself, I can assure anybody who is interested that remarkable success can be achieved with minimal funding - plus a bit of imagination. People get 'instrument happy', and forget that (quite shamingly) magnificent work was done in the C19th and earlier with equipment which most of us (including, I suspect, Scott and myself) would sweep off the bench-top without a second glance. It's a bit like locking yourself out of your own home. It is a sobering discovery to find just how easy it is to get into that seemingly secure house if you just change your perspective on the problem. By the way, has anybody heard from Volodya Onoochin recently? None of my emails to various addresses get a response. He asked me to translate some Russlish for him, and I'm a bit stuck with one part of his paper. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 17:08:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA16849; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 17:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 17:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960713194717_358431093@emout18.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: Global Warming Report... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: It's a bit off topic, but I will second Mark's swipe at Global Warming as a boogey-man used by environmentalists to scare money out of Congress. The following is a paste from a post I sent to Stefan on a different topic, which is germane here. begin quote: As for the weather, we had an abnormally (for recent decades) harsh winter in New Jersey and Texas is heading for a major drought, like we had a few years ago. I grew up in Iowa, in the center of the huge agricultural region in the central US. The summers are hot and the winters cold and long. Yet one year in the '40s, when I was in college, a front settled in along the Missouri River. West of that it snowed and snowed, and where we were a couple of hundred miles east, it was dry and relatively mild. That year flowers bloomed in New Jersey in January. Now that I live in New Jersey, I can report that the winters are often mild, with only occasional freezing through December and --usually-- one heavy snowfall in February. The soil in the central US is deep and fertile, which makes it one of the world's great agricultural regions. Yet if you dig down, you find layers of sand and topsoil, which indicates that there is a longstanding pattern of occasionl droughts and sandstorms. The last "dust bowl" conditions we had in the central US was in the 1930's. As the Greens point out, it doesn't take much of a shift to skew the weather patterns, but our memory is short, and the militant environmentalists take advantage of this to cite any fluctuation as a portent of gloom and doom. A few decades ago there was a span of cool weather, and a new ice age was seem to loom; now we are about steam in a runaway greenhouse. Remember that deterministic chaos was "discovered" by Lorentz through a computer program modeling weather systems in a small way. Two runs didn't match, and he found that very small differences in the entered parameters made the difference. The climate models started out assuming the Earth was a dry ball, and haven't yet evolved to include cloud cover. Clouds vary widely in their ability to transmit, contain, and reflect energy. Yet to model one cloud will strain a supercomputer. No model will predict the production of clouds, their characteristics, distribution, or even percent cloud cover. No computers even remotely can handle both the circulation models and cloud cover models. And that doesn't begin to address the reaction of the biosphere to increased carbon dioxide. Ongoing studies indicate that many plant species respond with vigorous growth, soaking up carbon dioxide. Yet "environmentalists" with political agendas -- and researchers looking for funding -- will publish dire predictions based on such worthless models. end quote. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 18:22:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA26891; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 18:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 18:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607140110.SAA15971@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >As ususal, I'll blurt out some assumptions and let the corrections fall >where they may. The following is partially in response to Ross Tessian, >and partially to address some issues maybe long overdue. > >This listserv is a terrific resource. Most of the people here are very >learned and experienced and have primarily an experimental bent. They are >very polite and have been silently tolerant of unconventional theories or >assumptions, and/or novice amateur thinking, which I especially have been >guilty of concocting and espousing on various occasions (sorry), usually >when nothing in particular seems to be a really hot prospect. I'll do most >anything to clang the bell to see what might resonate forth, but don't >expect to ever match Chris, the initiator of this thred, in clanging skill. >He has the amazing ability to do that with great economy of words. >However, the main focus of this group is discussion of experimental results >and experimental methods, and design of specific devices. This is really >good, and I regret having muddied and clogged the bandwidth so much. > >I think there is justification for another kind of listserv with a >different focus, a blue sky brainstorming focus. Sci.physics.fusion might >be used for that now, since it is nearly useless otherwise, but you have to >put up with meaningless attacks and improper crossposts from unrelated >groups. Besides, critcism is anathema to brainstorming in the creative >phase, even though vital in the analysis phase. One possibility is a >moderated pair of listservs with different yet complimentary rules. A >creativity listserv could be dedicated to positive reinforcement and >building idea upon idea. No criticism would be allowed. A second list could >be used to critique the ideas generated on the first list and cull the >chaff and select (vote for?) topics or ideas for further brainstorming. It >is standard practice to focus on very specific topics when brainstorming. >Unfortunately, all this would require time to moderate and may be >unworkable. It would be good to create some kind of nearly automatic >scheme to achieve brainstorming efficiencies. Maybe reliance on the >integrity of the participants to adhere to the charter, "light moderation", >a method most effectively used here by Bill Beaty, is sufficient. > >Another issue for such a group is intellectual property. Maybe a useful >method might be to declare all material posted to be, by such posting or >uploading, made public domain with implied permission to copy and use, >patented material excluded. There would be a ban on copyrighted postings. >It would then be possible to set up an incoming and outgoing FTP/website >for sharing of documents in the public domain. Such would be especially >useful for scanned documents like US patents, government reports, and other >public domain information. Maybe such a collection of listserv and www >functions could be run by a nonprofit or government organization? > >Ideas or comments? > I would like to say that I have been very impressed with the level of understanding, and the level of respect that has been demonstrated in the postings I have read in this group since joining. I read for a while before making my first posts. I am well aware that my posts and concepts are not along the mainstream physics line of thinking. And I think that what you are advocating is to separate this sort of fundamental theory out from actual evaluation of devices. Personally, I will refrain my comments to whatever you deem the guidlines of this group should be. But I would like to express my opinion on the link from one to another. We are discussing in this group devices that generate energy that exceeds what our current understanding of physics would indicate should be there. These are ZPE devices, O/U, CF, transmutation devices, anti grav devices, etc. Simply put, these things do not work......according to current phsycal understanding. I feel that there should be a mix of theory along with the evaluation of whether or not a particular device might actually work. For example the post I made on ball lightning. If you get some sort of feel for what new physics might be involved, then you might be able to find a way to construct the devices to tap into that process. I don't believe in "anti gravity" or "energy from nothing". I simply believe from my research that gravitation is a physical effect that deals with how our sub atomic matter is meshed with the nodal structure of spacetime and filters some of that energy which has a unique origin, the cosmos (ie red shifted QVF). And I have a physical, detailed, model for exactly what I mean by those words. I have spent the past year and a half torturing this model with physicists in Astronomy, cosmology, particle physics, fusion researchers at LLNL and elsewhere and fundamental theorists. I have purchased and read over $600 in books in that period on topics from GR to QCD and everywhere in between. In other newsgroups, I ran into such opposition and lack of understanding that for the past six months I simply don't let them know why I want to know if there is an anomalous neutrino count synchronously linked to the solar activity cycle. If I say, they clam up. So I just pose the question, get the response, and carry on in silence most of the time except for email with certain dedicated and open minded individuals. I have learned a lot of things in the past year and a half. And all of them may be wrong. But over that time, and with over 10 Mega bytes of information exchanged, and over 500 posts to the other newsgroups, I have not succeeded at proving my theory wrong. I was excited to see the posts in this newsgroup tackling things like these unknown phenomena. But if these things are for real, then there are things about physics and most certainly the structure of the quantum vacuum which we do not understand. This sort of a newsgroup is the kind that will be capable of cracking the nut on new physics that will take us into the 21'st century. This kind of an educated group who ponder things that our current theories tell us cannot happen in an open forum is the kind of place where the mutual concepts of a large number of minds will lead to a new understanding of what is really going on in these effects. And this will eventually lead to one or more devices that actually break out of the hum drum CF quagmire where any one involved in the research who has seen MeV level particles and or beta decay xray film exposures that persist for weeks has a pretty clear understanding that there are at the very least transmutations going on. If you can clip a neutron from a D nucleus and then let a Pd nucleus gobble that neutron up, it doesn't take a PhD physicist to go the the table of isotopes and figure out that such a reaction will lead to several stable isotopes of PD (thus hiding what happened), and to a few beta reactive products in trace amounts. Neither do you need to be more than a first year college physics or chemistry student to copy down the isotopic masses to see that if you have that neutron gobbled up by the Pd nucleus you will get out just about the same amount of energy per reaction as you would have in a DD fusion reaction. That is why I believe this sort of group is the perfect place to present personal models ****when**** they are potentially applicable to understanding a particular phenomena. As an example, I could speak volumes more on the phenomena of ball lightning as pertains to my model. It occured to me as I read the post that that particular phenomena matched closely several other things I had studied in regards to my model. Among them are the solar coronal heating problem, the masses of muon and tau as a ratio of electron, the structure of a black hole, and the certain things that happen in sonoluminescence. It may sound bizarre to list those particular phenomena together if you understand physics according to the current conventions. But all of those phenomena fit right together and are related to ball lightning when you view physical phenomena through my eyes based on my model. What I have longed for is a group to discuss the technologies I have been working on, but I get my head chopped off when I stray too close to our proprietary devices, so I avoid that. However, because even my partner is not convinced in the value of some of the more exotic devices because he does not understand them, he doesn't mind if I discuss these. So devices like anti gravitation are more feasible for me to discuss here. Indeed, I am sure many of you are aware of the careful Japanese experiment that showed a repeatable deviation in the mass of the rotating disk I mentioned earlier. Maxwell modeled space as a bunch of idler wheels and gears in a fluid mechanical, frictionaless, "space". That is all I am talking about in my models. The difference is that I am speaking in terms of particles pulsating rather than rotating. But you still wind up with a nodal structure that is all interconnected. But a super fluidic system is "slippery". One must be careful with the manner in which one tries to tap into it. It is a bit like trying to walk up an incline of a sheet of ice using flat rubber boots. You will just slide down unless you have some KE to get you up there. So this entire subject boils down to a balance of KE and PE at the Planck scale E-35 m in the quantum vacuum. You see, if we are going to try to evaluate real devices that are demonstrating phenomena that does not fit in with our current views of physics, we will fail up until the time we realize the erroneous assumptions our current views make. I feel strongly that a group like this should encourage ramblings on theory side by side with discussion on devices. How can one discuss a ZPE device in the context of current physics? Such a device is simply a perpetual motion machine in the context of current views. It is only when you give some sort of order to the QVF that you can begin to discuss manners in which you might be able to use that order to drive a paddle wheel and extract energy. GR and QED do not fit together. And yet they reside in the same universe. This, simply, cannot be tolerated. It is wrong to have a theory of the microscopic quantum vacuum that does not lead to predictions of gravitation without requiring us to develop an entirely new and separate theory of GR. The devices discussed in this group, I feel strongly, tread in that middle ground that joins QED to GR. It is this gap in our understanding that resutlts in our considering these anomalous effects to seem strange. And, I feel, it is this gap in our understanding that precludes us from seeing obvious solutions toward the goal of amplifying the energy output from these devices. Most people in this group understand the tremendous energy density of the quantum vacuum. So it is obvious that tapping into even a tiny portion of that would yeild a tremendous amount of energy. But there is a catch, the quantum vacuum is at the very least, a super fluid. ie, it is frictionless. At first glance this should allow us to all give up and go home confident that ZPE devices are hoaxes. But if there is structure to the QVF, then we should be able to shear it in some fashion. An ice skater knows this and uses it to accelerate his/her "frictionless" skates across the "frictionless" ice. If we want to discuss how a particular motor or transformer or other device might tap into the QVF, isn't it prudent to discuss possible structures that the quantum vacuum might have? Well, I really do not mind either way, but please let me know whether or not you would like to continue to hear about what I "think" may be at work in the various devices with which I am familiar. If this is too far out, then I will constrain my comments to whatever guidlines you choose. I do understand the danger of inviting such ramblings, and that may outweigh the good. I guess the difference I see is that I am a 41 year old mechanical engineer who has studied high tech devices all his life. I am not a college student who just popped up with these concepts and I have been discussing this theory with many people and so far all we seem to find is correlation with GR, QED and whatever we happen to look into. I know this is a hauty claim, and I may very well be all wet. But I really do think that my models for matter and for space and for time are valid. They meet qualatitive checks all across the board, and we are beginning to evaluate some manners in which we can establish the concepts in quantative ways to add some alterations to Newtonian gravitation as pertains to stars and in other areas. But these concepts beg to be revealed to any one working on ZPE or anti grav devices. That is what I am willing to share in this group. Many years of experience in engineering, and a year and a half of intense research into the concepts of mass, energy, time, space, and entropy. Let me know about this and I will modify my comments accordingly. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 18:22:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA26959; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 18:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 18:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607140111.SAA15973@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Funding for SL exp?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 07:52 PM 7/12/96 -0700, Tessien wrote: > >>If anyone knows of a way I could get hooked up with either a more open >>minded organization, or with an individual who could independently fund a >>$100K plus effort please point me in the direction required. > >Why do you think you need $100k? Without revealing any of your secrets >could you describe the apparatus needed? My organization, EarthTech, >specializes in proof-of-principle experiments which can often be performed >far more economically (and rapidly) than the typical feasibility study that >a large corporation would undertake. Scott; Thanks for the note and I will address your questions as best I can. The business plan that we have put together calls for an all out research project. We are seeking on the order of $2M in funding in order to completely stomp on the technology including patents etc. There are a number of devices that could be constructed around a central theme. So, the $100k is already my concept of a bare bones approach and my partner would (will) cringe when he reads this note because he says we cannot possibly accomplish things at this dollar amount. The feel more like you above, that one can get extremely creative an solve things at a small scale. But this is not always the case. And sometimes (fusion being a beautiful example) ones guess is not even close to the target even if the target can indeed be hit. There are safety concerns here and shielding is not innexpensive. I figure I could lease one of the gold mines up here in the hills if necessary to provide adequate shielding during research and in so doing avoid the expense of a lot of lead and construction. But the equipment required to drive the devices is expensive. It would cost more than the amount above if I got what I really want to have. But here is the rub. I have noticed a number of articles in various journals that have cited simple observations "we saw this happen after we did this and it lasted for this long...." that kind of stuff. In other words, things that someone would not know to invent. Now I have seen remarks like that in CF articles, and I have seen the same comments in RF engineering and shielding. In other words, I am not telling you really about what I found out, but I am showing you that I did not learn this from just reading CF articles. There are little pockets in physics all across the universe that I have found where the specialists in a particular field says "this is really strange and no one knows why it is there". I guess to get back to your question, What I did was to notice that if I take a technology over here, and combine it with a different technology over there, then I could produce effects that no one has yet intentionally induced. In other words, some researchers in certain fields have accidentally induced certain effects and they have noted them in their papers. But they do not know what caused those effects. Because of that, they don't know to go looking for some other technologies that exist in other fields to put them together. I will be the first to admit that what I am saying seems patently false. It did to me too at first, but after spending three months trying to refute the analogy, I finally gave up and began designing devices. Since that time I have learned much about all of this from the vantage point of fundamental physics at the quantum mechanical level. Barry Merriman was perfectly correct and accurate in stating that it is more likely that there will be some form of loss mechanism that will shut things down prior to a build up in temperature of 100 E6 K. I will state that what I am doing is not really sonoluminescence so that you are not confused. I use that name as something that people can relate to, but the devices I designed are very much a new phenomena in the manner in which the energy density build up is handled. That said, I do nothing that has not been done with a variety of other devices, I simply do it different (or hope to if I get funding). I cannot go into the key that gets you to the new levels of energy density. But they are so simple that it is amazing. What I do not know is at what level I must drive things in order to get the desired effects. For this reason, I must be prepared for it to be difficult. but my calculations indicated a 9 order of magnitude energy density amplification. Even I do not believe that number. That is the theoretical upper bound as far as I am concerned. But, we are within around 3 to 5 orders of magnitude of fusion levels with just the SL process depending on whos analysis you believe. It is for that reason (4 to 6 orders of magnitude safety margin) that I am confident that I can induce reactions. I don't expect to realize those excesses. But the thing is, the manner in which I generate energy density is tried and true but I cannot say much more than that (ie who tried and proved it but you all are aware of the fact I guarantee you. It is just not currently known that one could apply the technology in this new manner). Well, I am getting wordy again and there are some who perhaps consider that I just don't know what I don't know. To those I would state that my meetings with Westinghouses top 12 PhD physicists and engineers for six hours did not reveal any major gaps in my understanding. But then, they did not get exposed to the entire technology so that is not the greatest gauge of my understanding. So, you see, this is not a simple lab bench experiment that one can perform for 10 or 20 thousand dollars. And if success is attained on the first try, then there will be a lot of energy flying around the room. At this point, because no one has ever constructed such a device, there is no knowledge on what is going to happen. If the products turn out to include a lot of gammas or neutrons (neutrons are not expected), then precautions absolutely must have been taken to safe guard the people working on the project. This too costs money even if you take things into the side of a mountain (fortunately we have lots of those holes in the "wall"). I hope this explains things a bit better. I am not talking about some simple low tech device like a Patterson cell. Think in terms more like magnetic resonance imaging as far as the technology. But the components for this device will be much less complex and correspondingly less expensive that an MRI machine. Now that I have said that, I will add that I own an engineering company and have a full machine shop. So you see, it is not fabricating the machine that is the problem. It is getting hold of the specialized components with which to fabricate the devices. That is where the expense is. Well, enough for today. Ross Tessien From billb@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 19:55:29 1996 Received: from ..southconn.com (southconn.com [199.190.99.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA00773 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 19:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 19:55:18 -0700 (PDT) From: paula@southconn.com Message-Id: <199607140255.TAA00773@mail.eskimo.com> X-ROUTED: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 22:47:22 -0500 Received: from 199.190.99.30 [199.190.99.30] by ..southconn.com with smtp id BGBKCEAL ; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 22:26:36 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: "New Energy"? Status: RO X-Status: On 13 Jul 96 vortex-l said to paula@southconn.com >>As ususal, I'll blurt out some assumptions and let the corrections >>fall where they may. The following is partially in response to >>Ross Tessian, and partially to address some issues maybe long >overdue. > >>This listserv is a terrific resource. Most of the people here are >>very learned and experienced and have primarily an experimental *************snip************* >whatever we happen to look into. I know this is a hauty claim, and >I may very well be all wet. But I really do think that my models >for matter and for space and for time are valid. They meet >qualatitive checks all across the board, and we are beginning to >evaluate some manners in which we can establish the concepts in >quantative ways to add some alterations to Newtonian gravitation as >pertains to stars and in other areas. >But these concepts beg to be revealed to any one working on ZPE or >anti grav devices. That is what I am willing to share in this >group. Many years of experience in engineering, and a year and a >half of intense research into the concepts of mass, energy, time, >space, and entropy. >Let me know about this and I will modify my comments accordingly. I vote you keep posting (and others also) - your "may be all wet" ideas may trigger some "not so wet, brains to follow new lines of thought, resulting in something practical....just my wet thoughts.....steve steve opelc...........paula@southconn.com `[1;35;44mNet-Tamer V 1.04 - Registered From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 21:57:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA08813; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 21:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 21:54:18 -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: How well does the US Mail work? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: How well does the US Mail work? >- >Well, we sent the big torroids to HH on Tuesday, priority mail. Alledged to >go by airplane....hummmmm? Horace, it's Sat., 5 days later, got anything? >- >(PS, if he does get it today, it shows def. proof of the mail system >eccentricities, as an occasional letter from my brother in Chicago sometimes >takes a week..) MDH Airmail works great. (It's only ground that sometimes ends up on a barge for a few weeks.) I got them. Thanks very much! It appears they are about three inces in diameter, but they are very heavily wound. The center hole is almost closed. The package was opened - so may have been inspected. I don't know if the braided copper wire was cut when you sent the coils but both coils arrived with cut braid exposed. I have a bunch of tape and some secondaries off the first core and am down to the lacquered copper wire. What are these things from? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 21:58:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA09026; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 21:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 21:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960714042653_100433.1541_BHG20-1@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: Re: Funding for SL exp?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross, Along with a willingness (and competence) to discuss theories and devices without prejudice, this group has certain other skills. Or should that be 'bitter experience'? We are painfully aware of a condition first described here by Jed Rothwell, who calls it "inventors' disease". This syndrome is known to develop in otherwise and formerly quite sane people. I think that Jed himself will be absent from this discussion group for some time, but the general outlines of this condition are well enough known to many of us that we are pretty good at spotting symptoms. I can post the full list of symptoms, but the general outline is this: with a new concept or technology, one which may well have global significance, the instigator begins to see the whole thing mapped out. He (no, females don't ever do this) wants to control the thing from concept to the launch of world-shattering products. We see that the Correas want not merely to demonstrate a new technology, they want to ruggedise it for automotive use. They even want to design the vehicle. Maybe they want to choose the design of its seats and choose the colour of the trim cloth for the seats. It's as if the Wrights (who had significant sysmptoms themselves, and nearly lost the whole thing as a result) had insisted on designing at least a WWII Spitfire fighter. Now, I am not saying that you are going down with this pernicious and near-fatal malady. And you may think this is some kind of personal attack - it isn't. But you tell us that various people report the 'shadow' of this effect you wish to maximise, right? And that they just haven't recognised it? But that means that you can predict what will be seen in various systems. And you could at least work out *some* way of demonstrating the effect at low-level? I do rather feel that you are thinking big, and that you very much should be thinking small, working out how to demonstrate this idea without spending big money. Just a thought, Chris From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 21:57:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA09108; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 21:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 21:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960714032615.006761f4@pop.hom.net> Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Krenath To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Methods for investigating the hum X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 10:28 AM 7/13/96 -0700, Ron Hill wrote: >Well, one of the simplest and most effective ways that I use to record low >frequency electromagnetic fields is to take an ordinary domestic cassette >tape recorder, disconnect the internal microphone, and connect an iron-cored >relay coil (having a resistance of from 500 ohms to 2,000 ohms in my case) >to the microphone, or auxiliary input, to the recorder via a 10 foot length >of screened cable. After recording, the tape can be played back and the e/m >field is heard as a hum, together with any local electrical interference >that has been picked up at the same time . For that reason it is better to >make the recordings well away from houses or industrial sites - you can have >no idea of the electomagnetic `pollution' that washing machines cause, >particularly at the spin-dry stage! I'm assuming by 'an iron-cored relay coil' you're referring to the coil side of any generic relay available at the likes of Radio Shack, and by 'screened cable', a shielded two-conductor wire with the shield tied to the chassis ground of the tape recorder. (As a computer technician who works in a radio/television/computer company, I have some limited experience wiring audio, but am prone to making incorrect assumptions due to my lack of an engineering background. As far as electrical interference, I'm used to wiring radio stations and trying to shield out the effects of 5 kilowatt transmitters :) I also occasionally wander through the building when I'm bored with the 'wand' side of a telephone 'toner' (a device that consists of two halves, one connected to one end of a pair of wires to send a loud alternating tone down them, and another 'wand' half that amplifies nearby RF noise so you can follow the wire without direct contact, even through a wall) listening to the hums coming from within the walls of the building. Did you know LCD panels, even in digital watches, almost invariably squeal at a very high pitch? I didn't :) Ideally, I'd like to take the 'wand' and modify it to pick up the Hum. So I'm naive. So what? :)) >Regards > >Ronald. >ronhill@enterprise.net ,-------+-----. Eric Koske, Register Data Systems, Register Communications. | |/~ /-| /~ | WPGA AM 980, FM 100.9, and TV Channel 58 Macon, Georgia | | \_| _/ | Computer Tech, Tech Support, Archbishop of Phones, Whatzit Guru. `-------------' 1619 Forsyth St., Macon, GA 31210 (912)745-5858 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 23:17:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA22723; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 23:13:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 23:13:28 -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: Global Warming Report... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Global Warming Report... >- >YES! As much as I'd like to push Cold Fusion as a "cure all" for >alledged Global Warming, the truth is I believe the global warming >claims to be non-sense. >- >For any of your Nordiphiles (people who appreciate Nordic life, and >Nordic lifestyles) this year we have had: >- >1. A record low temperature, -60 degrees F. in Sudan MN >2. A record nightime summer low (49 about 2 days ago) >3. The longest stretch of Spring weather below 60 degrees F. we have > ever had.. >4. Today's July 13th Temp. of less than 72 degrees F. >- >Do you know what we call people worried about "global warming" in MN? >CRAZY! (Next comment to be made after the coming 3', Oct. 25th snowstorm.) Isn't that what global warming is supposed to bring with it according to the NWS models? The increased average wind changes the jet stream and also increases local temperature variabilities. Small increases in average temperature have large influences on weather variability and storm system energies where the small global temperature changes are magnified. Also, the warming affects polar regions more than temperate zones. I can tell you the weather in Alaska has been noticeably changing. Permanent, I don't know, but there is has been a significant record drought here, and there was no snow in Palmer until after New Years Day. Also, glaciers that have been stable for thousands of years are now on the move. Dispite the warm weather at ground level, there appears to be a good degree of snowpack left high in the mountains. It is ironic that global warming could ultimately cause an ice age, melt the caps but cause glaciers to run wild near the warm humid ocean currents further south. Maybe some kind of sea level balance would ultimately be maintained? Who knows for sure? One of the first big effects you might expect to see soon is the oil from the Alaska pipeline cut off due to extreme calving of Columbia Glacier (which is roughly the size of Rhode Island). When I first saw it in 1977, the boat went right up next to it and blew the whistle to cause it to calve. The face rose an impressive 200 to 300 feet from the water line. The area was full of sea lions and sea otters. When I saw it in 1988, the boat could almost get within a quarter mile of the glacier but no further due to all the calving. Last summer you could barely see the face of the glacier because there was several miles of ice flow in front of the glacier. There was not a sea otter or sea lion to be seen near the glacier, probably for the obvious reasons. It's a no brainer what's coming next. Regarding the effects of weather pattern changes and the effects of fossil fuel burning you might be interrested in checking out: where the theme is that global tree mortality patterns due to these causes are providing strong indicators of major environmental shifts. I read where the UN has decided to focus on the effects of global warming in causing big shifts in desease patterns and the potential for plagues. It seems to me the way to get useful attention is to point out the billions of dollars worth of property that will eventually be uninsurable or gone due to weather losses, and the stress these losses are going to place on the insurance companies, banks, and government treasuries. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 23:22:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA22787; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 23:13:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 23:13:46 -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: Re: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I hope I haven't miscommunicated yet again. I'll try to be as specific as I can to try to avoid miscommunication. 1. I am very interrested in your ideas Ross, and in trying to understand your theory. My apologies if I gave you another impression. I would love to hear it, and even better maybe someone would offer to set up a www page for your theory. This has been done for others in the past. 2. I would not presume to have any personal say on policy here other than maybe to quote Bill Beaty's charter, since he owns the list and sets the policy. I certainly see myself as one of the least members of the group and not in the learned or experienced category. 3. My statements were meant to relate to some recent discussions of the group, especially in regard to "theories of everything" which was a specific discussion here in a moderately negative light, as was concern about legalities of patent and fair trade law. 4. News groups often split topics when the time seems right, and I was wondering if there might be any interest in a spin-off group set up to overcome some of the stated percieved problems. I more or less outlined what I would see as an ideal to see if anyone was interrested in that or any other split and to open discussion if so. Also, maybe there already exists a group similar to my ideal? 5. I have used up too much of the bandwidth here already and have made a resolution to stop it. Not doing too well am I? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 13 23:18:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA22835; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 23:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 23:14:08 -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: Antigrav etc X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >By the way, has anybody heard from Volodya Onoochin recently? None of >my emails to various addresses get a response. He asked me to translate >some Russlish for him, and I'm a bit stuck with one part of his paper. > >Chris He was expecting to return from Moscow on the 15th. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 14 02:37:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA11980; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 02:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 02:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607140930.CAA11010@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Funding for SL exp?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris; I must say that I really enjoy this groups approach. In the new theories group we call such a person a crackpot for virtually the same reasons. So please understand that I am chuckling all the way across the keyboard! As a mechanical engineer by profession, I am well aware of the syndrome and fully agree that I am inflicted. I noticed the illness setting in and spent three months trying to ward it off. The problem is, the evidence and the equations simply would let go of my brain. Everything I have tried to shoot down the concepts with has failed to accomplish the task (and I have looked plenty and with more than the average inventors resources at my disposal). So here I sit sweating at two in the morning with this fever! >Now, I am not saying that you are going down with this pernicious and >near-fatal malady. And you may think this is some kind of personal >attack - it isn't. But you tell us that various people report the >'shadow' of this effect you wish to maximise, right? And that they just >haven't recognised it? But that means that you can predict what will be >seen in various systems. And you could at least work out *some* way of >demonstrating the effect at low-level? I don't take it as an attack, and I full well understand what you are saying above. Sometimes, no often, inventors think they have found something that will change the world. Fortunately, or unfortunately as the case may be, such is indeed the case with energy solutions if the economics are in line. The fact of the matter is, I don't know if the economics will be in line, but from what I have read I believe they will be unless I am all wet (it is pretty hot up here so I am at least a bit damp. The balance can be determined in just one way, build it. > >I do rather feel that you are thinking big, and that you very much >should be thinking small, working out how to demonstrate this idea >without spending big money. Believe me, I give this advice to inventors on a semi weekly agenda. I fully understand how to launch products because that is what I do for a living. I work with my customers from concept to deliverable product where the products range from medical devices, to computer controlled x,y,z,theta stages 5 x 50 feet in length. I take your advice well, but assure you I have given myself the same advice already. I have priced the stages for some of the components I require and they are around 10 grand apiece. I figure I need 8 of them to get the thing to work like the calcs. that is 80 grand right there. I might be able to skimp and use 4, but that is still 40 grand before assembling all of the other stuff. You see the problem is that I am just not set up for all of the particular things I need. I have though tried to find ways in which to get what I need in a low dollar manner but simply have not found a way to do it,,,,, **yet**. I am continuing to try and this fall hope to be on the positive side of cash flow so that I may be able to fund things on my own. In any case, all I can really tell you is that I am definitely inflicted, but I am also an expert (it is the foundation of my entire companies line of business), at getting things done on a shoestring. When you think about it, what I am talking about is more akin to a laser ICF set up. So, a hundred grand is really a shoestring budget for that high tech of a project. Again, the business plan called for $2M. I know what it takes to launch things and I know how to cut corners, and I also know that an inflicted individual must take great care to avert delusions of grandeur. I have taken cases of chill pills and have remained calm and patient for the past year trying to arrange funding. I am not in a hurry, and don't really care about whether or not I am credited with the discovery. But I really hope it is our country that winds up being the next oil barrons rather than some other. All I really want is the funding to get on with the work of building the thing and finding out how well it will actually work. So, points well taken and already put into motion a year ago. The problem is it just cannot be accomplished on a 10 k budget. The components cost more than that. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 14 02:37:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA12012; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 02:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 02:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607140930.CAA11013@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >1. I am very interrested in your ideas Ross, and in trying to understand >your theory. My apologies if I gave you another impression. I would love >to hear it, and even better maybe someone would offer to set up a www page >for your theory. This has been done for others in the past. Great. And I hope to have the web page up in a month or so. A friend of mine is going to set it up with a pre publication of a number of chapters in the book I am writing regarding that theory. When up, I will let the group know. >3. My statements were meant to relate to some recent discussions of the >group, especially in regard to "theories of everything" which was a >specific discussion here in a moderately negative light, as was concern >about legalities of patent and fair trade law. For any serious developers (inventors is taken in a negative light to ME's who work with them all the time, see Chris Tinsleys comments to me and or my reply to him), the patent issues on real devices are indeed an issue. It is when there is no hope of the individual that success is close at hand or acheivable that free communication is exchanged. This is just a fact of life in the big league. I don't feel this is a place for TOE's, but I do feel that it should be given lattitude when specific comments can be made regarding **how** a persons TOE applies to a particular device. Most people do not have their theories honed to the degree that they can make either quantative or qualitative predictions using their models. I am at a point that I can make a tremendous number of qualitative predictions and see them in real phenomena that are not explained by current theories (dark matter, solar coronal heating, electron masses...). Such insight is not perfect, but it leads to an ability to suggest one try certain other designs for real working devices. I guess I have more of an ability in this regard in that this is what I do for a living, ie help others with their projects and turn them into a reality complete with recomendations on patent claims to protect the devices from another designer slipping around the claims. > >4. News groups often split topics when the time seems right, and I was >wondering if there might be any interest in a spin-off group set up to >overcome some of the stated percieved problems. I more or less outlined >what I would see as an ideal to see if anyone was interrested in that or >any other split and to open discussion if so. Also, maybe there already >exists a group similar to my ideal? If this group is exploring real things, HARP, CF, anti grav, etc. then I think we have it covered. The theories group has plenty of bandwidth on that (a lot of junk from many who don't know that they don't know what they don't know. But that is fine). Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 14 04:07:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA20354; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 04:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 04:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960714105411_100433.1541_BHG71-1@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: Ross Tessien's stuff X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I have to say that I am impressed by what Ross Tessien says in his latest message. All I can do is wish him good luck. Perhaps somebody here could, from the goodness of his heart, offer to look over what Ross has (even under the dread NDA) and maybe help catalyse his efforts. I can't, because I don't know anything about physics. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 14 04:56:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA23549; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 04:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 04:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607141146.GAA29166@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: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:16 PM 7/13/96 -0700, Ross wrote a lot of stuff including: >But if there is structure to the QVF, then we should be able to shear it in >some fashion. An ice skater knows this and uses it to accelerate his/her >"frictionless" skates across the "frictionless" ice. If we want to discuss >how a particular motor or transformer or other device might tap into the >QVF, isn't it prudent to discuss possible structures that the quantum vacuum >might have? I certainly think so...it is the only way I can dream up original experiments. However, what I have considerably less tolerance for is theories which explain shaky/unconfirmed experimental results. This is because I have personally blown several such "ships" right out of the water by demonstrating that the experimental "evidence" that launched them was simply measurement error. I am naturally concerned that the "mysterious" phenomena in various fields that you feel support your new energy theory are, in fact, just measurement errors. On the other hand, I can't help but be intrigued by your statements. If there's no other way to learn about your "big experiment", Earthtech is probably willing to sign a reasonable NDA (i.e. one that lets us keep what we already have!) in order to learn about it...and hopefully contribute by proposing a proof-of-principle experiment, such as Chris alluded to, that could be done more-or-less immediately. This is not to say that we know more about physics than Chris, who is a master of understatement. BTW, we have a complete machine shop, high voltage, high pressure, and vacuum apparatus, lots of electronics, and an impressive collection of physics "junk" with which to make such experiments. We specialize in power/energy balance measurements using calorimetry. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 14 05:59:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA28338; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 05:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 05:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31e75201.29740050@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: Correa Patents, Battery Exchange X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:53:42 -0700 (PDT), RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: [snip] >After I studied the above, I discussed it with Correa. He refers to this as >the "ping-pong" mode, which is used in several of his later developments. He >said that he had operated the system of Fig. 12 for eight hours, with both >battery packs gaining energy. (He did get tired operating the switch, but >that doesn't count in the energy balance). > >This is a direct answer to Mark's concerns. > >Mike Carrell > So, why not do the switching electronically, and add an external load, such as lights, bar heater etc. and let the thing "run till it drops". 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 Jul 14 06:51:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA03316; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 06:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 06:47:20 -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: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >For any serious developers (inventors is taken in a negative light to ME's >who work with them all the time, see Chris Tinsleys comments to me and or my >reply to him), the patent issues on real devices are indeed an issue. It is >when there is no hope of the individual that success is close at hand or >acheivable that free communication is exchanged. This is just a fact of >life in the big league. > [snip] >Later, Ross Tessien There is little harm to open communications or even marketing the actual product once the invention is patent pending. Maybe a low cost way to kick off your project is to file a patent app. Then you can discuss it publically. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 14 08:27:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA13485; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 08:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 08:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960714112039_237387719@emout13.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: Correa Patents, Battery Exchange X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 96-07-14 08:56:49 EDT,Robin wrote: << So, why not do the switching electronically, and add an external load, such as lights, bar heater etc. and let the thing "run till it drops". Regards, >> That of course is the next phase, which is already incorporated in work the Correas are doing. With respect to some recent comments about IE #7 and the contents of the patents. Gene saw the Correa's presentation at a March 24 conference. He is a one-man band publishing a credible journal and he had no time to do anything but quote from the patents and an internal report. Patents have their own language and readability isn't one of the requirements. Often the text is prepared by an attorney, not the inventor (such was the case with the patents filed on my behalf by RCA). The three patents I have all have their inital filing dates in 1992, although one was not granted until March 1996. The article I am preparing for IE #8 will (I hope) clarify what the Correas have done and the measurements which support the o/u claims. I have had several conversations with Dr. Correa and expect to have more. I will also dig into some of the references, including the work of Dr. Aspden. The Correas have moved beyond what is shown in the patents, toward implementations at lower and higher power levels. And, yes, there have been discussions with automobile manufacturers in Europe. Not surprisingly, their most receptive audiences have not been in the US and Canada. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 14 12:44:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA22108; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 12:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 12:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607141927.MAA00729@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott; Regarding offer of your facilities, I greatly appreciate it and will be back in touch. I have your address and phone. To others, forgive the length of this but there is no way to even begin simple discussions on these concepts. The book describing them (hopefully so that most can understand) will be on the order of 250 pages with pictures. So, anything I write in these posts will necessarily be incomplete. If you understand things like phased array radar and coupled oscillators really well, then much of this may click and make perfect sense. If not, then I may sound like I am rambling. Ignore the following if it does not interest you. And pose difficult questions citing real phenomena if you think of them. I need those to try to fail the theory myself. I have tried a lot, but keep on finding consistency with QED, QM, GR etc. Granted my math skills are not up to par for such analyses to be conclusive but I am conducting conversations with others who are proficient and mutually these concepts seem to keep on surviving despite ax attempts. >I am naturally concerned that the "mysterious" phenomena in various fields >that you feel support your new energy theory are, in fact, just measurement >errors. On the other hand, I can't help but be intrigued by your statements. > OK. I completely understand. Let me give you some evidence that you and I both know are not experimental error and a few that are still in the who knows catagory. But let me make my personal position clear. I absolutely have not "proved" my theory based on any of this circumstantial evidence. In fact, one can never "prove" anything. It is only possible to "disprove" concepts. That said, when a model seems to imply things should happen, and they do, then one can get some useful work accomplished by basing new guesses on the new theory. Such guess would never have been made based on the old theory. A simple example of this is both my theory and the current rendition of QM require the vacuum to have tremendous energy density. QM, however advocates that the energy is absolutely random while my theory advocates that it is tremendously order but super conductive like super fluid liquid helium. In both cases one finds that all normal non relativistic mechanisms will tap into zero net ZPE. The former because it is not possible and the latter because one will just be slipping. But the latter concept (mine) implies that relativistic interactions might be able to be tapped for ZPE because one induces shearing on the structure (by the way, this has nothing to do with my other devices which are conventional, which is why I can go into a fair amount of detail here regarding my model of space which is a totally separate theory). Point 1) One thing we know is that if you have an exothermic reaction, you will wind up with reaction products that have less mass than the reactants. If space is made up of an aether lattice like nodal structure, and matter is made up of standing waves (see Schroedinger), then matter and space are made of the same stuff. In such a case, mass must correspond to the amount of aether contained in a particles standing wave. Thus, in my model, and exothermic reaction requires an emission of aether which then becomes "space". Observation 1) We do observe mass depletion. We do not observe in the laboratory space increase or expansion. However we do not have any way to measure it and indeed the common belief today is that there is no aether so no one would even consider looking for such an effect. At this level, I do not think we could observe it. Point 2) We observe that the circular rotational velocity of galaxies remains constant with radius for as far from a galaxy as we can observe any signal. We do measure variations from galaxy to galaxy so this is a very good average comment. (See Galactic Dynamics by Binney and Tremaine). The measurement is very simple. You pass the light from a galaxy through a small slit and diffract it (or refract depending on the instrument, I forget). What you get is a rainbow of spectra along the vertical axis and along the horizontal axis is the line of light you allowed in from the galaxy. Thus what you get along the horizontal axis is a radial displacement from the center of the galaxy by centering the line of incoming light on the center of the galaxy. You see a Doppler shift of the energy that depends on whether you are seeing the matter moving toward or away from you as a perturbation on top of the Hubble shift for the motion of the galaxy as a whole, ie f_H +/- df(R) We do observe the velocity in some galaxies head to zero in the center (normal case w/o black hole) and we also observe to very small radii an increasing velocity with decreasing radius (indicates a Black Hole but we need about double the resolution to be absolutely certain the effect continues in to the center). On the other hand, for increasing radii we observe a curious effect. We see a shift in frequency at fairly small radii and then the velocity becomes independent of radius, ie constant. This is a simple measurement because the signal just fades away while remaining shifted all the way out. Observation 2) If a galaxy behaved like our solar system, then the circular velocity would decrease by the sqrt of the radius, not remain constant. ie, Pluto moves slower than Mercury, AND, it has a larger circle to move around. Circular velocity means the instantaneous tangential velocity of the body. The above is one of many measurements of stellar systems that requires there be dark matter. Milgrom and Bekenstein derived a new formula for Newtonian gravitation that treats G as a variable. In their derivation, G increases slightly in decreasing gravitional potentials (ie between galaxies). But, note the unique difference between gravitation in steller systems and gravitation in devices on earth. Fusion. If you invert Milgroms thinking and combine that with the emission of aether from those exothermic reactions cited above, then you wind up with an expansion of space heading out from stellar systems. That would impose a shear outward (that is unknown) and that shear would decrease with radius, but not following a 1/R^2 profile except in close to a star (our solar system since sun is a point source to us). This is due to the distribution of stars in a galaxy (ie not a point source of emission), and it is due to the pressure being a decaying exponential rather than decaying to zero quantum vacuum aether pressure in deep space. **** A reduction in a repulsion will be considered to be an increase in G if you are not aware of the repulsion mechanism. Newtonian gravitation leads directly to a requirement for there to be on the order of ten times the amount of matter in the universe as is visible in luminous objects, ergo dark matter. Milgroms equation removes this requirement, but there is not yet any convincing model to give a reason his equations should be considered valid.***** I hope to reformulate his equations and to tie them in quantatively with some other effects of light matter etc. Point 3) If the universe is expanding due to a large explosive birth, then the aether of which it is composed should be getting less dense. ie, the static pressure should be reduced unless there is a source of new aether. If matter is made of an acoustic convergence of trapped aether, then matter standing wave combinations that release aether are exothermic as outlined above. This brings up the interesting observation that matter in such a universe is much like an evaporation process. In such a process one attains some sort of equilibrium pressure due to the balance between the vapor and the "condensate". Observation 3) The above leads directly to the implication that the universe is in a sort of constant pressure evaporation of aether contained in the matter standing waves. In other words, the observation of the big bang expansion being uniform (ie Hubble expansion profile), leads to a curious consequence that any reaction that would proceed on its own will necessarily be one which emits aether in order to buoy the static pressure of the quantum vacuum. In short, my model **requires** that exothermic reactions be mass reducing reactions. The standard model cannot make this qualitative claim. We all know it is so from E=mc^2, but it is just an assumed given in the standard model and equations etc. are derived based on this "fact". What I am saying here is that I do not assume this to be a fact, rather, it falls out as a requirement of the geometry. In other words, this model requires that E =mc^2 have no negative sign in from of m, whereas the standard model measured that positive energy was obtained when m was reduced and so Mr. E. wrote the equation in the form that we knew it must have. This may sound trivial, but it is a huge difference in the origin of the assumptions of one model compared to the other. Point 4) We know that gravity exists. We know that we are "attracted" to the earth and to all other objects in the universe to one degree or another. Feynman wrote about this in his excellent book (a must if you want to think about new theories) "The Character of Physical Law". this is a non technical, open eyed treatise on what one should keep in mind when dealing with researching new theories. In that and other books he treats gravitation. The concept attraction means simply, something is induced to move toward something else. It says nothing of how or why. A suction cup is not induced to move toward a surface by the "attraction" of the vacuum, but rather by the lack of repulsion of that vacuum. This leads one to think curiously of the Casimir effect which is in essence reducing the energy density of the quantum vacuum between the plates. Why would we not naturally call this the Casimir compression? The reason is, right from nuclear physics we are convinced in the concept of intrinsic attractions. Yet we have no evidence since we do not have any understanding of "precisely **how** forces act on bodies". How much sense does it make to consider that one body throws some form of gravitational energy (gravitons fields whatever) toward another body and the latter recoils toward the first? This implies an emission of some form of negative energy. That Andromeda galaxy is somehow "pulling" on me makes no intuitive sense. We can be a QM ostrich and say that nature does not need to make sense, or we can say that it does. In the former case we are satisfied with our position and we perform not thought or effort toward figuring out an intuitive solution since we are convinced one does not exist. In the latter case we are convinced one exists and we seek to find it. If a solution exists, you won't find it with the former case, and if one does not exist we won't find it with either case. So, which is the better philosophy to adopt? I feel the latter since it is the only one with a chance of success. Observation 4) Feynman evaluated a simple aether model and showed that gravitational shielding would not work because we should expect planetary slowing which we do not observe. This was a graviton particle evaluation. He also at the same time showed that gravitational shielding is perfectly correct mathematically (which is easily proved). He did not consider an intensely pressurized aether where matter and space were **both** made of the same aether. In such a case, both matter and space are standing wave sorts of structures and they are super fluidic. Thus like an electrical current in a superconductor ring, there would be no resistance to motion. One is meshed to the other intimately. (Note: This construction of space and the way matter is coupled in it is where all of my insight for the devices you are working on in this group comes from.) Therefore, if matter owes its very existence to its resonances which are coupled to space, then it must follow that space is the sum of acoustic emissions from matter. One gives rise to the other but we would need to discuss the big bang to find out why. Conclusion; If the above is so, then there is QVF energy arriving from all distant galaxies, here, now, time delayed for the time of flight, and that energy is red shifted wrt our resonances here and now. Such energy will interfere with our standing waves (matter) due to frequency mismatch and beating. Our matter will act to filter that wave energy. Thus, we are pushed toward the earth because the earth filtered some of the incident Doppler shifted wave energy arriving from "beneath" the earth and the earth is pushed toward us for the same reason. Now with that it becomes clear that Andromeda will as well filter some energy that is shifted to an even greater degree from us and so we will **not be pushed away from that direction in the universe as hard because of Andromeda blocking some incident radiation from even further away**. ************************************************************** Well, enough for now. The important aspect for this group to understand if you want to try to apply any of my concepts is that all matter is tightly coupled to space because both are made of the same stuff. What this means is that one can begin to look at matter and at space as being coupled oscillators. JJ's do this in frequency standards and two pendulums will do this too as noted by Huygens while he was sick in bed. So, to tap into ZPE, we somehow need to induce an assymetric filtering of the incident wave energy. Then, for just one case, we might construct a paddle wheel that is forced to turn as the gravitation energy flows through it. This is a very simplistic rendition and I acknowledge that there is no proof in any of the above. I meerly point out a couple of observations so that you know that the qualitative evidence is a bit more than what is dredged up by the average delusional crackpot. That said, shoot away if you desire. If this is not a thread that others wish to read in this group again I offer to shut up. But I think that if you come to understand some of the basics of this then we could collectively be on better ground to evaluate other phenomena. By the way, as a test, where might I find some information on the Correa device? Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 14 12:38:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA22223; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 12:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 12:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607141927.MAA00731@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >There is little harm to open communications or even marketing the actual >product once the invention is patent pending. Maybe a low cost way to kick >off your project is to file a patent app. Then you can discuss it >publically. > Understood. The reality is, though, during the course of any development you discover new things about the technology that were not expected. So, patents written prior to function are frequently worthless following development. So unfortunately this is not an option. Thanks any way, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 14 14:02:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA04980; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 13:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 13:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607142041.NAA07510@mom.hooked.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Russ George" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: There seems to be a persistent thread on Vortex over people working in this field sharing their know how with others without protection. The naivety in statements like protection being conferred by patents is astonishing. Surely people have heard of trade secrets, and the importance they hold. The major breakthroughs here in the Silicon Valley aren't protected by patent but rather by keeping them trade secrets. One only patents what one expects others will infringe upon not those things that you don't expect others to figure out promptly. > >There is little harm to open communications or even marketing the actual > >product once the invention is patent pending. Maybe a low cost way to kick > >off your project is to file a patent app. Then you can discuss it > >publicly. > > Tessien replies> > Understood. The reality is, though, during the course of any development > you discover new things about the technology that were not expected. So, > patents written prior to function are frequently worthless following > development. So unfortunately this is not an option. > Bravo Ross you've hit the nail right on the head. For those who seem to have invented and dedicated themselve to the simplistic view of the world they term "inventors disease" I suggest it is you who have the disease not the inventor. Perhaps this general malaise might be cured by some genuine exercise, perhaps not. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 14 15:45:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA23196; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 15:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 15:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960714223323_100433.1541_BHG69-3@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: Re: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Russ, > For those who seem to have invented and dedicated themselve to the > simplistic view of the world they term "inventors disease" I > suggest it is you who have the disease not the inventor. Perhaps > this general malaise might be cured by some genuine exercise, > perhaps not. Thanks for the comment. Please consider it read and rejected. Regards, Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 00:06:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA07753; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607150539.WAA19350@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Brian To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: New Energy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross, I have read your posts regarding your new theory with great interest. There are many questions I would like to ask you, but one in particular concerns your interpretation of gravitational attraction. Are you saying that the reason two bodies attract each other is because the aetheric waves passing through one body to the next are time/phase delayed relative to each other and that because of this each body desires to occupy the node of the other so that there will be no time/phase difference between the two? (sorry for the run-on!) Also, I would like to mention that I have access to sputtering equipment and other neat gizmos relating to the semiconductor fabrication process. We have a few 4" Si wafers to play with, and in a few weeks our new epitaxial growth oven should be operational. I can make some simple devices, but our semiconductor program is only now beginning to advance after years of neglect and lowered funding. If you have a way of making a wafer rise to the ceiling, I am sure that the guys I work with in the lab would be eager to see it happen! I look forward to hearing more about your theories. - Brian QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 00:09:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA08074; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960715042148_76216.2421_HHB62-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris - All this and the Biefeld Brown things, Correa etc., all have me wondering about something. There have been quite a few discussions and threads on this and other forums (yes, note word choice ) regarding an alleged or suspected longitudinal force to be found within electric current. I'm just finishing Graneau's "Newton vs. Einstein", and was wondering what the consensus was from this group generally, and your opinion in particular, is with regard to the existence of such a force, and whether or not such force may under some circumstances appear to be reactionless or even antigravitic. Also, I was wondering if you or any of the list participants had performed any of the simple pi frame/balance-beam type experiments, or if any good objections have been rasied here as to the validity of what these experiments seem to show. Also, would a heated cup of molten solder suffice in place of expensive and toxic mercury in the pi-frame and liquid channel experiments, or would the expected heat convection ruin observation of the effects? Would a sliding conductive rod inside a conductive tube do as well to demonstrate the force? (I guess this gets back to the railgun in its design, but...) In summary, at this point is there or is there not currently a generally accepted experimental case, at least by this list membership, for a real longitudinal force not predicted or explainable by conventional EM theory? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 00:11:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA08236; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960715050617_75110.3417_CHK38-1@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: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Hi Ross (and all), >> Thus, we are pushed toward the earth because the earth filtered some of the incident Doppler shifted wave energy arriving from "beneath" the earth and the earth is pushed toward us for the same reason. << Right. Also, the Big Bang was 'simply' a disturbance (loud noise) in the pre-existing sea of aether, which cause waves to travel through the aether. The waves became wavelets, then ripples -- and what we call 'matter' or chemical action, fusion, movement and maybe even thought, is the interaction between the ripples in the aether. So, how do we use this information? Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 00:11:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA08647; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:07:39 -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: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: [...] > strike me, and that is that ultra-cheap energy would make possible one > truly hideous machine - the flying car. All that would then be needed > would be some fancy anti-collision computing systems, and we would have > people zipping around the globe at speeds barely subsonic in such > contraptions. After all, somebody tell me what could possibly stop > that happening? I'll tell you: the absolute unlikelihood of these "new energy" schemes. But, while we're on the SUBJECT: I have been meaning to ask about the journal of that name, viz. "J. New Energy". Can someone tell me what kind of publication this is? Chem. Abstracts have started including it but so have they started with "Cold Fusion", which I know not to be a proper refereed journal in the sense we narrow-minded scientists accept one. You people know that I take into my bibliography (when I can help it) only papers published in what I define as proper journals, run by a scientific committee and using referees. Thus, while such outlets as "Cold Fusion" or "Infinite Energy" might be OK in their own rights, they don't count as proper journals by my definition. As much as this irritates some of you , could those of you who know this J. New Energy please tell me how it would fit in with me? On that irritation: I don't quite see why my own definition should irritate. I am not making a value judgement. If, say, "Infinite Energy" were more easily available to me here, I might even read and enjoy it, as I do certain papers, and Der Spiegel, etc. But I wouldn't submit one of my papers to the Spiegel, would I? Consider also that my narrow-minded definition has certain advantages in that, if you are sort of ardent about CNF, you can point to my bibliography and proudly say that there are now a bit over 1000 scientific papers in proper refereed journals; look here, it is not true that real scientists have ignored the subject, etc. And I am not, of course, stopping anyone from making their own collections, which they indeed have, and good luck to them. So, what is this J. New Energy, who is the editor, who are the Editorial Board, what scientific society is publishing it, perhaps even their email address or fax number? Thank you in advance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 15 02:06:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA21386; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 01:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 01:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607150847.BAA11591@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >So, how do we use this information? > Well, we start to learn more about resonances and standing waves. And we study this in the context of superfluidic mediums. If there is a way to shear the wave energy, then we should be able to interfere with it. And if we learn to do this at will, then we build a paddle wheel for the waves coming from space. Keep in mind that if you could block the QVF, the pressure would be equivalent to the nuclear force times whatever area of blockage existed. Factor in the trivial amount of space actually occupied by the nucleus of an atom which reduces things a lot. And you get around E20 psi to work with. This is radically rough off the cuff number and you might come up with a better one. But the point is simple, one square inch of blockage could throw the space shuttle into orbit. So to power a car or a home, you really only need to interfere with a trivial amount of that available energy density. QM advocates that the QVF are completely random. GR states that there is a nodal structure to space in stating that space can be curved. To curve sort of implies that there is something there to be curved. Perhaps my brain is too simple minded on this account but a light ray passing a galaxy and being curved could not be anticipated by the galaxy to launch some intercepting energy. So, the curvature absolutely must reside out there in space. So, GR has been proved quite well, and QM therefore must be incorrect on this point. We should hold QM to the task of having its equations result in predictions made by GR. If you allow into the QVF, red shifted QVF, then I think you will find that QM all of a sudden predicts GR. So what you do with this is to perhaps get ready to have the Jetson's as your neighbors. Who knows? Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 02:06:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA21573; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 01:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 01:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607150847.BAA11589@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: New Energy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Brian; I was on my way to bed when this came in. Hope I do it justice but your comments caught my eye as quite insightful in the first paragraph, so I will try to minimize the mispellings and brain dead rambling. > I have read your posts regarding your new theory with great interest. >There are many questions I would like to ask you, but one in particular >concerns your interpretation of gravitational attraction. Are you saying that >the reason two bodies attract each other is because the aetheric waves passing >through one body to the next are time/phase delayed relative to each other and >that because of this each body desires to occupy the node of the other so that >there will be no time/phase difference between the two? (sorry for the run-on!) You bring up here a very subtle, (and not accepted) point here. That is if I get your drift. My comments spoke to the interference due to **frequency** shifted QVF, not phase or time shifted. Frequency shifted energy has a unique source, deep space. That is why interference with that energy always tends to push you toward a body. It is because the body is always acting to help shield you from that wave energy. Please avoid at all costs thinking in terms of particles. Go way on down below the Planck scale if you even want to mention particles and at that level I will say I don't know but don't think they are there. Above the Planck scale there exists nothing but waves. Some of them happen to be convergent standing waves which can remain stationary in space, and thus give us the impression of being particles. But to your subtle point above. There are two ways I can address it. The first is the densification of space itself. Standing waves and their wave energy tend to induce a densification in the aether. This leads to particles and to cores at the convergent centers of particles at the Planck scale E-35 m. Around that is a standing wave. But the earth is in essence a bunch of these tiny standing waves all a bunch of coupled oscillators at the same frequency and with good phase angle matching. So, heading out into space from the earth is a bunch of wave energy just like the waves heading out from a phased array radar. The distribution of these tiny emitters is spherical, and so you will think from any location out in space that there is a beam coming at you along a radial line. Now that emitted wave energy is going to refract random space QVF and force a convergence of waves to head toward the earth. but again we are talking about tiny waves, vis, E-35 m. Galaxies will do the same thing. And so what you have is a densification of the space around a gravitating body that is a function of the mass. This will act like a change in the dielectric constant of space around that body. And that will tend to refract light. So, when you say time delayed, yes, but you are more dealing with the index of refraction and gravitational lensing and the curvature of spacetime as pertains to time. Regarding phase coherency of the waves emitted, on that count you are dealing with the nuclear force, not gravitation. The nucleus is phase *and* frequency coherent one internal particle to the next. A model I am working on at the moment, in fact tonight, deals with the proton being made up of 9 particles which are in essence the cores of the muon and anti muon surrounded by a large standing wave. In the electron family, I found a calculation that leads to muon ~= mass electron (2^7)/0.62 tau ~= mass electron (3^7)/0.62 Thus, the muon and tau cores are 0.38 of the total particle mass. This is a long story to describe and its late now. And tonight if I am not brain dead I am working on Mass proton = (9* muon core)/0.38 This derivation actually comes very close in spirit to the MIT bag model of QCD where there is anticipated a condensation of sorts and the quarks can move around inside of the 'bag'. If you have three triads of cores placed at 120 degrees from one another, there are several possibilities for the shape of the orientations. You can position each petal with two cores facing the convergent center and one of them out, or you can place one toward the center and then two out. Lets call that up and down. Next, you can have muon cores and anti muon cores on each of the petals of three cores. So, you can have two coupled to positive pulsation timings and one to negative, or you can have the converse. The only way to affect the outside world with "charge" though is if the pulsations head outward. The cores facing inward are resonant with each other. So, we might have two up quarks and one down giving a proton. this means that we would then have two petals with two cores facing out and one with one core facing out for a total of five cores facing outward. We would then need three to be positive and two to be negative for an excess positive charge in the surrounding standing wave of plus 1. If we flip an up quark to a down quark, then we get two singles facing out and one double facing out for a total of four cores facing out. So that must be 2 and 2 for a zero net charge in the outward standing wave. Each of these petals, or quarks, is thus composite in units of three. And we could also have a slight tilt like helicopter blades for the group of three cores. I need to read up on QCD more to figure out all of the red green blue, up down, spin, charge, ........ that is used to look for analogies. But the calc of mass surprised me. I have been working with the electron family for quite some time, but this is the first time I have been able to get into the interior structure of the proton and neutron. Oh yeah, as far as why the neutron might be unstable, look at the orientation of the two down quarks. The have their two cores facing toward the center and just one facing outside. This is a higher energy density core than the proton and it would require a greater energy in the surrounding standing wave to maintain it. ****Don't use anything you learn here on a test just yet!!*********** > Also, I would like to mention that I have access to sputtering equipment >and other neat gizmos relating to the semiconductor fabrication process. We >have a few 4" Si wafers to play with, and in a few weeks our new epitaxial >growth oven should be operational. I can make some simple devices, but our >semiconductor program is only now beginning to advance after years of neglect >and lowered funding. If you have a way of making a wafer rise to the ceiling, I >am sure that the guys I work with in the lab would be eager to see it happen! > I look forward to hearing more about your theories. > Well, I am tremendously more confident that I can induce conventional nuclear processes with the energy thread concepts we have been discussing. But I do have some very interesting constructs I would like to be able to try regarding gravitation. And since a couple of researchers claim success (albeit trivial), I would like to give it a go. So I will get in touch with you regarding these constructs. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 05:13:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA09612; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960715115829_100433.1541_BHG120-3@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: Re: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Dieter, > I'll tell you: the absolute unlikelihood of these "new energy" > schemes. Tut. "Unlikelihood" is a probability term - it can't be "absolute"... Personally I am not in the least teensy bit irritated if you don't count IE as a proper journal. Whether or not the old system is breaking down, I wouldn't know - what is pleasing is the stream of phone calls and emails I get praising it to the skies, and the way people we respect greatly are wanting to publish in the 'little rag'. One of my problems is that I don't really have any solid handle on *any* of this 'new energy' stuff. While I have not read the J New Energy, and await other definitive answers, I would very much doubt whether it would fit your needs. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 05:13:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA09646; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960715115826_100433.1541_BHG120-2@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: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rick, > I'm just finishing Graneau's "Newton vs. Einstein", and was > wondering what the consensus was from this group generally, and > your opinion in particular, is with regard to the existence of > such a force, and whether or not such force may under some > circumstances appear to be reactionless or even antigravitic. For the latter part of the question, I cannot see any reason to suspect that any longitudinal ("Ampere") force might be reactionless or antigravitic. Lacking evidence either way, my only suspcicion would have to rely on the theoretical concepts advanced by Puthoff and others that inertia and gravity may be essentially EM in nature. I don't disguise the fact that these ideas attract me very strongly, but as far as I know there are no clear practical tests of the ideas - and I don't think that they would predict any effect in the Graneau or Bifield-Brown claims anyway. The Bifield-Brown stuff does seem to have various adherents and opponents without clear evidence, while the Graneau experiments have the difficulty of differing *interpretations* of their undisputed effects. As to the reality of the "Ampere" force, my offhand view is that if C19th science had adopted Ampere rather than Biot-Savart then the Graneau experiments would be quoted as classic demonstrations of the reality of the Ampere force. The basic problem is that in a closed circuit the predictions of both are very similar. To my mind, the best Graneau experiment is the one which maybe is not as yet published but which I saw in Oxford U two years ago - the equipment, not the demonstration. In that experiment, a thick conductor rod was placed in a gap of greater length: ________________ ____________ _____________ and a high current was passed through the gaps from a very high energy capacitor. The central rod is free to move, and always centralises itself in the gap. Having seen the apparatus, I simply cannot accept the notion that mechanical forces produced by the arc (sudden increase in air pressure due to heating) would work in that way, so - as a purely personal view - I tend to accept the reality of the Ampere force. But I may be wrong. The problem then becomes that relativity depends on the reality of the Lorenz force equations, and relativity certainly seems to work very well when applied to what I might call 'particle electrodynamics', such as the behaviour of electron beams. On the other hand, the good performance of relativity as a prediction model is no secure guide to its 'goodness', any more than the depressingly long list of accurate but highly improbable predictions made by Velikovsky make me an enthusiast for his ideas. Speaking of which, I hear rumblings that the Magellan radar images of the surface of Venus are causing a fair bit of disquiet. Sheesh, is nothing sacred any more? No, I've not done the pi-frame or indeed any of the 'Ampere' experiments. To be honest, I've not even looked at the claims very carefully. But I see no problem with molten solder - so long as you use the lead-free variety. Lead - as I recall - has an unfortunately high vapour pressure at quite low (molten) temperatures. Trouble with solder is that it does scum-up pretty badly. If you did manage to come across a source of cheap Hg, my feeling is that in a home-made fume cupboard it ain't so very nasty - but others may leap in here to correct me. Actually, I do rather wonder if anybody like Hal Puthoff has given any thought to how the interpretation of the zpf work would alter if the Ampere rather than Biot-Savart law were accepted? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 06:53:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23948; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 06:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 06:46:56 -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: "New Energy"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Dieter, > > > I'll tell you: the absolute unlikelihood of these "new energy" > > schemes. > > Tut. "Unlikelihood" is a probability term - it can't be "absolute"... Touche! > Personally I am not in the least teensy bit irritated if you don't count > IE as a proper journal. Whether or not the old system is breaking down, > I wouldn't know - what is pleasing is the stream of phone calls and > emails I get praising it to the skies, and the way people we respect > greatly are wanting to publish in the 'little rag'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ While we don't have any really solid stuff to discuss here (i.e. concrete results etc), I'll allow myself to waste some "bandwidth" (as they say): I was told this by a Czech. A Czech citizen come breathlessly up to a policeman in Prague, in the bad old days, "Quick, Officer, gasp gasp, a Swiss has just stolen my Russian watch!". Policeman, patiently, "You mean, don't you, that a Russian has stolen your Swiss watch?". Citizen, "You said that, Officer, I didn't". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 15 07:08:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26532; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31ea210a.45137810@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: Funding for SL exp?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 13 Jul 1996 18:17:06 -0700 (PDT), Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >The feel more like you above, that one can get extremely creative an solve >things at a small scale. But this is not always the case. And sometimes >(fusion being a beautiful example) ones guess is not even close to the >target even if the target can indeed be hit. There are safety concerns here >and shielding is not innexpensive. I figure I could lease one of the gold >mines up here in the hills if necessary to provide adequate shielding during >research and in so doing avoid the expense of a lot of lead and construction. [snip] Ross, Paul Koloc is also interested in ball lightning, and of course has his own barrow to push. I believe however that he may have the sort of testing facilities that you are looking for. Why not write to him, and see if he's interested? (Unless of course this suggestion represents a personality clash :) 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 Mon Jul 15 07:33:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA01057; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:26:53 -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: How well does the US Mail work? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/13/96 21:57 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: How well does the US Mail work? Braided copper was cut when sent. From power system relay test boxes. - Have fun! From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 08:10:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA08092; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 08:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 08:04:15 -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: To Brian at USC (And I don't mean U. of Southern California) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: To Brian at USC (And I don't mean U. of Southern California) - Brian: - Dr. Oriani, local, has been working with the Mizuno crystals. It would be interesting to have some SINGLE crystal versions of some of these materials. (Like lets say a vacancy doped Aluminum-Lathanum-Tri-Oxide). - Could you process such a beast? (Something coming up in the next couple months in a refereed journal might well explain why.) - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 08:12:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA08201; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 08:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 08:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Todd Heywood To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: New Energy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > But to your subtle point above. There are two ways I can address it. The > first is the densification of space itself. Standing waves and their wave > energy tend to induce a densification in the aether. This leads to > particles and to cores at the convergent centers of particles at the Planck > scale E-35 m. Around that is a standing wave. But the earth is in essence > a bunch of these tiny standing waves all a bunch of coupled oscillators at > the same frequency and with good phase angle matching. > > So, heading out into space from the earth is a bunch of wave energy just > like the waves heading out from a phased array radar. The distribution of > these tiny emitters is spherical, and so you will think from any location > out in space that there is a beam coming at you along a radial line. > > Now that emitted wave energy is going to refract random space QVF and force > a convergence of waves to head toward the earth. but again we are talking > about tiny waves, vis, E-35 m. I'm not familiar with phased array radar, so would be interested if you could expand on this concept of coupled diverging "emitting" and converging "absorption". This seems like it might correspond to Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html, which is a modification of Fenman/Wheeler's absorber theory), and what Huw Price talks about in his book "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point". From our perspective, the converging radiation would seem to be traveling backward in time. Todd Heywood From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 12:27:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA25681; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 12:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 12:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: 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: Re: Funding for SL exp?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross Maybe a letter and contribution to your favorite Congress person might get him interested. All sorts of political things like this have happened in the past. Its amazing what a letter from Congress will do. Hank ---------- From: tessien@oro.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Funding for SL exp?? Date: Saturday, July 13, 1996 11:09AM >*** Reply to note of 07/12/96 19:58 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Funding for SL exp?? >Ross: Sorry, it doesn't work that way. As an individual you have NO chance >to obtain funding based on "theory". Maybe if you self fund some experiments >and publish, and come up with SOME results you can get somewhere. But >getting funding on the basis of theory? NO SUCH LUCK.... Now if you >could connect your theory with Bovine Belching and the greenhouse effect. MDH:) Yes I am aware, all too well, that this is for the most part the case. I could perhaps veil the device as an interesting mating call for mosquito eaters so that I might scare mosquitos away and get funding as a non poluting insect repellent for the jungle, and might imply applications in agrigicultural pesticide replacement. I'll think about that. In the mean time, I am serious about the E/V amplification in the devices I am describing. I need to find some individual, or organization that could provide substantial funding. EPRI has a division but after the mediocre results of McCubre the people over there are not funding things with any ferver. I can demonstrate data in actual experiments which show the phenomena I am advocating can be amplified to fusion levels as these levels have already been attained, albeit at dramatically low power output levels which render the devices curiosities and the researchers reeling to justify their results in the eyes of the public (physics community). The reason I am so confident, in short, is because people have already succeeded at building low power versions of what I am talking about but they did not know they did it. They did not know what was responsible for the anamolous heating and MeV level particle ejecta from a mechanistic point of view. I cannot describe which of the many devices out there I am referring to and in deed, I am not referring to any one device. There is one piece of data on this side of the globe, and another piece on the other side of the globe and so on. The simple fact is this. There exist manners in which to increase the energy density dramatically. And, this has been demonstrated in real devices with dramatic certainty no one on the planet will doubt when exposed to the fundamentals of the concepts because the base design is simple and common in applications of other effects. There is no radical engineering required, but still we would plan to be working with potential for neutrons and gamma's so one must take the prudent precautions before succeeding only to find oneself dying of cancer in a hospital. That is the low budget approach and that glory is not worth very much to me. I am describing a real technology where all of the pieces have been tried, the basis has been applied and works, and which can be configured for personal power sources at best, or central power sources at worst. (The variance will depend on the types of reactions and the resulting half lives but short half lives are anticipated for products, ie minutes to hours, and not kyears. Yes, we are talking fusion) I am aware that the probability of attaining funding through normal channels is nil. However, from the expertise I have read in this group discussing cutting edge concepts openly and with intelligence, I am going to assume that out there are a couple of people who indeed have access to this sort of funding. I have received one such response so far and expect others once the people in those positions take my comments seriously. I appreciate the concern regarding the difficulty of attaining funding, but I assure you this project will be funded. It is only a question of "By whom?". The reason is that sooner or later I will be funded, or else others who have funding will figure out what I have discovered. One way or the other, this technology is on our horizon. What remains to be seen is how much utility can be had. In other words, can a $100 production device power a car, or will one need a million dollar device to power a central power station. I suspect the former based on the lack of complexity of the design. To get to that point, of course, is a major R&D effort to develop a commercially safe device. But, there is good evidence of that possibility. We all know, however, that nothing is certain in cutting edge technology like this and so this technology is no exception to that rule. That said, a $1.6 trillion market place for energy annually should get a couple of maverick investors of the dime if they can be exposed to the possibility. Hopefully a few of them are listening in on this group. Time will tell and keep up the good work. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 16:25:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA14741; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960715193100_76216.2421_HHB51-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris - > "But I see no problem with molten solder - > so long as you use the lead-free variety." Yes, that's the main point, to stay away from toxicity. I've been doing some small castings with tin/antimony that stays quite bright at it's surface if you don't run it too long or too hot. I thought I might use that. Lead is bad for drossing over besides its toxicity anyway. The Correa article mentioned such forces. They seem to keep showing up here and there, but it appears that few would commit to their actual existence, yet some of the experiments seem very simple. I'm also reminded of the discussions about homopolars, and your comments that the force appeared to end up working brushes themselves and the outer rim of the spinning disc, as you noted them being pushed outwards on the device you tested (I hope I have that right, I may have misunderstood). Anyway with the argument over the experimental interpretation, it would seem like a good area to work on some variants like the unequal rod version or other creative variants that might help to resolve this since the experiments are cheap and simple. Just fishing for ideas. I like cheap and simple too, you see. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 16:28:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA15308; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:17:29 -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: Re: Funding for SL exp?? + a meeting X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Group, Just a couple of thoughts. I am so pleased to see the way new ideas are flowing with only minor friction. A few months ago I was informed of a new movie to hit the states called "Chain Reaction" to be out in August 1996. This Sci-Fi thriller gives a rather upsetting view of what might happen to anyone that breaks the energy bank. In the case depicted in this movie " a clean hydrogen energy source". Having spent my time on Madison Ave. I know that movies such as this create opportunities to make headway with the press and if you have the press, support can often be found. The problem with this is that you need a real product. Another thought is that we hold a Vortex meeting here in the Vally near Washington, DC. I have the possibility of arranging for the use of a major convention center that has been the site of many international conferences. This location has a world class meeting room/think tank that is connected to the internet via a T-1. This would allow for real time input from those unable to physically be on site. Handled properly such a meeting could attract other interested onlookers. If many are interested I will bring up this issue with the correct people at the center. Robert ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 7/15/96 Time: 3:43:03 PM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 16:42:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA16159; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607152217.PAA01378@shell.skylink.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Robert Stirniman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Quoting Rick Monteverde: > There have been quite a few discussions and threads on this and > other forums regarding an alleged or suspected > longitudinal force to be found within electric current. Damn. You've pushed one of my buttons. The reality of a longitudinal EM force comes down to the question of who's law best describes the force between current elements -- Ampere's Law or Grassman's Law. The two laws are similar, in fact identical if the force of individual current elements are integrated around a complete current loop. But in the interim, the two give radically different results. In Ampere's law there is a longitudinal component of force between current elements, as well as transverse force. This results in a net stress in a current loop, which does not show up from of Grassman's Law, or Biot-Savart, or the Lorentz force law. Ampere's Law complies with Newton's third law, having an equal and opposite force between two current elements. Grassman's Law is derived in the same fashion as the Biot-Savart Law, and the Lorentz Force. According to Grassman, all forces on a current element are transverse to the direction of current flow. In the general case, for individual current elements, Grassman's Law does not comply with Newton's third law. But Grassman's law does comply with Newton's third law, when the force is summed over complete current loops. So. Does it make a difference which one is right? Yes. Big difference. There are a variety of experimental indicators of the possible existence of a longitudinal force -- separation of parts in exploding wires and fuses, back forces in railguns, Graneau's electric boat experiment, a compressive force in spot welding, Rex Slicher's space propulsion device, etc. In one of Graneau's earlier papers, from about 1982, he uses Ampere's hairpin coil experiment as evidence of a longitudinal force. In my opinion, it is an inconclusive experiment because one can argue equally that the transverse force which inevitably exists on the current where it turns the corner at the top of the hairpin "pulls" the two copper sections apart. A similar experiment could be done wich might give a conclusive result -- by cutting the long sides of the hairpin into additional "sliding contact" sections. There would seem to me no other explanation, if the middle sections move, other than a longitudinal force. If Ampere's original force law turns out to be correct, the implications are enormous. Notably it means the Lorentz force law is incomplete -- and so also is Biot-Savart, and Grassman. If the Lorentz force law is imcomplete -- then the freedom to select the "Lorentz gauge" for the magnetic vector potental, is also questionable, as well as the simplification which results from using the Lorenz gauge in derivation of the modern accepted versions of Maxwell's equations. Selection of a less "simple" gauge for the magnetic vector potential, would result in a version of Maxwell's equations which would have a variety of second order effects -- some of which are not shieldable, and would be in some ways be indistinguishable from a gravitational field. One of these effects is that an electric field would result from a static/stationary current. The idea that an electric field will results from a stationary current is also derivable from Coulomb's law along with a finite speed of propogation of EM energy -- the retarded electric scalar potential. Also, by the way, the electric field from a stationary current has been found experimentally and measured, since the early 1970s, by about a half-dozen different scientists. In fact it seems that everyone who has made the effort to look for this, has managed to find it -- except of course one experiment courtesy of our tax dollars which was done by NASA. It might be one of those anomalies that it's not polite for real physicists to talk about. Maybe related to gravitation. The electric field of a stationary current is found, in theory as well as experiment, to be a second order effect, which depends on the sign of the moving charge and the square of the velocity of the charge. But not the the direction of the velocity. What we find in matter (mass) is one type of charge (electron) doing most of the moving about. Hence an unshieldable electric field is generated by mass itself. A possibly likely way to represent a longitudinal electric field on a moving charge is: E = (v)dot(divA) At least the units are right. If there is a physical reality associated with divA, it also suggests a physical interpretation for Psi, the magnetic scalar potential. Scalar electromagnetics -- a forbidden subject? Sorry for this rant, but afterall, you did push my button. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 15 16:32:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA16820; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607152244.PAA02118@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: Global Warming Report... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 05:00 PM 7/13/96 -0700, you wrote: >It's a bit off topic, but I will second Mark's swipe at Global Warming as a >boogey-man used by environmentalists to scare money out of Congress. The >following is a paste from a post I sent to Stefan on a different topic, which >is germane here. begin quote: > > >As the Greens point out, it doesn't take much of a shift to skew the weather >patterns, but our memory is short, and the militant environmentalists take >advantage of this to cite any fluctuation as a portent of gloom and doom. A >few decades ago there was a span of cool weather, and a new ice age was seem >to loom; now we are about steam in a runaway greenhouse. > >And that doesn't begin to address the reaction of the biosphere to increased >carbon dioxide. Ongoing studies indicate that many plant species respond with >vigorous growth, soaking up carbon dioxide. > >Yet "environmentalists" with political agendas -- and researchers looking for >funding -- will publish dire predictions based on such worthless models. > >end quote. Mike Carrell > I think you are right...I think environmental global warming doom and gloom is an R&d funding gimmick. I think the entire issue is a 'dis-ease" based on the apparent idea that the human species is out of control. It IS out of control in many ways, but global warming is not a very near threat. We should be faar more concerned about chemical and nuclear pollution, which is palpably creating all kinds of damage around the planet. And, er, ahem, em pollution is something we need to get a better handle on as well. Prior to global warming becoming a political issue, "the greenhouse effect" was well understood in some botany and ag circles as the easily observed effect of CO2 in a greenhouse. As the level goes up, the plants absorb more and more and grow faster, so long as there is not a limit factor of water or nuitrient. Some researcher's believe that the primary limit cycle of plant growth IS availability of CO2 and some experimental results seem to show that various plants can grow 5 to 10 times faster given sufficient CO2. Maybe we just need to learn how to cultivate and feed the right kind of plants next to our freeways, etc.... ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 16 19:58:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA13984; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:42:30 -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: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:18:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Chris - > > > "But I see no problem with molten solder - > > so long as you use the lead-free variety." > > Yes, that's the main point, to stay away from toxicity. I've been doing some > small castings with tin/antimony that stays quite bright at it's surface if you > don't run it too long or too hot. I thought I might use that. Lead is bad for > drossing over besides its toxicity anyway. I'm not sure what this is about, my eyes have been glazing over a bit with this stuff; but antimony is not so good, either. My Merck Index mentions dermatitis and other effects, and especially warns about letting "nascent hydrogen" get to Sb, because they react to form stibine, an extremely poisonous gas. Can't you use pure tin itself? Chemistry often ought not to be done at home, or in a garage; in many cases, a fume cupboard (I think USAmericans make that fume hood) is required for safety. And you need to be a chemist to decide when it's required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 16 19:58:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA14236; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:43:35 -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: Virtual Memory X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:45:51 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Virtual Memory Dear VORS, Sorry to bring up software but I am hoping one of you, or one you know might be able to steer me in the right direction. A fried has asked to see if I can help locate a multi tasking, multi session software system. A) One we know of is called VMM 386. But there is confusion. The term VMM = Virtual Memory Management or Manager Has at least two context related meanings 1) VMM makes oart of your disk serve as extension to RAM and/or DOS. A company named Phar-Lap makes such a product. Phar-Lap context VMM is called @@@ 386 VMM which is NT the same as VMM 386 B) Another context is VMM means making virtual CPUs. This is what we are looking for. Not something which emulates more RAM. One product which seemed to be like it was/is Desk View, by Quarter Deck. But it is not. We need something simple and that runs on DOS, not a bunch of Windows overhead. There really seems to be a very old program called VMM 386, DOS, which we can use to make multiple CPUs .... but we are having a hard time tracking it. C) We could consider alternatives. We are told one version of Lynix [sp? .... I am NOT a software guy!} is stable. D) Recap: NOT Phar-Lap .... NOT Desk View Yes DOS NOT RAM emulation from disk. Yes multiple [we need two] CPUs from one piece of silicon. Thanks, JHS From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 16 20:02:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA14329; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:44:00 -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: From Peter G. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:00:56 GMT From: Peter Glueck To: vortex Subject: Temporary; UNSUBSCRIBE! Dear Bill, The travel of Dr. Potapov and me to Los Alamos will start Wednesday, July 17. After a stop in Detroit we shall initiate the crucial experiment at LANL. Obviously, our Vortex friends will be informed about the developments. I am participating as a representative of Vortex and will send infos ("YUSMAR in LANLland") . I want to make this visit exactly the opposite of Tom Droege's visit at Jim Griggs, that is a very serious positive, objective approach to a subject of paramount importance. It will happen in a wonderful place because Los Alamos is the Mecca, the Lourdes, and was is even more, Los Alamos is the Los Alamos of physics and science. The set-up will be made with mostly genuine American components and measuring instruments, true American water will be circulated; we want to settle the o/u problem once for ever. It is a good opportunity to thank you for your excellent work and for the many fine information and discussions read on Vortex. Please, temporarily, UNSUBSCRIBE VORTEX PETER GLUCK--if possible starting from Monday July 15, morning, your time. Thank you, Bill. My personal messages received at this address will be sent to me in America. The Vortexers are different, but enthusiasm and scientific curiosity is the base for their unity in diversity. Peter From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 16 19:54:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA14406; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:44:25 -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: Hubble etc. Images of Aether Emissions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 14:07:37 -0700 From: Ross Tessien To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Hubble etc. Images of Aether Emissions The following article is written with the "assumption" that the theory of matter standing waves is correct. This is not currently the accepted assumption, but it is difficult to write with a disclaimer on each and every sentence in an article like this. Therefore, I allow that the entire theory may well be incorrect. But if it *is* correct, then the following should have a number of truths to it. This is a qualitative overview, then, of the kinds of mechanisms to look out for if you advocate an aether theory such as mine. Please enjoy the comments, or ignore them. Just treat this as a curious manner in which to view space, and log it away for future reference. By the by, So far I can derive the masses of muon, tau, and proton and nuetron to a few percent accuracy based on these concepts by using geometry rather than QM. Later, Ross Tessien ************************************************************** If anyone is interested in looking at some good photos of the aether emission process, get hold of the August issue of Sky and Telescope magazine. There are three stories that each deal with particular phenomena which I contend are all aether emissions. The best close up view are the photos of the solar "magnetic" field emissions and jets in the article, "Unsolved Mysteries of the Sun". on page 41 you will find two close ups of the polar region and you will see the aether emission jets coming out due to their interaction with the ions in the solar atmosphere. To think of this appropriately, just think of the action of a fluidized bed, where aether is inducing the fluidization of the matter in the sun. If you are not familiar with the properties of a fluidized bed, then think of the sun like a three dimensional coffee percolator with the vapor heading out in all three dimensions, but that it opens up columns through which larger amounts of aether can flow. You will see on page 42 some excellent photos of what can happen when an excessively large amount of aether is released through a single tunnel through the volume of the fluidized bed of matter, ie some solar flares. ********** On page 10 is another pertinent article about the Crab Nebula. In that article you can see what happens when a black hole forms without sufficient momentum of space to maintain its confinement. The condensed aether is shed in layers as the surrounding space (aether) resonates in a radial fashion. The condensed aether core is shedding its contents in a cyclic fashion with an excess being shed out of the polar regions due to the rotational component that leads to the poles being the regions of least confinement pressure. The waves of emitted "space" are clearly visible as shocks in the visible matter. ****************************** And the macroscopic results of aether emission are apparent in the photos on page 12 dealing with colliding galaxies. All of the matter in the galaxy are susceptible to the red shifted QVF compressive interference we know as gravitation (wave energy from space pushes and compresses our sub atomic particles from all directions, and objects shield us from that interfering wave energy thus leading to the gravitational effect from a quantum mechanical interaction with the quantum vacuum. This is a shielding mechanism.). Larger bodies are not able to follow the many deflection paths familiar in electron two slit experiments where the electrons follow the pilot waves of Bohm and de Broglie. In and around galaxies (or any grouping of stars), the aether emissions of stars add an outward component of macroscopic aether expansion that is less than, and in opposition to, gravitation). The gas in the photos is more susceptible to interacting with the quantum vacuum just as is the solar wind. So, the expansion currents can be clearly viewed by following the paths of quantum mechanical particles which can freely interact with the currents. The series of photos here shows that the gases are being blown out of the galaxy by that aether emission in opposition to the gravitational effects. At this scale, this as yet unknown and unaccepted repulsion mechanism acts against gravitation, but its action decreases more rapidly due to the exponential decay of the pressure gradient as it heads out into deep space. Milgrom and Bekenstein showed that one can eliminate the dark matter problem if one assumes that Newtonian gravitation is not the correct description of gravitation in the cosmos. And stars are doing something that our test objects on earth are not.... ie, they are converting mass into energy. The model I am working on considers the aether to be conserved and that it becomes a part of the fabric of space which we do not acknowledge or measure directly. If you have a repulsive effect of which you are not aware, that is decreasing faster than the attractive gravitational effect of which you are aware, then you will think that gravitation is continuing to increase in amplitude at greater radii. This is an upside down consideration of our actual observations. There are only two manners in which we normally explain this according to current theory. 1) Invoke large amounts of dark matter. 2) Invent a new equation for gravitation that proposes to increase the gravitational effect with low potential or large distance (the former works, the latter doesn't but comes close. See Binney and Tremaine). But note that if there is a repulsive effect that is dropping off faster than gravitation, it will "seem" like gravitation is getting stronger (ie G is getting larger) The photos on page 12 show that the cold hydrogen is being blown out of the systems by some form of force. If you look at those images with the concept of aether emission in mind, then they will appear to you like there is an outward flow that is at work. ******************** If gravitation is due to waves in an aether originating from space, then it is no wonder that the matter "seems" to be almost perfectly balanced between a closed and open universe. This is because the effect of gravitation originates from all of that matter out there, and not from a pull from the bodies "here". This leads to a requirement that a black hole be a region of convergent flow of aether where the KE of the convergence exceeds the condensation energy density of aether and so a black hole becomes a "puddle of condensed space". Such a highly pressurized core inside of a black hole will be inclined to explode outward if given a chance. See galactic jets and quasar jets and the big bang explosion and expansion of our universe as several fine examples of this process. And check out matter every where in our universe for examples of remaining resonant standing waves that have not yet evaporated from the big bang explosion because they became stuck in the acoustic nodes inside of the expanding, boiling, aether. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 16 21:11:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA29500; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960716231522_578365377@emout17.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: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: --------------------- Forwarded message: From: zap@dnai.com To: mhare@cswnet.com, jak@en.net, colin@direct.ca, dakktdo@earthlink.net, t91dh@hh.se, dpy1@ix.netcom.com, atech@ix.netcom.com, des@ellijay.com, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com, alex@frolov.spb.ru, Mutchg@Topaz.Cqu.Edu.Au, mdleb@bnr.ca, glenn_Thompson@smtp.administaff.com, Christ@lexis-nexis.com, haley@infohwy.com, haley@infohwy.com, HLand10203@gnn.com, jcomeaux@ptialaska.net, jjw001@netgates.co.uk, jbeane@imperium.net, mentor@ksu.ksu.edu, jcunning@clovis.esd171.wednet.edu, Bravo666@ix.netcom.com, krohla@ncha.org, michaelt@tminet.com, petersmc@ozemail.com.au, pjezek@nb.vse.cz, tstone@nando.net, sunioj@southwind.net, sunny@goodnet.com, dakktdo@earthlink.net, CALLOWAY@nku.edu, hansell@rapidramp.com Date: 96-07-16 20:09:03 EDT JAPAN - ELECTROMAGNETIC EUREKA The Sunday Times - 10 December 1995 [section]4 [page]9 'Accident' in lab creates super motor Transport - A scientist who stumbled on to the world's most magnetic material saw its attraction for electric vehicles, writes Tony Edwards AN ELECTRIC SCOOTER with a top speed of 50 mph and a range of more than 500 miles has been developed by a Japanese scientist who accidentally discovered what he claims is the world's most magnetic material. To date, most of the research on electric vehicles has concentrated on developing super-efficient batteries in an attempt to maximize their range and power-to-weight ratio. However, until now even the most advanced vehicles have required a small battalion of such batteries to achieve a modest performance. The new scooter, developed by Sciex Corporation of Japan, runs on just four ordinary 12-volt car batteries. "Almost everyone has worked on the battery end of the problem," says its inventor, Yasunori Takahashi. "I thought: why not look at the other end--the motor?" His breakthrough in electromagnetic technology came a few years ago while he was experimenting with new magnetic alloys. One of his laboratory staff misread his instructions and added the wrong element to the mix. "We Japanese often confuse the Roman letters b and d," says Takahashi, "My technician added neodynium (Nd) instead of niobium (Nb). The result was extraordinary-- I suddenly found myself in the presence of the most powerful magnetic material I had ever seen." Takahashi subsequently developed a manufacturing system for producing a magnetic powder that could be formed into anything, from ultra-thin coatings to large permanent magnets. He now claims to have produced a magnet with the world's highest Megagauss Oersted rating-- or MgOe, the unit in which magnetism is measured. "Before my discovery, 55 MgOe was the maximum anyone had achieved; but my magnet can reach 120 MgOe," says Takahashi. This super-magnetic force is the secret behind the new Sciex scooter's performance. Takahashi has redesigned a conventional electric motor and fitted his super-powerful "YT" magnets, resulting in a highly efficient engine that will produce a claimed 15 horsepower from just a few amperes of electricity. In fact, he claims the motor is so efficient that when the scooter is throttled back and free-wheeling, the engine becomes a generator and partly recharges the batteries while on the move, giving the scooter its enormous range. Michael Laughton, professor of electrical engineering at London University, is impressed. "It's an incredible machine," he syas. "Takahashi seems to have developed an extraordinarily efficient eletric motor and control system. In principle there's no reason why it couldn't be scaled up for an electric car." Takahashi has a good record in commercial innovation. While at Sony, he developed Beta videotape technology, which became the standard system used by the television industry worldwide until it was overtaken by VHS. He now has big plans for commercial exploitation of his new magnetic discovery. "The YT magnet can be used for any application where conventional magnets are currently used-- from credit cards to loudspeakers with a huge potential increase in information-storage capacity and quality," he says. One novel use for the magnet invented by Takahashi is to extend the life of rechargeable batteries. His magnets have been made into thin inch-wide squares, which if attached to mobile-phone batteries, will double the amount of charge they retain and so last twice as long. This "battery doubler" is already on the market in Japan where, says Takahashi, the Japanese equivalent of B[ritish] T[elecom] has ordered 100,000 of them. At present the magnetic alloys are manufactured under licence in Japan but last month Takahashi announced his intention to set up his primary manufacturing plant in Britain. "Britain has lower overheads than many other countries and there are hundreds of engineering companies within a few hours' drive of London," he says. A factory site has already been earmarked in north London, though Takahashi now requires a 20m[illion pound] investment to develop it properly. [Figure caption:] Pulling power: a superior electromagnet motor boosts the Sciex scooter's speed and range. [photo of bespectacled Japanese man in helmet and leathers astride a Vespa-looking motor scooter.] super magnets, Sciex scooter Sciex super motor From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 16 21:44:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA04859; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960717041511_76216.2421_HHB57-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert - Oh no, it wasn't my intention to push anyone's button. Thanks for your summary on the question. I guess Chris was right when he mentioned needing someone to tie all this together and describe it. It almost always ends up sounding perhaps a bit 'Bearden-esque' at this stage, and I'm left scrambling to keep up most of the time. There was one point I wanted to comment on earlier when someone mentioned it, and you reminded me of it again it in your message: > The two laws are similar, in fact identical if the force of > individual current elements are integrated around a complete > current loop. We are talking about a true physical current *loop*, here, aren't we? So any straight section must at some point be terminated by curved sections. But my thought was what about electricity flowing through a completely straight circuit? Prepare oppositely charged objects or electrodes (maybe just a long section of wire of the same gauge as the test section) with the test section of wire between, and close the "circuit". That sounds terribly trivial, and it probably is. Would it make a difference that there was no real loop? Not if the loop was made very large, I would think. But during the rail gun discussions, this came up because of the corners the current takes at the rail-armature connections. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 16 21:54:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA06717; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607170438.XAA15007@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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: OK, I'm kinda mouthing off here...but every once in a while it just builds up and I can't hold it back.... At 09:02 PM 7/16/96 -0700, Frank Z wrote: > "Almost everyone has worked on the battery end of the problem," says its >inventor, Yasunori Takahashi. Yes, because energy storage is the limiting factor for electric vehicles...conventional electric motors can be made arbitrarily close to 100% efficient....the batteries are what end up limiting the vehicle's performance. >"I thought: why not look at the other end--the >motor?" Well, why not! Let's just toss out Conservation of Energy and make a motor that produces more mechanical power than the elecrical power it consumes! That'll solve the pesky battery problem! >His breakthrough in electromagnetic technology came a few years ago while >extraordinary-- I suddenly found myself in the presence of the most powerful >magnetic material I had ever seen." Strong magnets just allow us to make a SMALLER high-efficiency electric motor. Nothing about STRONG magnets leads to over-unity energy performance. Takahashi is either (1) scamming folks...or (2) hiding his real discovery. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 16 22:09:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA08005; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960717044804_76216.2421_HHB60-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tuesday, 7/16/96, Dieter Britz wrote: > "Chemistry often ought not to be done at home, or in a garage; > in many cases, a fume cupboard (I think USAmericans make that > fume hood) is required for safety. And you need to be a chemist > to decide when it's required." The tin/antimony castings I was referring to are solder. Plain old 95% tin, 5% antimony solder. Used in homes and garages around the country (USA). Everything's probably toxic to some degree or at least in certain forms or concentrations, but in my little workshop ordinary ordinary lead-free plumbing solder is one of the least worrisome materials I use. I _really_ like certain of my urethane curatives, and some of the solvents are quite a kick in the ol' brain cells too. But thanks for the warning anyway! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 00:03:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA25734; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 23:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 23:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960717064539_100060.173_JHB84-1@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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Scott: >> trong magnets just allow us to make a SMALLER high-efficiency electric motor. Nothing about STRONG magnets leads to over-unity energy performance. Takahashi is either (1) scamming folks...or (2) hiding his real discovery. << This is the gizmo that Chris and I looked at and which he rode about London. I agree with you that the most likely scenario is that Tak has a very efficient M/G set which keeps the Pb acid cells well charged for a long time. Not a bad thing! Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 00:55:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA01820; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 00:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 00:51:19 -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: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >Grassman's Law is derived in the same fashion as the Biot-Savart Law, >and the Lorentz Force. According to Grassman, all forces on a current >element are transverse to the direction of current flow. In the general >case, for individual current elements, Grassman's Law does not comply >with Newton's third law. But Grassman's law does comply with Newton's >third law, when the force is summed over complete current loops. > [snip] >Regards, >Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) Robert, I haven't heard of Grassman's Law. Who is he, and could you explain his law in more detail? Thanks. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 01:15:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03673; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 01:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 01:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960717075733_100433.1541_BHG106-1@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: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Scott comments on the Sunday Times Takahashi article, in pretty much the same way as I did when I posted it here when it was published. The whole point is that there is no real scope for improving an electric motor by very much, and the poor man who wrote the article was being made a fool of. Though if he writes for the "Innovations" section of such a paper, he should know better. The article reeked of an o-u claim without ever saying it; but that does not mean I believe it. Potapov is more credible than Takahashi, in my eyes. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 01:56:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA06976; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 01:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 01:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960717084129_75110.3417_CHK8-3@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: Virtual Memory X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi John, >> There really seems to be a very old program called VMM 386, DOS, which we can use to make multiple CPUs .... but we are having a hard time tracking it. << One which I used in the past is Concurrent DOS, I think it's put out now by Novell (since they bought DR-DOS from Digital Research). I don't know if it is distributed any longer. Also, DR-DOS 7.0 may have some multi-tasking (virtual machines) software, as they introduced manual task switching in their standard DR-DOS almost 10 years ago. There were a couple of other versions of DOS which implemented virtual machines, but I haven't worked with them (and are probably no longer available). BTW, my understanding is that both Windows NT and OS/2 are pretty good at multi-tasking, where Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 are not. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 08:34:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19550; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 08:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 08:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A major difficulty with design of an experiment to measure force when liquid metal pools are used to make frictionless joints is that the pools themselves are subject to magnetic forces that, in practice, are difficult to measure and account for. When current flows through the liq metal in the presence of a magnetic field (and there IS non negligible magnetic field there, because there is magnetic field by design in the rigid conductor on which you want to measure the magnetic force) there is J x B (vector cross product) force throughout the liq metal. In general, the distribution of this force differs from a simple pressure gradient distribution, the only force distribution for which liquid will remain motionless in a container. Therefore, the magnetic force drives circulating flows in the liquid. The moving liquid, in turn, exerts forces on its container and whatever else it comes into contact with, including, for example, a wire dipped into it. If one measures force on a conducting element whose ends are dipped into liquid metal pools for frictionless contact, the measurement includes the forces from fluid circulating in the pools. This extra force is not magnetic force acting on the element itself, but is a fraction of the force acting on the pools. It is difficult to quantify and correct for this artifact. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 11:01:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA11711; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31ED0AE3.2037@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Electric cars X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > Snip: > Strong magnets just allow us to make a SMALLER high-efficiency electric > motor. Nothing about STRONG magnets leads to over-unity energy performance. Right on! Scott. Then, there is the "small" problem of "climate control". As I recall, the cooling load on a car at 55 mph is about the same as for a house (standing still!). In Ohio, we need lots of car heat in the winter. All this is a huge problem for electric cars. Often, it's solved by - you guessed it - using a fossil-fuel burner! C'mon OU cavitation devices!! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 10:42:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12290; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31ED1079.1E4E@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > > A major difficulty with design of an experiment to measure force when > liquid metal pools are used to make frictionless joints is that the pools > themselves are subject to magnetic forces that, in practice, are difficult > to measure and account for. Good points Michael! And, to be more specific, if I understand the straight-conductors-under-liguid-metal-with-a-short-length-suspended- in-a-central-gap setup, the liquid metal in the gaps will be subject to the magnetic pinch force (I just love this force!). The longitudinal "squirting" force of the pinch will be the greatest in the shortest gap - because the bridge-current in the shortest gap will be more concentrated (smaller effective diameter) than in the longer gap. Thus, the gaps would tend to equalize (I think). As Michael says, it's not wise to study a "longitudinal force THEORY" in the can-of-worms of a magnetohydrodymamic (even the word is scary!) liquid metal bath! Frank Stenger From hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com Wed Jul 17 11:00:12 1996 Received: from rocket.rdyne.rockwell.com (rocket.rdyne.rockwell.com [134.57.99.99]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA17476; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com by rocket.rdyne.rockwell.com (4.1/1.34) id AA16224; Wed, 17 Jul 96 11:01:21 PDT Received: by rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.837.3) id <01BB73CF.907A4FA0@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 11:03:20 -0700 Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: William Beaty Cc: Vortex-L Subject: RE: Antimony Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:58:00 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.837.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O X-Status: Bill According to Johnson's dictionary(17thC English writer) Antimony got its name when some medieval alchemist tested the toxicity of the stuff on residents of a monastery. Hank ---------- From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? Date: Tuesday, July 16, 1996 7:42PM --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:18:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Chris - > > > "But I see no problem with molten solder - > > so long as you use the lead-free variety." > > Yes, that's the main point, to stay away from toxicity. I've been doing some > small castings with tin/antimony that stays quite bright at it's surface if you > don't run it too long or too hot. I thought I might use that. Lead is bad for > drossing over besides its toxicity anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- --- From billb@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 11:07:33 1996 Received: from relay6.UU.NET (relay6.UU.NET [192.48.96.16]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA19019 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 11:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prod1.epri.com by relay6.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: prod1.epri.com [144.58.4.19]) id QQayua26635; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 14:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from epri.epri.com by prod1.epri.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA29927; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 11:06:38 -0700 Received: by EPRINET.EPRI.COM (Soft*Switch Central V4L40P1A) id 555505110096199FEPRI; 17 Jul 1996 11:05:11 PDT Message-Id: Date: 17 Jul 1996 11:05:11 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: The gods are against us!!! (Patopov, LANL, and shutdown of w To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Comment: EPRI UA4B029 07/17/96 11:05:54 SMTP Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: The gods are against us!!! (Patopov, LANL, and shutdown of work) - I have just read on on of my many news sources that LANL are shutting down all "non-nuclear" activities for some time to "review safety" at the lab after the 4th "serious" accident this year...Arrrrrrrghghhgghghghhhhhh! I hope that doesn't foul up Peter G's testing. - Say, has anyone noticed the COMMONALITY between the P device and the Correa device? Alledgely there is about a 15KV potential that is formed in the P device between the internals and the shell if they are "stood off" from each other. This is the realm from which the alledged "self operating P device comes from. I find this just too co-incidental to be totally accidental... - MDH From billb@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 12:33:02 1996 Received: from relay6.UU.NET (relay6.UU.NET [192.48.96.16]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA05025 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 12:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prod1.epri.com by relay6.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: prod1.epri.com [144.58.4.19]) id QQayug11901; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 15:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from epri.epri.com by prod1.epri.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA23293; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 12:31:33 -0700 Received: by EPRINET.EPRI.COM (Soft*Switch Central V4L40P1A) id 964430120096199FEPRI; 17 Jul 1996 12:30:12 PDT Message-Id: Date: 17 Jul 1996 12:30:12 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: CETI, Progress? To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Comment: EPRI UA4B029 07/17/96 12:30:43 SMTP Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: CETI, Progress? - Being secretive as ever....CETI had another closed "dog and pony" show last week. In attendance were: 8 representatives of major companies, 2 National lab reps, 3 university reps and 2 private lab reps. Information on element transmutation claims in the thin films was presented, a working 5:1 cell (my contact was unclear about the magnitude of the effect) and rehashes of old data. I'm being deliberately vauge as I don't want to jeapordize my contact either for his company (or entity!) nor his relationship with CETI. He does claim, however, to have seen a 20:1, 1 watt in, 20 watts out demo in Jan.'96, with what he calls a "5th generation" bead... - I'm wondering just how much harm CETI will do to "Cold Fusion" before they are done...???? (My contact DOES think that part of the problem of being open on demo's is that the most current and best materials are under "patent applied for" and they are very afraid of losing the technology... perhaps a fear close to a paranoia?) - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 13:52:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA15999; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607171735.KAA00616@shell.skylink.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Robert Stirniman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > I haven't heard of Grassman's Law. Who is he, and could you explain his > law in more detail? Thanks. > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Yes. Sorry. Who is Grassman? About a year ago I asked the same question. Who is Grassman? And what the hell is all this about? I still find myself asking the second question. Maybe a tempest in a teapot. Maybe something important. Grassman's name comes up frequently in articles by guys like Graneau, Assis, Marinov, and occasional correspondents to Galilean Electrodynamics. Otherwise you almost never see it. A large encylopedia will have something about him. Most do not. Anyhow. Grassman was a 19th century scientist. An early Maxwellian, in some ways pre-Maxwellian. Grassman experimentally determined an (action at a distance) force law for magnetic current elements. His law is similar to the field based law of Biot-Savart. The magnetic field from, and the force on, a current element is always transverse. Heaviside, Gibbs, and other early interpreters of Maxwell, recognized a way to bring out some simple truths from Maxwell's complicated mess of formulas and aether gears and actuators. The transverse force law -- Grassman, Biot-Savart, followed by Lorentz -- was a main catalyst in derivation of what we now recognize as "Maxwell's Equations". In at least the first order, it has proved to be a simple and elegant formulation, and has served us immensely well. Still, there are more than a few unresolved problems and anomalous experiments in electrodynamics. Ampere's experimental determination of the force law between current elements includes longitudinal as well as transverse forces. There is experimental evidence of the existence of a longitudinal force, including evidence from some of Ampere's original experiments. There is no place for a longitudinal force, in the modern formulation of Maxwell's equations. Maybe we should occasionally take a hard look at where these actually came from, rather than treating them as some kind of gospel. And since I'm on the soapbox. Why do modern physics texts generally treat this as a "complete" science, with little or no mention and discussion of unresolved problems and questions. What kind of thinking is best to engender in the scientific community? Status quo, or status un-quo. What is more important for creation of new knowledge -- things that fit, or things that don't fit? What kind of scientists and teachers do we get, when our educational system chooses to insist that the case is closed? Ditto for relativity. You never see a comment, or mention of any of the strong arguments and experimental findings against the theory. Case closed. No need to waste time thinking too much about it. IMO, we're past due for a revolution in physics. Every century, whether we need it or not. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 13:40:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA16328; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: 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: RE: Antimony X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Bill According to Johnson's dictionary(17thC English writer) Antimony got its name when some medieval alchemist tested the toxicity of the stuff on residents of a monastery. Hank ---------- From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? Date: Tuesday, July 16, 1996 7:42PM --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:18:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Chris - > > > "But I see no problem with molten solder - > > so long as you use the lead-free variety." > > Yes, that's the main point, to stay away from toxicity. I've been doing some > small castings with tin/antimony that stays quite bright at it's surface if you > don't run it too long or too hot. I thought I might use that. Lead is bad for > drossing over besides its toxicity anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- --- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 13:42:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA16600; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960717151806.698f9e9a@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: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 08:23 AM 7/17/96 -0700, Michael J. Schaffer wrote: >A major difficulty with design of an experiment to measure force when >liquid metal pools are used to make frictionless joints is that the pools >themselves are subject to magnetic forces that, in practice, are difficult >to measure and account for. > >When current flows through the liq metal in the presence of a magnetic >field (and there IS non negligible magnetic field there, because there is >magnetic field by design in the rigid conductor on which you want to >measure the magnetic force) there is J x B (vector cross product) force >throughout the liq metal. In general, the distribution of this force >differs from a simple pressure gradient distribution, the only force >distribution for which liquid will remain motionless in a container. >Therefore, the magnetic force drives circulating flows in the liquid. The >moving liquid, in turn, exerts forces on its container and whatever else it >comes into contact with, including, for example, a wire dipped into it. > >If one measures force on a conducting element whose ends are dipped into >liquid metal pools for frictionless contact, the measurement includes the >forces from fluid circulating in the pools. This extra force is not >magnetic force acting on the element itself, but is a fraction of the force >acting on the pools. It is difficult to quantify and correct for this >artifact. > >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > > There are other terms than just JxB. An alternative method is to calculation the forces using the Maxwell Stress Tensor taken over a convenient (usually) external enclosed surface. If the tensor is taken to include all terms, then the magnetic equivalent of the dielectrophoretic force is included, this may account for some of the differences between observations and calculations which might have neglected the H2 * grad(mu) terms. Were such terms included? Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 19:53:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA27521; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960717223638_100433.1541_BHG71-1@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: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert Stirniman makes some very interesting points. I'm not as well versed as he is in all this Ampere force stuff, but it does seem pretty clear to me that there are quite a few uncomfortable things going on in physics, yet nobody seems willing to look again at the books. Let's face it, if the Ampere force has reality then our famous physics is merely fizzix, right? Just because relativity makes good predictions (and would need to go on being used for that reason) doesn't mean that its basic starting evidence is correct. > IMO, we're past due for a revolution in physics. Every century, > whether we need it or not. Yes. It was said of Queen Elizabeth I that she bathed every six months - dirty or not. To be serious, I begin to feel we are seeing the beginnings of a split in science. Attitudes on both sides are hardening, perhaps, and the two groups maybe won't be able to work together indefinitely. I think we are going to find that Miley will soon confirm these cathode transmutations which people have been tightening up recently (as in the Mizuno paper). I wonder if anybody will pay any attention if that happens? I suspect not, because people simply will not believe them, no matter who reports seeing them. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 20:06:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA27658; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607172315.QAA03058@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Snip Michael Schaffer wrote; >If one measures force on a conducting element whose ends are dipped into >liquid metal pools for frictionless contact, the measurement includes the >forces from fluid circulating in the pools. This extra force is not >magnetic force acting on the element itself, but is a fraction of the force >acting on the pools. It is difficult to quantify and correct for this >artifact. I have read a number of these articles on the longitudinal force. I also read Newton vs Einstein last year so I read the section on the liquid metal gap with interest. In these posts, it seems that a neat idea of using a liquid metal pool to allow the motion of the conductors is at the heart, but then the conduction currents through that liquid metal poses new geometries on the experiment. Why not try a conductor shaped like a dovetail slide for the inner and outer conductors? By allowing there to be a recess in between the two components, you should be able to get liquid mercury (low vapor pressure) to fit inside if you plate the conductors with copper so that the mercury will whet the surface. In this manner, you end up with the surface tension of the mercury holding it in place in between the two conductors so there is no "pool" per se. In that manner, you could have say a ten foot conductor with a 6 inch slip joint and fasten just one half of the entire conductor in order to see if the other half wants to go any where. This way all of the liquid is just a thin film between the two whetted conductors. This should take care of most of the problems of dealing with the "liquid pool" since the pool would only be around 0.020 inch thick, and even that would be housed in between the conductors. In fact, given any weird behavior, perhaps you might shoot a jet of that mercury out from between the conductors and ponder what that means (another way of stating that one is if you plan to do this at home, make provision so that you don't wind up with mercury in the carpet for the next hundred years giving you an annual dose of Hg poisoning.) Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 20:10:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA27876; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607172315.QAA03063@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hubble etc. Images of Aether Emissions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here is another tidbit to notice in the photos on page 42 of Sky and Telescope, August issue. The photos are by SOHO of a solar mass ejection on 1/15/96 from 7 to 15 UT. The magnetic fields of the sun are perported to originate from the outer 200,000 km (see SciAm 8-96). Thus, one would think that the fields would have a bit of a tough time communicating across the volume of the sun. In other words, if the effect is more of a local one due to convection currents, then how could you attain flares simultaneously on oppisite sides of the sun. And yet you clearly see exactly that in the Sky and Telescope article. But even more difficult to explain it seems to me, are the radial ejections that occured all the way around the sun at the same time. In other words, if you look on page 41, you will see in the violet colored image, all of the low intensity jets of extremely high temperature streaming out into the surrounding space on a normal day. Now if you look back to the flare images on pg 42, look closely all the way around the image. Not only do you see the flares on opposing sides of the sun emerging at the same time, but you also see streaks heading out from all the way around the sun at the same time. So I find it extremely difficult to understand how all of the suns convection currents decided to synchronize their emissions. If you consider a different hypothesis, however, then you may think that nuclear reactions which are known to reduce the mass in particles, are aether conservative despite being mass non conservative. If you consider this, then any sudden increase in reactivity in the core of the sun would emit "space". And that higher pressure "space" would then need to get out to the lower pressure space on the outside in the cosmos. This is not much different from boiling a pan of water. And if you look at the streaks of matter launched up into the suns atmosphere, you will see that they all point in one single direction, the center of the sun. But we also know (believe and I concur due to short mean free paths involved) that it takes a long time vis 170,000 years for thermal energy to get out of the sun. So that is not the source of this event, period. Neutrinos could get out instantaneously, and as well, since neutrinos and the matter in the form of standing waves are all made of aether aka space, it is obvious that aether with a wavelength of E-35 should have no problem at all in exiting the sun with little resistance. So, aether emission could explain this and correlation between neutrino observations and solar flare events could prove the link to the interior. Unconfirmed evidence indicates this but it is not accepted yet. this may be the straw that breaks the camels back on aether banishment from the Michelson Morley experiments. And, once this is accomplished, then we should in time see some more attention paid to the interaction of the sturcture of space itself with our particles of matter. This will lead to better models for electricity and hopefully settle some things like the longitudinal force questions and the anti grav questions. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 20:02:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA28046; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: 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: LM75 chip Temperature Sensor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark I just received from National Semiconductor their LM75 Temperature Sensor chip, and a free demo board, including windows software for display as a thermometer or a strip chart. It works quite well.It plugs into the parallel port on my PC. It is sensitive enough to measure my fingertip temperature, and to switch in a thermostat mode as I touch it and let it go. The display is almost as nice as Scott Little's homepage and the price is right. Hank From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 20:05:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA28310; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960717221333.49b7eca0@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: Cold Fusion Times [v4 #3] - Quality Confirmations Continue X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear colleagues: Cold Fusion Times vol 4 number 3 is out tomorrow and should be in subscribers hands over the weekend. As always, the COLD FUSION TIMES presents hard-core science and engineering issues, with analysis of developments in the field. Discussions and contents in this issue include the following: - Quality Confirmations of Cold Fusion - Report from EPRI is Available - NASA Results using a Nickel System - Discord with the CF Community - Reports on Low Temperature Physics - CF/Sonoluminescence Motion Pictures - Reviews of Over Unity Devices - Cold Fusion -- now a Virtual Reality - Analysis of the CERN Impact on the Italian Court Judgement - Reports from China, US National Labs, EPRI, NASA, Washington, Cambridge, .... - Updates on Equipment, Supplies, Consulting Available - Practical Information and Reference Vectors - "What's Happening", "Material Science and Engineering" - "People in the News" columns - Proton Semiconductor Info and more The COLD FUSION TIMES web site is http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The covers have been posted at the CFT/VR site and at the CFT web page. The site is an issue behind in its posting of the most recent CFTime cover at the Website, but will update it shortly. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 20:14:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA28753; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960717221356.3ca78a88@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: Antimony X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 01:33 PM 7/17/96 -0700, Hank (?) wrote: > >Bill >According to Johnson's dictionary(17thC English writer) >Antimony got its name when some medieval alchemist >tested the toxicity of the stuff on residents of a monastery. >Hank Actually, its pharmacologic function was known before that of arsenic. Antimony was used 6000 years ago as a cosmetic and medicinal. Pliny discussed it, and the name is Latin. What you are referring to is one of the several times its use was argued in the medical community. By the 1400's its use had divided the medical community. Perhaps this is much like cf now. The use of antimony was declared illegal. At least until in 1657 King Louis XIV was administered some by a quack, got better at least temporarily. The use of antimony then waxed into a resurgence until the 1800's when it was declared a poison again. However antimony was used again in the early 1900 against parasites and was fantastic at producing useful antimonicals in tropical and subtropical countries. The electrochemistry is fascinating. The trivalent materials have high affinity for human cells, and interfere with red cell function, produces poisoning similar to arsenic, and a constellation fo signs and symptoms including bowel and cardiac irritation. The trivalents are more toxic than the pentavalent materials. The pentavalent antimonials are useful against leishmaniasis, and the trivalents for flat worm infections like schistosomiasis and filariasis. Like cf itself, the story of antimony is much more complicated. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 17 20:22:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29557; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607180220.WAA13572@nic.wat.hookup.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Nafziger To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Virtual Memory X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 07:43 PM 7/16/96 -0700, you wrote: >Subject: Virtual Memory > > Dear VORS, > > Sorry to bring up software but I am hoping one of you, or one you >know might be able to steer me in the right direction. A fried has asked >to see if I can help locate a multi tasking, multi session software system. > Thanks, > > JHS I highly recommend an operating system called qnx. It is a multi-tasking, multi-user operating system that's been around for a long time. (I used it when 286s were considered pretty fast.) You can find their web page at: http://www.fdma.com/info/about_qnx.html Regards, Rick Nafziger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 00:33:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA19200; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960717234119.0f9ff48a@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: Flames X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 08:02 PM 6/19/96 -0700, you wrote: >Mitchell comments: > > "In fact, I have never known anyone who literally "lacked a sense of >humor," myself included, and I wonder whether such a condition is even possible >in a structurally intact and functioning human brain." > >You should spend more time in Scotland. > >Chris > > Please excuse a tardive comment, but have been to scotland and thought they were very nice people, clever to have started both golf and anaesthesia, therefore, this must be as erroneous as some of the misconceptions about cold fusion, zpe, etc. that circulate even here and spf. ;-) X best wishes. Mitchell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 00:42:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA19463; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31EDC803.7805@rt66.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Richard Thomas Murray To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In response to recent discussion of new energy sources making flying cars possible, look up Moller International's Volantor M400 Skycar prototype at: http://www.moller.com/~mi/index.html, and click on Rotapower Engine, and on Skycar, and then on Aerobot. Briefly, advanced high power, low weight Wankel engines, using ordinary gasoline, with very low exhaust emissions are paired with two counterotating 20" fans in four ducted narcelles, so that eight engines at 120 hp give 960 hp, in a streamlined lifting body design, 18' long X 9' wide X 6' high, for four people, 740 pounds payload, 350 + mph, 15 miles per gallon, 900 mile range, 7800 feet per minute climb, 30,000 foot ceiling, vertical takeoff-hover-landing, noise level not excessive, with three computers for redundant automated control, and two parachutes for the whole craft. The Aerobots are a series of smaller, remote control flyers. The Rotapower Engines are soon to be in snowmobiles and boats and All Terrain Vehicles, generating capital for the Skycar, no doubt. I sent Paul Moller a note about the possibilites of cold fusion, along with Ed Storms' "Review of the 'Cold Fusion' Effect", two months ago, but haven't had any response. Well, who wants to hear that his brilliant engine engineering, just about to be mass produced, may be obsolete overnight by unexpected technology? I wonder if a working fluid like air or steam could be used to drive a Wankel engine from a cold fusion source. Remember the old idea of a flying suit? Any possibilites for efficient tiny hot air jet engines? Or nanoscale hot air thrusters that cover a whole surface to generate lift? By the way, last year Quantum magazine published a wonderful article on the generation of lift over a curved airfoil. Despite decades of popular dogma, only a few percent of the lift is due to the Bernoulli effect. The lift arises mainly from the attraction of the molecules of the convex airfoil for the molecules of the moving airstream in the boundary layer, so that as the molecules of the airstream are pulled down in a gentle curve, the airfoil is pulled up. How about that! Rich Murray From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 01:10:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA24323; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 01:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 01:00:42 -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: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Is there a quantitative statement of Grassman's Law available? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 05:03:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA16617; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 04:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 04:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960718115009_100433.1541_BHG111-1@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: Re: Flames X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell, My comment about the Scots (my mother is Scots/Norwegian) was not related to their niceness or otherwise, but to their sense of humour. Barrie (the Scots playwright, author of Peter Pan) puts it neatly in one of his plays, when one person comments that it would take an operation to get a joke into a Scotsman's head. The Scot replies, "But how would an operation help with that?" Lack of any sense of the absurd is supposedly a characteristic of the Scots. For example, to march into battle in skirts following a man blowing into a 'musical instrument' made from unmentionable parts of assorted animals harldy demonstrates any sense of proportion, does it? Small wonder that their enemies tend to turn pale and flee... Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 05:45:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA22718; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 05:40:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 05:40:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31ee2791.43813503@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: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:46:58 -0700 (PDT), Scott Little wrote: [snip] >Strong magnets just allow us to make a SMALLER high-efficiency electric >motor. Nothing about STRONG magnets leads to over-unity energy performance. > >Takahashi is either (1) scamming folks...or (2) hiding his real discovery. > > Such as using his new magnetic material as a "battery doubler" to double the capacity of the four onboard batteries perhaps? 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 Thu Jul 18 05:45:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA22800; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 05:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 05:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31ee283c.43984722@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: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:34:19 -0700 (PDT), Rick Monteverde wrote: [snip] >We are talking about a true physical current *loop*, here, aren't we? So any >straight section must at some point be terminated by curved sections. But my >thought was what about electricity flowing through a completely straight >circuit? Prepare oppositely charged objects or electrodes (maybe just a long >section of wire of the same gauge as the test section) with the test section of >wire between, and close the "circuit". That sounds terribly trivial, and it >probably is. Would it make a difference that there was no real loop? Not if the >loop was made very large, I would think. But during the rail gun discussions, >this came up because of the corners the current takes at the rail-armature >connections. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI Doesn't a non-loop current flow, when a charged spherical capacitor is connected to a non-charged spherical capacitor? Just until the charge has equalized of course, so measurements would have to be made quickly. Another thought. Does the discharge of a charged capacitor (e.g. large electrolytic) count as a non-loop current, given that the loop is actually broken between the plates of the capacitor? 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 Thu Jul 18 07:35:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA07406; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 07:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 07:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31EE463F.73B0@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > Another thought. Does the discharge of a charged capacitor (e.g. large > electrolytic) count as a non-loop current, given that the loop is > actually broken between the plates of the capacitor? I would think the so-called "displacement current" in the dialectric would complete the current loop, Robin, but this really gets Maxwellian if the dialectric is a vacuum! Here we go again! Virtual electric current moving through (or with?) the fabric of space itself. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 07:42:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA08394; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 07:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 07:23:41 -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: Virtual Memory X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/17/96 20:21 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Virtual Memory If you are looking to put more than one operating system on your PC, you might want to check out SYSTEM COMMANDER at http://www.eps.net/ctosian/syscom. htm This program will integrate the OSes without conflicts, taking care of the "predatory" aspects of WIN 95 for example. Cost about $90 MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 09:36:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA27861; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:09:08 -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: Antimony X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/17/96 20:13 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: RE: Antimony Thanks Mitch for a level headed view of Antimony...Again we come to the classic bugabo of "dose-response"....What we really need to be concerned with is "how much" is toxic and "how much" is beneficial. As you have implied from your post, some amounts of Antimony, at least applied topically, can have beneficial effects. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 09:42:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA28248; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:11:28 -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: LM75 chip Temperature Sensor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/17/96 20:02 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: LM75 chip Temperature Sensor Great Hank, but maybe too late...How much is it? I just got $200 worth of AcuData equipment/software myself. Need to put in some extra memory on the old 386SX I'm using to run Windows. Do you know how to do that? (I know what the memory cards look like and where they go. But do I need to boot up with something different in config.sys? )MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 09:35:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA28677; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:14:20 -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: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Is there a quantitative statement of Grassman's Law available? > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Yes, Grassman's Law is the normal magnetic force. It simply combines the magnetic field and magnetic force laws together into one force equation. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 14:38:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA25374; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 14:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 14:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607181610.JAA30952@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rich Murray wrote; > Or nanoscale hot air thrusters that >cover a whole surface to generate lift? Aerojet has a platelette technology where they bond highly polished stainless steel acid etched sheets (thin) in a stack to redirect the flows of highly pressurized liquids (reactable). The stack is compressed at high T,P and becomes a single block of steel with all sorts of raceways inside. By directing 5K+ psi jet streams of liquid reactants directly at each oterh they can react things without the normal burning process, but the heat still comes out. The race ways are on a scale of 0.0005 inch. Not nano scale, but quite small and controlled by normal IC processing proceedures, so if you didn't need to mechanically align them, nano might be feasible. > >By the way, last year Quantum magazine published a wonderful article on >the generation of lift over a curved airfoil. Despite decades of popular > dogma, only a few percent of the lift is due to the Bernoulli effect. >The lift arises mainly from the attraction of the molecules of the convex >airfoil for the molecules of the moving airstream in the boundary layer, >so that as the molecules of the airstream are pulled down in a gentle >curve, the airfoil is pulled up. How about that! And the dogma beat goes on cloaked in yet another attraction mechanism! A suction cup is not "attracted" to the surface by the vacuum. It is compressed against the surface by the high pressure on the outside. An airfoil is not attracted to the stars by the vacuum over the wing, rather it is pushed toward the stars from below by the higher pressure air down there. Think about it and at least try to eliminate the concept of attraction where we know it does not exist. Then it will be more pallatable later for you to eliminate it where it takes a bit more faith. Once you do, you will find things make a lot more sense. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 14:46:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA25574; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 14:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 14:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607181746.KAA03595@mom.hooked.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Russ George" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Prevailing conditions over looked in Inventors disease X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Since some folks on Vortex seem to believe there is such a thing as inventors disease I thought the following item appropriate. It's always wise before making a disease diagnosis to consider all the factors at play. Everything I need to know, I learned in Corporate America:  Indecision is the key to flexibility.  The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.  If you think there is good in everybody, you haven't met everybody.  Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.  The more you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets.  If you can smile when things go wrong, you have someone in mind to blame.  Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.  There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.  Never wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.  All things being equal, fat people use more soap.  One-seventh of your life is spent on Monday.  Things are more like they are today than they ever were before.  The trouble with life is you're half-way through it before you realize it's a do-it-yourself thing.  By the time you make ends meet, somebody moves the ends. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 14:41:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA25742; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 14:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 14:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960718153029.655fd6e0@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: Antimony X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:10 AM 7/18/96 -0700, you wrote: >*** Reply to note of 07/17/96 20:13 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: RE: Antimony >Thanks Mitch for a level headed view of Antimony...Again we come to the >classic bugabo of "dose-response"....What we really need to be concerned >with is "how much" is toxic and "how much" is beneficial. As you have implied >from your post, some amounts of Antimony, at least applied topically, can >have beneficial effects. MDH > > wouldnt phrase it that way, though, because antimony does not have beneficial effects. it is always a toxic material, especially the trivalent cations. however, the secondary "beneficial" effects of ameliorating a local infection may exceed the toxic effects if the person is already afflicted with helminthic or parasitic infection. thus, rather than a dose-response, consider the therapeutic ratio, which can be defined as the ratio which is the toxicity to the parasites ------------------------- toxicity to the normal tissues Mitchell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 14:42:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA26153; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 14:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 14:22:39 -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: Re: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A I thought it was more like 33% Bernoulli and 66% Newton? What is the complete citation for the Quantum magazine article? Thanks in Advance. Tony Rusi From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 19:59:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA25195; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 19:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 19:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960718211508_100060.173_JHB203-1@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: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rich, >> The lift arises mainly from the attraction of the molecules of the convex airfoil for the molecules of the moving airstream in the boundary layer, so that as the molecules of the airstream are pulled down in a gentle curve, the airfoil is pulled up. How about that! << The bits underneath the aerofoil are to be ignored of course - I mean - who wants to be pulled down? Seriously though - are we talking about some kind of Casimir effect between the surface of the wing and the interface with the air, or is something else causing the mutual attraction? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 20:06:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA25360; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 19:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 19:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960718212536_76216.2421_HHB56-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin - > Doesn't a non-loop current flow, when a charged spherical > capacitor is connected to a non-charged spherical capacitor? Just > until the charge has equalized of course, so measurements would > have to be made quickly. Another thought. Does the discharge of a > charged capacitor (e.g. large electrolytic) count as a non-loop > current, given that the loop is actually broken between the plates > of the capacitor? Well, that's sort of my point about a non-circular circuit. But the spheres and plates and wires coming from them introduce curved elements, and for the example I gave I was trying to avoid all instances of curved current paths. I would still have a hard time anyway believing that effects noted on a long straight segment of conductor in a circuit are due to the accumulated effects of very remote curved parts. I tend to think the observed effects by Graneau and others are most likely mostly local in scope, and are either pinching or somesuch, or are the real thing - longitudinal forces not predicted by standard methods. But it seems hard to design an experiment without a big curve nearby, or without having huge moving elements, or losing your effects behind heating or other turbulence. I like the idea of a molten metal film instead of a cup or channel, too. The problem in sliding elements would probably be arcing and welding of the sliding components with the high current. Maybe even a good conductive graphite or metal loaded oil between two elements would work. Metal strips in sliding contact might offer the best ratio between straight conductive area and the slight turn the current has to take to jump from one segment to it's overlapping partner. This does move us away from the ability to make accurate measurements though due to unpredictable frictional elements, though. Perhaps the elements could be made to float on a film of metal or other material, and have very low friction and large conductive interface at the same time. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 18 20:01:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA25555; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31EED96C.1105@cais.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Danny Hamilton To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Are you implying that gravity is the result of unequal pressure, i.e. the existance of reduced pressure between two masses? -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Danny and Terry Hamilton hamltndt@cais.com Some people say we like to fight windmills....windmills are fun only when you win. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 00:13:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA04108; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607190335.UAA08069@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A >Are you implying that gravity is the result of unequal pressure, i.e. >the existance of reduced pressure between two masses? >-- I assume you are responding to my post on the manner in which the action is applied to the airfoil here. I was not referring to gravity, though gravity is another attraction mechanism. I don't want to take up bandwidth if this presumption of mine is incorrect, so I will be as breif as possible. The short answer is "NO", gravity is not a pressure differential like in air or water. Such a gradient would produce no net thrust as the object would simply be buoyant to some degree, ie weigh less. The airfoil is not impelled to move upward due to the vacuum above the wing. It is forced to move upward due to the pressure beneath the wing which is **greater** than the pressure above the wing. This may sound like semantics, but it is not. A vacuum is not the origin of the energy, it is the air molecules which are striking the bottom surface of the air foil that are pushing it up. The vacuum (or lower pressure) simply is *not* pushing down as hard and so there is a pressure differential from top to bottom. So you simply get F = (P_bottom - P_top) * Area of air foil. If you want to learn more about my concepts of gravitation, please make a separate post to keep things straight. But in breif, it is a lot like the mechanism that forces a piece of driftwood toward the shore. It is an interference with incoming wave energy that is not properly frequency matched with the "bobbing" of the log, or the resonance of our matter in the case of gravitation. This allows energy that is frequency matched to pass through more freely than more chaotic, random energy at all sorts of frequencies coming from red shifted QVF of distant galaxies throughout the universe and making up the intense energy of the QVF. That energy if I recall is on the order of E40 psi, so if you tap into a tiny portion of it with any sort of o/u device, you will get quite a ride. Later, Ross Tessien. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 00:13:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA04389; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607190354.UAA09121@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In round numbers, the velocity of light is around 1 foot per ns. You must reduce this if you have a dielectric, but with the devices you guys are dealing with bare electrodes ie conductors should work. And air will give about this value. This means that in a ten foot element the initial impulse signal will take about 10 ns. There is another effect that occurs for high freqeuncy signals and it is called "skin effect". What happens is that high frequency electrical current tends to appear and conduct across the surface of a conductor rather than through the volume of it. And finally, a single conductor will have a certain amount of inductance per unit length which could be balanced I suppose by placing two conductors side by side to create a transmission line of fixed impedance to the signal. By launching a signal up the two lines simultaneously, you are creating a wave front that is moving down "both lines" at the same time in the forward direction. So, if you built a slip joint consisting of a long copper tube (available in a hardward store) and a short section of copper rod that just fits inside (turn it on a lathe if necessary for about a 0.05 inch clearance.). Then whet the inside of the tube and the outside of the rod with mercury and you have a very low friction electrical connection. If you suspend the long tubes by fairly long thin strings from a ceiling, then the rods could be made to freely move forward and backward on and off of the rod electrodes. The current will transfer from the rod, through the mercury, and out onto the exterior of the tubes during the initial ns of charging the rods. By separating the two 1/2 inch or so tubes by about an inch you could get a transmission line current going. The thing that may be of interest is that there may be a thrust in one direction on one rod, and in the other direction on the other rod. This is because the rods will be coupled and have a positive and a negative wave front both moving forward down the length. If you need to run the voltage up, you will need to separate the rods further. And of course, you can also use this with just one rod alone coupled to a capacitor. The thing I thought might be nice about this is that you could bolt down all of the capacitors and power supplies etc so that they did not influence the motion of the tube. This way, you get just the motion of the tube all on its own. And the effect, ie thrust, should be much larger than with just a puddle of Hg in a gap. Also, you don't wind up with geometry changes that you can have in the liquid due to vortices or other effects in the conduction that once they distort the Hg, can lead to large positive feedbacks that may have nothing to do with longitudinal forces of conduction. The tubing comes in 20 foot lengths. The lower the density per foot the better, though, so try for some thing walled tubing. Maybe 1/8 inch diameter would work better. I think they sell that for water lines right from a coil so you could get as long a piece as you wish. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 00:07:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA04445; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:02:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:02:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31ee3943.48344789@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: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:31:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Thomas Murray wrote: [snip] >By the way, last year Quantum magazine published a wonderful article on >the generation of lift over a curved airfoil. Despite decades of popular > dogma, only a few percent of the lift is due to the Bernoulli effect. >The lift arises mainly from the attraction of the molecules of the convex >airfoil for the molecules of the moving airstream in the boundary layer, >so that as the molecules of the airstream are pulled down in a gentle >curve, the airfoil is pulled up. How about that! > >Rich Murray > I'll wager $10.- this is wrong. Most of the lift from an airfoil comes from the air under the wing pushing up. You can prove me wrong, by measuring the lift (negative) generated by an airfoil with air flowing over the top, and mounted on top of a closed evacuated box :) 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 Jul 19 00:08:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA04551; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31ee351b.47280395@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: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:46:56 -0700 (PDT), Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >I think we are going to find that Miley will soon confirm these cathode >transmutations which people have been tightening up recently (as in the Mizuno >paper). I wonder if anybody will pay any attention if that happens? I suspect >not, because people simply will not believe them, no matter who reports seeing >them. > >Chris > > This doesn't really matter. If the new physics makes better predictions than the old, and allows new products to be developed and improved, then it will be used, regardless of what the "mainstream" says. Eventually the current mainstream will die a natural death (or not, if they happen to be 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 Fri Jul 19 00:08:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA04695; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31ef2122.15207172@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: Brown's gas X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Could someone check out: http://www.primenet.com/~ltseung/brown26.htm and let me know if there is any independent confirmation available of the claims made for various people therein? (I.e. did the demonstrations actually take place, and were the results independently reported anywhere)? 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 Jul 19 05:21:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA08499; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 05:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 05:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960719120019_100433.1541_BHG86-1@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: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin writes: > This doesn't really matter. If the new physics makes better > predictions than the old, and allows new products to be developed > and improved, then it will be used, regardless of what the > "mainstream" says. Eventually the current mainstream will die a > natural death (or not, if they happen to be right :) What seems curious to me is that we now see nuclear physicists like Arata, Miley and the rest working on CF - and I for one would bet that even outside Japan quite a few are lurking or coming up to speed, in fact I'm sure of it. Yes, I know Miley has had a long-standing interest but y'all know what I mean. Is the solid opposition which is so apparent on s.p.f and other places really the way things are? But what about when results like those which obviously are upcoming from Miley become noticed? I begin to think that we'll then see a schism in science. Sociologically, this will be 'interesting'. On the other hand, I found the reaction to the Power-Gen report from Jed especially interesting. I think the heightened interest was a result of the practical possibilities; it dispelled any idea that scientists would be interested in 'excess energy' reports for their own sake - in other words, it showed that everybody is the same in that they take nothing very seriously unless it may have 'real' applications. Nonetheless, I feel that a commercial product or inarguable high-profile demo would be the only thing which could accelerate the interest of the science community. 'Scientifically interesting' results will interest very few scientists. A nice little stream-of-consciousness-full-of-contradictions, is that! Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 08:51:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA06550; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 08:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 08:28:26 -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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The wing/lift controversy has been going on for decades. It's a battle between Bernoulli-believers (wings are "sucked" upwards) and those who prefer Newton's 3rd law (wings deflect air downwards.) See http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon4.html#wing for an article and a whole bunch of email discussion from the phys-L listserv. Also: when a moving fluid adheres to a stationary surface, the process is called the Coanda Effect. There's an old SciAm article on this. They even built a "flying saucer" model which hovered by emitting a film of air from a central circular slot on the top surface of the craft. When the Coanda Effect fails on an aircraft, the airflow detaches from the top of the wing. This is called 'stall.' ....................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 Jul 19 15:01:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA15650; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >The wing/lift controversy has been going on for decades. It's a battle >between Bernoulli-believers (wings are "sucked" upwards) and those who >prefer Newton's 3rd law (wings deflect air downwards.) Actually, both are right. While Bernoulli's equation might have been discovered empirically on its own (actually, I don't know this piece of science history), in point of fact Bernoulli's equation can be derived mathematically (ie by a succession of logic operations--no new physics needed) from Newton's laws of motions applied to the fluid treated as a collection of small elements. See any reasonable textbook on fluid dynamics. The controversy is just over which point of view is more intuitive, easier to teach, etc, etc, etc, etc. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 15:11:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA15833; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:52:22 -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: Intergraph... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Intergraph... Hey guys! I haven't received this yet, but I've talked to the sales rep. Intergraph offers a quasi-funtional Demo CD on their solids modeling. Sounds like it does the old "Can't store Files", and "Can't print" routine. - That might be OK for what a lot of us would be interested in. Don't have a phone, they use their regional offices. Look 'em up on the net. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 15:00:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA15905; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607191636.JAA09782@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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:02 PM 7/16/96 -0700, you wrote: > > >JAPAN - ELECTROMAGNETIC EUREKA > >The Sunday Times - 10 December 1995 [section]4 [page]9 > > >'Accident' in lab creates super motor > >Transport - A scientist who stumbled on to the world's most magnetic material >saw its attraction for electric vehicles, writes Tony Edwards > >AN ELECTRIC SCOOTER with a top speed of 50 mph and a range of more than 500 >miles has been developed by a Japanese scientist who accidentally discovered >what he claims is the world's most magnetic material. >super magnets, Sciex scooter > >Sciex super motor > > Thanks Frank for the post. Yes indeed, folks, magnetic motors at nominal 99.99% efficiency are real. Muller can also do at least that, if ou is too hard to think of. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 15:03:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA15988; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607191642.JAA10696@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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:46 PM 7/16/96 -0700, you wrote: >OK, I'm kinda mouthing off here...but every once in a while it just builds >up and I can't hold it back.... > >Strong magnets just allow us to make a SMALLER high-efficiency electric >motor. Nothing about STRONG magnets leads to over-unity energy performance. > >Takahashi is either (1) scamming folks...or (2) hiding his real discovery. > > That is probably true. He is not scamming folks. He has utterly no need to scam anyone. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 15:03:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA16040; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607191652.JAA01429@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaand wrote; >>I think we are going to find that Miley will soon confirm these cathode >>transmutations which people have been tightening up recently (as in the Mizuno >>paper). What sort of power does he (they) use? AC, DC, and if AC, what frequency and amperage, ie, what sort of cathode geometry, material etc.?? I have read some info on some devices that used microwave waveguides and also some which used plain old particle accelerators, but where they accelerated the particles to low energies vis 10 keV if I recall (could look it up) Two different experiments used different particle energies and both found evidence of ~5 MeV ejecta after having passed through thin foils. the particles were deuterons and protons and foils Ni, Pd and a few others. Really simple set up so the only refutation would be to say that the ejecta were due to background or to cosmic rays that were somehow able to figure out when the exp was taking place because they did some blind tests of systems. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 15:09:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA16187; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607191652.JAA01431@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:31:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Thomas Murray wrote: >[snip] >>By the way, last year Quantum magazine published a wonderful article on >>the generation of lift over a curved airfoil. Despite decades of popular >> dogma, only a few percent of the lift is due to the Bernoulli effect. >>The lift arises mainly from the attraction of the molecules of the convex >>airfoil for the molecules of the moving airstream in the boundary layer, >>so that as the molecules of the airstream are pulled down in a gentle >>curve, the airfoil is pulled up. How about that! >> >I'll wager $10.- this is wrong. Excellent reply and I completely agree. Indeed, this is not even an "agreement", it is just simple reality. There are no "fields" one could invoke because the molecules are neutral so all you are left with are the kinetic energies of the molecules. And that kinetic energy can only be imposed if the molecules come to within their valence regions, ie collide. That is what pressure is all about, it is the kinetic energy of the individual atoms or molecules in the gases being studied. The reason the Bernouilli effect takes place is because you have a surface which relative to the air, is receeding (ie as the airfoil moves forward, the surface is moving away from the molecules along the taper of the airfoil and that opens up new volume into which the molecules can ricochet following a collision in the primary air stream. When that opening happens, the effect at the molecular level is to **increase** the mean free path of the molecules along a line parallel to the airfoil. In turn, the air foil has its taper opening up toward the rear of the foil, so that is the direction of least resistance for the molecules to move in. Thus, there develops the Bernoilli flow across the upper surface of the wing. The reverse occurs on the lower surface of the wing as a wedge of compressed air builds up with the thin part of the wedge to the rear and the fat part to the front. So what you got is a bunch of guys cramming into each other and slamming in every direction trying to get out underneath the wing (high pressure), and the other bunch of guys who are able to cheat and fly freely down the length of the opening taper, so they tend not to have momentum in a direction directed toward the top surface of the air foil (ie low pressure). Air foils are simple momentum transfer mechanisms, nothing more nothing less. Get to the basics, and think of how a suction cup works to clear the vacuum pulling cob webs out of your brains. Note; this is not a put down at all, it is intended as a wake up call because we were all trained to believe that whether we consider something an attraction or a repulsion made no difference. It does, if you wish to understand the mechanisms involved. It does not if you wish only to use the equation and learn nothing of what is really going on. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 15:11:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA16291; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: 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: RE: LM75 chip Temperature Sensor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell I sent this out yesterday, but it didn't appear, so I'm trying again. Hank LM75 temperature sensing chip demo board. National Semiconductor Corporation 1111 West Bardin Road Arlington, TX 76017 Tel:1(800) 272-9959 Fax:1(800)737-7018 http://www.national.com From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 15:06:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA16876; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607191758.KAA00398@shell.skylink.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Robert Stirniman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Note: The following has been clipped from a discussion on the sci.physics newsgroup. It was originally written on July 4, 1996 by Robert G. Flower (chronos@enter.net). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Peter Graneau of MIT and Northeastern U. was engaged in studying anomalous recoil in railgun launchers. The rails were buckling but standard Lorentz-force formulas predicted forces that did not explain it. Graneau delved into the history of electrodynamics (Whittaker, O'Rahilly), all the way back to Ampere's original formula for forces between current-elements. This contains terms which integrate to 0 around a stationary closed circuit, but are *not* 0 in circuits whose geometry is changing, nor in "open circuits" (in which different currents flow in different parts of the circuit, due to capacitance effects at high frequency). Ampere performed experiments using wires floating in mercury that demonstrated these forces. Nevertheless, Maxwell discarded these terms when formulating what's called the Biot-Savart law [Maxwell's Treatise Article 526, 527], which he took as one of the pillars for his electromagnetic edifice. Ampere's force-law terms predict a tension-stress in wires carrying high currents (thousands of amps), and Graneau found reports in the technical journals of the 1920's to 1950's concerning anomalous effects in aluminum smelters and high-current fuse wires that were consistent with the Ampere stress forces. For instance, a kiloAmp current pulse will shatter a fuse wire into many short equal-sized bits. Metallurgical examination shows the breaks to be tension-fractures, not localized melting or radial pinch (the usual explanations). Graneau duplicated many of these experiments, including Ampere's, at MIT's High Voltage Lab in the 1980's and 90's, and results are published in mainstream journals (see below). Meanwhile, Graneau and others (Assis, Wesley, Phipps, Spencer, etc.) are reworking pre-Maxwell EM theories (of Weber, Neumann, Riemann) into modern form. There are links to modern theories of the Wheeler-Feynman variety which employ advanced + retarded potentials and the action-at-a-distance picture. In the exploding wires and railgun recoil experiments it is possible that the metal's crystal lattice (ie, *condensed matter* effects) could play a role. For details, see Graneau's 3 books: Newtonian Electrodynamics; P. Graneau and N. Graneau; World Scientific, 1996. Ampere-Neumann Electrodynamics of Metals; P. Graneau; Hadronic Press, 1994. Newton Vs. Einstein: How Matter Interacts with Matter; P. Graneau and N. Graneau; Carlton Press, 1993. A related book I have not seen yet is: Weber's Electrodynamics; A.K.T. Assis; Kluwer Academic; Dordrecht, 1994. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 15:18:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA17261; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:59:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:59:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607191926.MAA17076@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: >Is the solid opposition which is so apparent on s.p.f and other places >really the way things are? But what about when results like those which >obviously are upcoming from Miley become noticed? I begin to think >that we'll then see a schism in science. Sociologically, this will be >'interesting'. snipped good comments. Yes. Think about it. Note the poetic comment (Longfellow I think) that stated that "and I followed the path less travelled, and that has made all the difference", or something to that effect. This is an observation that people are by and large like sheep. They like the status quo, and so when you come in touting new theories, the are threatened. What you are tacitly telling them is that all of that hard sweat and effort they expended was on something that is incorrect. (or at least that is what they hear). But what you are really trying to say is that what they learned is not yet complete. This point is lost in spf, new theories, and elsewhere. To advocate that you are trying to improve on what they already know is treated like a crackpot clanging in the wind. But you must defend them on that point because out of a thousand posts of inexperienced persons personal theories, there may be one or two that have some validity to them. And to figure out whether or not there is any validity to any particular theory requires a tremendous amount of effort to try to figure out what the person was trying to say, rather than what you think he/she was saying. So the simple knee jerk reaction is to stand on the soap box and to spout off about what the party line is all about rather than to make any attempt to understand how what is being proposed is similar to and how it is different from the currently understood phenomenae. The worst cases are from those who do not even understand what they are defending, or recognize that they are being like zealots and parroting the views they just struggled to learn. Oh, well, life goes on and so too does progress despite the counter productive all accepting lack of creativity of the sheep making up the bulk of our society. We are the ones charged with discovery because we are out with our eyes open and our minds open to the possibility. If your mind is closed, then you certainly will not learn something new. The problem is that many with closed minds honestly think they are open minded. But they have not yet learned how to take a seeming incorrect concept and to turn it upside down, sideways, etc., in order to verify that there is no manner in which their understanding might be flawed. If you do not approach a new concept with the assumption that your understanding is incorrect, then you will learn nothing that you do not already know. I hope that the last statement is clearly an impossible comment to you all. The trick in the statement is that if you already know it, then you cannot learn it, therefore such individuals will implicitly learn nothing on their own. Such individuals will only be convinced when the entire flock makes a turn in a new direction. So be careful not to waste too much time arguing with those in the middle of the flock unless you are speaking loud enough that a few on the fringes of the flock may hear and come to understand. In other words, speak to those at the edge of the flock who are listening to your conversation with those in the middle of the flock. The reason is because turns in flocks are always initiated by those near the outside. Those in the center just follow wherever the flock leads them. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 15:18:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA17813; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:03:08 -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: Equipment Needed! Memory for Compac 386s Deskpro ('88 Vintag X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Equipment Needed! Memory for Compac 386s Deskpro ('88 Vintage) - Hi Vortex gang. I have a Compac 386s Deskpro, vintage about '88, 1 MB ram, 3.5" and 5 1/4" floppies, VGA card, 40 MB hard drive. Does not have "SIM" slots. Has Compac proprietary slot for memory expansion. Seeking to get to 2 MB (minimum) and 4 MB preferable. Trying to do it for <$150 (above that I might as well swap for a 386DX with 4 MB in it for $230 at a local shop). Any suggestions? Local surplus dealers, contacts, etc.? - Thanks! - Call me collect at 612-474-6642 if you find something. Or (not collect) 612-349-4152 during the day (work). Or post here. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 15:26:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA18897; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:10:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:10:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960719202600_76216.2421_HHB53-4@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross - > And finally, a single conductor will have a certain amount of > inductance per unit length which could be balanced I suppose by > placing two conductors side by side to create a transmission line of > fixed impedance to the signal. This makes me think of a tesla coil or other powerful HF driver tuned to a high frequency (>750Khz) coupled to a 1/4 wave dipole with the sliding component at the end. (A Honolulu man was arrested today when he was spotted clinging to the top of the radio broadcast antenna atop the Ala Moana Hotel ... a Honolulu Fire Department helicopter was called in...the small section of pipe the man had attempted to attach to the top of the antenna was determined not to be a bomb...When asked why he had climed the antenna..."physics experiment"..."Maxwell, Lorentz, Einstein all wrong"..."antigravity"...later was taken to Kaneohe State Mental Hospital for observation and intensive drug therapy...) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 21:19:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA17926; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607192318.QAA24541@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>The wing/lift controversy has been going on for decades. It's a battle >>between Bernoulli-believers (wings are "sucked" upwards) and those who >>prefer Newton's 3rd law (wings deflect air downwards.) > >Actually, both are right. While Bernoulli's equation might have been >discovered empirically on its own (actually, I don't know this piece of >science history), in point of fact Bernoulli's equation can be derived >mathematically (ie by a succession of logic operations--no new physics >needed) from Newton's laws of motions applied to the fluid treated as a >collection of small elements. See any reasonable textbook on fluid >dynamics. If above you mean "mathematically", both are right, then fine. Otherwise, **ABSOLUTELY NO, NO, NO** The vacuum does absolutely not "suck". The vacuum simply does not push down, period, end of story. Get down to the mechanisms if you want to understand this. vacuums do not suck, not ever, not once, period, no where. Why is this so hard to get across???????? Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 21:20:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18424; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607192318.QAA24538@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Yes indeed, folks, magnetic motors at nominal 99.99% efficiency are real. >Muller can also do at least that, if ou is too hard to think of. This whole line on these magnets seems utterly absurd to me. What is the big deal? It is like gold miners in the hills up here. It is well known that no matter how much gold has been removed before you, there is always finer and finer gold that remains in the streams. This fact (which can easily be found in any pan of gravel you choose to swish around, and I have done plenty and found a bit as well) leads miners who do not understand percentages of percentages to think that there is some unlimited amount of gold to be had. The simple fact of the matter is, there is a finite amount of gold (or energy) that can be extracted (or converted into useful work). So if you already succeed at removing 95 percent of what is already there, better technology can do no better than to get just 5 more percent even if it works ***perfectly***, which of course is never possible for a non ou device. A better magnet does not an ou device make, period. Now, if he is doing something that results in the batteries giving out more energy than they had stored in them, then we are not talking about better magnets, we are talking about ou. Chatter about wonderful magnets is essentially worthless (a point could be made that with more efficient magnets the mass of the car that must be accelerated is less, and indeed this leads to a non linear economy. But the reality is that the bulk of the weight is in the batteries, not the motors, so this is not as large as it might seem to some). Does he claim ou or not? If he claims high effeciency, then I would vote to eliminate the topic from vortex as discussed and not applicable to ou schemes. If he claims energy greater than the batteries posessed, then even if he is hiding from saying ou for fear of retribution, we should continue to follow his development. So, which is it, efficiency or ou?????? Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 21:23:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18647; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:18:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:18:03 -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: Electrons attract when in semiconductors? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: There's an article in EE Times, 6/24/96, DEVICE BUILDS ARTIFICIAL ATOMS, where R. Ashoori at MIT is building quantum dots onto the gates of microscopic field effect transistors. This allows him to measure the quantity of charge trapped in the quantum dots, with sensitivity down to .0001 of a single electron charge. The tunneling of single electrons into the dot can be monitored. But something strange happens with fairly large quantum dots: "There are some sites that capture more than one electron at a time as you turn on the gate voltage. This is bizarre behavior, because single electrons repel each other. Its almost as though the electrons are uncharged." Doesn't this sound like a Ken Shoulders' effect? Other attracting-electron phenomena are reported elsewhere in the article. When 30 electrons are forced to tunnel into one quantum dot, Ashoori says the circular electron orbits within the quantum dot shrink, and then large numbers of holes are generated, so "electron-hole interactions push electrons into proximity, making it appear as though they are attracting, rather than repelling." I don't understand this last one. Holes must be generated as part of electron/hole *pairs,* so I fail to see how the creation of free electrons AND holes can shield the original electrons and produce attraction. Maybe Ashoori has it wrong, and the attraction is the same as Shoulders' phenomenon, and is not caused by holes. Or maybe he has it right. Speculation filter on maximum! Suppose that high electron density in a semiconductor capacitor plate can generate electron/hole pairs which lead to charge-shielding effects. Might this be a low-energy analog for Shoulders' attractive-electron phenomena? In semiconductors it is possible to free up some movable hole-electron pairs by injecting a little energy into the insulating semiconductor matrix. It sounds to me like Ashoori's semiconductor goes non-linear when electrons are packed in too densely, and this triggers a process which shields electrons from each other. If ZPE effects cause the vacuum to act like a semiconductor, perhaps the presence of high electron density would pull electron/positron pairs out of the vacuum briefly, and their interaction with the electrons would cause shielding and electron-attraction similar to that which Ashoori is seeing inside a solid semiconductor material. An EV droplet then would not be held together by Casmir force, but instead by nonlinear effects produced upon the vacuum by the intense e-field very close to an electron. (Raymond Ashoori is at http://rleweb.mit.edu/p-ASHO.HTM) ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb@eskimo.com www.eskimo.com/~billb EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 21:24:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18894; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:19:31 -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: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Greetings everyone! I'm confused about the reasons mainstream physics has for rejecting the longitudinal magnetic force. How does the following description differ from the mainstream view? ________________________________________________ | | | | | (-) | | | | (-) | | | | | | 1. Two electrons repel each other | |________________________________________________| ________________________________________________ | | | | | (-) -----> | | | | (-) -----> | | | | | | 2. Two electrons moving relative to me | | repel less strongly. | |________________________________________________| - Two electrons repel each other. - If the two electrons are moving together relative to me, then there will be relativistic time dilation, and I will perceive the electrons to repel each other less strongly. - Instead of invoking special relativity, I can instead say that the moving electrons constitute an electric current, the electric current creates an attractive magnetic force, and the magnetic force adds to the electrostatic repulsion, reducing it a bit. - If I associate each electron with an adjacent positive charge which is NOT in relative motion to me (put the electrons inside a wire,) then the electrons will no longer repel each other, but the small attraction force will remain, and I'll call this force "magnetic." My main question is: why must the perceived magnetic attraction force be orthogonal to the electron motion? In other words, won't I see the same magnetic attraction force in both of the situations in No. 3-4 below? And if I say that *I* am moving and the electrons are "still", then how could the orientation of the electrons ever affect the magnetic force that I believe to be acting between them? ________________________________________________ | | | | | (-) -----> | | | | | | (-) -----> | | | | | | 3. Two electrons moving relative to me | | display a small added attraction. | |________________________________________________| ________________________________________________ | | | | | | | (-) -----> (-) -----> | | | | | | 4. The orientation of the electrons shouldn't | | affect the time dilation or attraction. | |________________________________________________| Does the longitudinal magnetic force exist for moving bare electrons but NOT for electrons moving within a wire in proximity to stationary positive charges? If so, then something nonlinear is going on, since I would expect the added positive charges to simply remove the e-field repulsion between the electrons, without affecting their b-field attraction. And finally, if the magnetic force IS only orthogonal to the direction of motion, won't this cause the moving electrons below in No. 5 to experience a torque force between them which lacks a reacting torque? ________________________________________________ | | | | | (-) -----> | | | | | | (-) -----> | | | | | | 5. If these two electrons are connected by a | | rigid rod, won't a magnetic force orthogonal | | to the direction of motion cause the rod to | | rotate, violating Newtons 3rd? | |________________________________________________| ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb@eskimo.com www.eskimo.com/~billb EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 21:25:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19068; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607200326.UAA10904@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Brian To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: UN-SPACE... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To Ross and Others... I am not a quantum physicist, but I am trying. With all the posts recently concerning the cause of gravitation et all, I would like to throw in my two hundred rubles. :) There seems to be a great deal of evidence that matter and energy are the same thing. IF this is true, then what we call matter must be some special but not uncommon circumstance involving energy. We observe gravitation being associated with the presence of matter. Gravitation must be caused be the presence of the special state of energy as mentioned above. When matter and energy interact, you either get a change in the amount energy in a volume of space, a change in the amount of matter in a volume of space, or both. There seems to me to be a relation such as matter+energy per unit volume of space. Getting back to gravitation, I only recall this being an effect measured in the presence of matter (special energy) Could it be that the little particle things we call matter simply be a set of circumstances in which the MAXIMUM amount of energy per unit volume of space has been achieved? In particle accelerator experiments, when energy is added to a bit of matter, and then impact another bit of matter, you get as a result various combinations of matter and energy as a result (more or less of either). Energy radiates away from its source at the speed of light. If you try to add energy to a volume of space at faster and faster rates (energy per unit of time), the amount of energy in that volume of space must increase since it can only move away at the speed of light. It seems to me that if you exceed a certain amount of energy in a unit volume of space in certain critically short periods of time a stress develops in the volume of space that can only be relieved by forming a more stable form of energy: matter. This curious state of energy (matter) must also displace the space in which the energy burst occurred. I think that it might be that this displace- ment of space may be the cause of gravitational forces. Well, thats my theory. I am not clinging to it as my religion, so please feel free to debate it. Please key in and let me know what you folks think! See you later! -Brian QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 21:27:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19168; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607200343.UAA13425@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Brian To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Chicken Reactor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hello Folks, This post may seem a like a stark contrast to my last post regarding hypothetical cause of gravitation, but I it is a bit humerous so I will post it anyway... A scientist I know told me of a study he read concerning the diet of a chicken. This chicken was raised from chick to chicken in a laboratory cage. It was fed a rich diet including everything but CALCIUM. However, when the chicken laid eggs they had a shell just like other chickens' eggs. Where did the calcium for the eggs come from? The proposed theory is that somehow the chicken MADE calium from some other element; hence the name chicken reactor. Has anyone heard of this before? Does anyone on the list raise chickens? This would be a very cheap and easy experiment to duplicate... Which came first, the chicken or the calcium... :) -B From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 19 21:26:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19360; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9607200351.AA01118@moebius.math.ucla.edu> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Barry Merriman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >The wing/lift controversy has been going on for decades. It's a battle >between Bernoulli-believers (wings are "sucked" upwards) and those who >prefer Newton's 3rd law (wings deflect air downwards.) >Actually, both are right....[Bernoulli derivable from Newton] >The controversy is just over which point of view is more intuitive,k Well, not exactly. The problem is that Bernoulli's law, as you point out, is exactly the statement of conservation of energy for a steady state flow in an inviscid, incompressible fluid. I don't think its a valid explanation to say that planes fly because energy is conserved. B's law does not indicate any causal mechanism for generating lift---it simple says that *if* the usual assumed flow pattern exists, then there will be a lift force. I think the real question is why is the lifting flow pattern set up and why is it relatively stable? The explantion for this is essentially the Coando effect, which you can observe by sticking a spoon in a stream of faucet water and noting the stream adheres to the curve of the spoon. Lift is same thing. Unlike B's law, the Coando effect speciefies an actual mechanism for generating the curved flow path. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 00:09:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA13102; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F06689.6522@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: > Snip: > Get down to the mechanisms if you want to understand this. vacuums do not > suck, not ever, not once, period, no where. > > Why is this so hard to get across???????? > > Ross Tessien Gee, Ross, my reference on Bernoulli's theorem makes no mention of "sucking"! I think Michael's point stands valid. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 00:09:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA13575; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F06BB8.412C@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Chicken Reactor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Brian wrote: (Some calcium-free chicken stuff) > Brian, first, I think your original calcium-free chicken would grow up to be a rubber chicken with no skeleton! My wife says that our 5 kids robbed her teeth and skeleton of calcium. Need input........... Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 00:10:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA13773; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720064336_100433.1541_BHG34-2@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: Re: Chicken Reactor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Brian writes about the chicken thing. This is an old and notorious experiment which gets Dieter Britz all hot and cross, like a bun. My own views are increasingly Fortean, in that I take note of reports but don't worry about believing or not believing them. A guy called Kervran reported this, having seen it previously. You feed your chickens on a zero-calcium and zero-potassium diet. They lay soft-shelled eggs. Then you let them have potassium - bingo, hard shells again. That's the tale. Two problems. How did the chicken transmute the K to Ca? Well, after all this about CF cathodes transmuting, maybe. But if the reaction were 39K + p -> 40Ca then we get 8MeV each time. I vaguely recall calculating that out to maybe 30kWh per gram or something like that. So, like the 'dead graduate student' problem of cold fusion, we now have what I have termed (and copyrighted, fellers!) the 'incandescent chicken' problem - why does the chicken not become white hot as its little transmutation furnace does the trick? Actually, Isaac Asimov (I'm almost sure it was him) did a wonderful SF story about the biochemistry of a goose that laid golden eggs. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 00:37:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA17511; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:35:38 -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: Chicken Reactor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Sorry Chris, I don't think your copyright for a two word phrase 'incandescent chicken' will hold up in the US. Might hold up as a trademark if you stamped something commercial with it before shipping, or maybe even as a service mark if you stamp it on something you "service". 8^) Anyone heard of any spontaneous chicken combustion cases lately? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 00:40:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA17576; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720072839_76216.2421_HHB36-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross - >>> "Why is this so hard to get across????????" Because some of us might be thinking along the lines of the article, that there might be a viscous or surface tension sort of attraction between the upper surface and the air molecules above, that it yanks them downwards, and an upward reaction yanks back on the wing (Coando effect?). Normally, we'd probably think that thermal energy, let alone turbulence and so forth from a fast moving slipstream, would completely overwhelm such effects at any given encounter between molecules. But I got the impression that the argument is that the effect is there anyway, such that if you were to equalize and cancel out the pressure above and below an airfoil section, perhaps with guide vanes above and below to flatten the pressure differential between upper and lower surfaces, there would still be a net *attracting* and therefore lifting force between the top surface and the air above. Maybe there's something to it. At large Reynolds numbers, there's an awful lot of reaction mass available to momentarily grab hold of in any given instant. I'm not necessarily arguing for this thing, it sounds pretty fishy to me too. But wasn't it you who just posted that wonderful piece about looking at things in a different light, to see just exactly what it is the people with the new ideas are trying to convey? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 05:50:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA08380; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 05:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 05:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607201241.HAA21268@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: Electrons attract when in semiconductors? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A At 09:18 PM 7/19/96 -0700, BillB wrote: >There's an article in EE Times, 6/24/96, DEVICE BUILDS ARTIFICIAL ATOMS, >where R. Ashoori at MIT is building quantum dots.... what are quantum dots? >Doesn't this sound like a Ken Shoulders' effect? Yes, it does... - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 06:16:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA09904; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 06:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 06:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960720090516.49077f96@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: Chicken Reactor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 12:06 AM 7/20/96 -0700, you wrote: >Brian wrote: (Some calcium-free chicken stuff) >> Brian, first, I think your original calcium-free chicken would grow up >to be a rubber chicken with no skeleton! My wife says that our 5 kids >robbed her teeth and skeleton of calcium. Need input........... > >Frank Stenger > > Frank, with all due respect, the kids are innocent and ought not be blamed. their fetal predecessors are guilty, but it was her responsibility to refill her own calcium stores after pregnancy. assuming there is no underlying endocrine, or mineral metabolism abnormality, even a normal healthy elderly woman is at risk by chronic inadequate intake of oral calcium, and the teeth are just the barometer. why? the brain and heart need calcium, and will take it from the bones, in a fit of active transport, osteoclast activation, protein transport, and forced redistribution. the calcium loss devastates the rigid strong composite bone leading toward the ultimate structural integrity of dead rat tail. the ultimate tensile strength of postmenopausal calcium deprived woman is that their bone will fall from about 18 kilopsi (18,000 pounds per square inch) to about 8-13,000 psi as the deficit in the bones worsen. at that point in time, because the hip can amplify force/area, a mistep going down steps can yield avoidable tragedy with catastrophic bone fracture. it can be avoided. she needs 1-2 grams of oral calcium a day, and can chew on chalk or one of the commercial more pleasant preparations. a nice tan would help since vitamin D is necessary for calcium absorption lower down in the gastrointestinal tract. thats the input. (was kidding about the chalk, although am told it works. they would probably have additives and adhesives in chaulk, and the commercial tums-like preps are actually both tasty and obtund dyspepsia. best wishes, hopes that helps and avoids at least one path fracture. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 07:23:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA17882; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 07:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 07:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960720101243.13a71e80@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: Recent information on cold fusion available X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Information on cold fusion - the loading of low nuclear weight isotopes into heavier transition metals is available. 1- The COLD FUSION TIMES web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html is now updated with the last two issues. Follow the "TIMELINE"-choice to the past and present issues, or the links for other info. 2- Cold Fusion Times vol 4 number 3 is out. The COLD FUSION TIMES presents hard-core science and engineering issues, with analysis of developments in the field. Discussions and contents in this issue include the following: - Quality Confirmations of Cold Fusion - Report from EPRI is Available - NASA Results using a Nickel System - Reports on Low Temperature Physics - CF/Sonoluminescence Motion Pictures - Reviews of Over Unity Devices - Cold Fusion -- now a Virtual Reality - Analysis of the CERN Impact on the Italian Court Judgement - Reports from China, US National Labs, EPRI, NASA, Washington, Cambridge, .... - Updates on Equipment, Supplies, Consulting Available - Practical Information and Reference Vectors - "What's Happening", "Material Science and Engineering" - "People in the News" columns - Proton Semiconductor Info and more From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 07:32:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA18192; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 07:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 07:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720141400_100433.1541_BHG62-3@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: Re: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A First my appreciation to Robert Stirniman for his interesting posts on Ampere forces. It would be of nice to know whether the introduction of the force into the 'field' equations would leave us with substantially the same predictions as standard relativity. And Rick Monteverde's warning is timely - some of us might have been tempted to visit Hawaii, where they would have us all pumped to the eyeballs with various psychoactive drugs in a desperate attempt to cure us of our lunacy. Don't let 'em get you, Rick! Man the barricades against those big, gently-spoken fellows in the white suits! As to the comments on my not being able to copyright 'incandescent chicken', I shall have to follow the path of other great innovators: lock myself in a lifelong struggle with Authority and drive myself completely bats in the process. On Bill's comments about longitudinal force, I suppose I had always thought about it like this: we have a cylindrical magnetic field around a wire, right? And we can think of those as little discs, one from each 'current element'. Now, if we have a bar magnet and slice it along its N-S axis - what happens? The two halves repel, don't they? In fact, two NIBs will break strong glue to get away from one another. So - maybe it's the heat and it being the weekend - but what's the big deal? Sure, the bits of a wire will repel one another and snap the wire if there's enough amps. Or am I being unusually thick today? I suppose it means something terribly profound about the association of an electric urrent with the matter through which it travels, but isn't that what the Ampere force is all about? Chris (with that sinking feeling of having missed something terribly basic) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 07:37:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA20645; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 07:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 07:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F0EDC6.19A3@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Chicken Reactor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: Snip: > thats the input. (was kidding about the chalk, although > am told it works. they would probably > have additives and adhesives in chaulk, > and the commercial tums-like preps are > actually both tasty and obtund dyspepsia. > > best wishes, hopes that helps and avoids at least one > path fracture. > > Mitchell Swartz Gee, thanks Mitchell! Wait! I hear my wife coming now - her and the dog - it's time for my morning bone-building, multi-mile, forced march! Trixie! Let go of my leg (dog, not wife!) Help! Save me............. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 09:59:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA12666; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 09:49:51 -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: Raymond Ashoori, and Why Not Protons? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Raymond Ashoori, and Why Not Protons? $500,000 FELLOWSHIP Ashoori Wins Packard for Work on `Artificial Atoms' News Office Assistant Professor Raymond Ashoori of physics, who won a $500,000 David and Lucile Packard Fellowship this fall for his work in developing a technique that is aiding scientists' research with "artificial atoms," clearly remembers how it all began. "That first experiment [in 1991] was pretty wild," Professor Ashoori, 29, said. "At the time, I was told it wouldn't work-it would be too difficult." But late one night about a year later Dr. Ashoori, then a postdoc at experiment has since led to a technique known as single-electron capacitance spectroscopy, which "allows single electrons to be manipulated and rapidly detected with extraordinary sensitivity [as they enter or leave an artificial atom]," Professor Ashoori said. Scientists have been creating artificial atoms, which are key to basic research in condensed-matter physics and could have a variety of applications in the semiconductor industry, for the last 10 years. Like real atoms, artificial atoms contain electrons, and scientists would like to understand how these electrons interact. But until Dr. Ashoori's work (in collaboration with colleagues at AT&T), they could only study masses of electrons-more than about 100-which precluded observations of individual interactions. In other words, the resolution of previous techniques was limited. Single-electron capacitance spectroscopy, however, has solved that problem. It allows scientists to study interactions between individual electrons by measuring the change in electrical charge associated with created by sandwiching a layer of the semiconducting material gallium arsenide between two layers of insulating material. The "atom" corresponds to a tiny area in the center of the gallium arsenide.) When voltage is applied, electrons "tunnel" from one conducting plate- "it's like an electron reservoir," Dr. Ashoori said-to the artificial atom. The electrons are attracted to the specially configured "atom" much like electrons in a real atom are attracted to the nucleus. The movement of single electrons to the artificial atom can be detected, Professor Ashoori said, "because when a single electron tunnels from the reservoir plate to the atom, it induces a tiny amount of charge on the other plate." And that charge can be detected "to determine what voltage is required to bring one electron into the artificial atom," he said. Already Professor Ashoori has used the technique to study phenomena that scientists have long been interested in but heretofore could not observe. For example, he has been able to detect a single electron's which it is spinning, which in turn forces it into a higher energy state. Professor Ashoori notes that spin flipping in a real two-electron atom- otherwise known as helium-requires a magnetic field stronger than that on the surface of the sun. Spin flipping can be coaxed from electrons in an artificial atom because such atoms are much, much bigger than the real thing. "The large size of the artificial atom tends to magnify interactions between two electrons," he said. Professor Ashoori is excited about future work with single-electron capacitance spectroscopy, and with the help of the Packard Fellowship he plans to continue studying the effects of magnetic fields on the electrons in artificial atoms. (He will receive $100,000 in unrestricted funds per year for five years to support his research.) In addition, he would like to apply single-electron capacitance spectroscopy to the study of other small things. "It has broad applications in terms of what you can do," he said. For example, "you single traps, he said, "we can learn more about them, and perhaps take them out." Professor Ashoori is among 20 young university faculty from around the United States to receive Packard Fellowships this year. The Fellowships were established to further the work of promising young scientists and engineers, and to encourage a steady flow of talented graduate students to undertake university research in this country, according to a press release from the Packard Foundation. Explained David Packard, chairman of the Foundation and co-founder of Hewlett-Packard Company, "Many of the most important technological contributions of this century have come from university faculty members who began their research early in their careers and have worked in their areas of interest over a long period of time. We want to nurture this kind of research." addition to Professor Ashoori, they are: Moungi Bawendi, chemistry, 1992; Scott Virgil, chemistry, 1991; Jacqueline Hewitt, physics, 1990; Ruth Lehmann, biology, 1989, and Arthur Lander, brain and cognitive sciences, 1988. This issue of Tech Talk has been provided by The Tech from data on the MIT From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 10:42:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA19554; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 10:36:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 10:36:26 -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: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris wrote: > >On Bill's comments about longitudinal force, I suppose I had always thought >about it like this: we have a cylindrical magnetic field around a wire, right? >And we can think of those as little discs, one from each 'current element'. >Now, if we have a bar magnet and slice it along its N-S axis - what happens? >The two halves repel, don't they? In fact, two NIBs will break strong glue to >get away from one another. > >So - maybe it's the heat and it being the weekend - but what's the big deal? >Sure, the bits of a wire will repel one another and snap the wire if there's >enough amps. Or am I being unusually thick today? > >I suppose it means something terribly profound about the association of an >electric urrent with the matter through which it travels, but isn't that what >the Ampere force is all about? > >Chris >(with that sinking feeling of having missed something terribly basic) It nags at the back of my brain that the existence of positive charge in wires seems to be completely overlooked when dealing with EM effects. It just seems this convenience, although a major convenience, when burned into the brain, could lead intuition into some nonsensical thinking or unxplained effects. Magnetism is based on velocity. However velocity is only a relative term (I am not speaking about relativity here). Magnetic effects between two charges must be must therefore be based on their relative velocity. The force on a particle can not be two different values, the particle can have only one direction of motion (unless, of course, light speed and multiple obervers are involved, but that is outside of this context). The interresting thing about wires, where most of our experience with EM lies, is that relative motion is buried by the fact that the electrons move through a sea of opposite charged positive particles, thus simple relative motion of an observer sees the simple relative motion delta v electron effects exactly offset by the delta v proton effects. In the above context, it makes sense to me that the electrons see "magnetic disks" of the relatively moving protons, while the protons see the relatively moving disks of the electrons. Since opposing motion of opposite charges is similar to the same direction motion of like charges, you would expect the primary result to be a pinch. Some portion of the pinch vector, when the pinch occurs, will be longitudinal. Also, as Chris so aptly observes, parallel magnetic flux repels. The wire should tend to pull itself apart. However, does this mean there is a net longitudinal force on the wire? It seems to me that this longitudinal force is the result of a form of electrical resistance. At the time electron motion is induced, the electromotive force generating the electron motion should exert an equal but opposite force on the charge balancing protons, which are tied to massive atomic systems. However, the protons, being tied to massive atomic systems, will not exhibit much in the way of motion compared to the spritely electrons. Net momentum should always be zero. Since conducting wire is a loop a small angular momentum should be imparted to the copper in the direction opposite to the electrons motion induced by the EMF, and the same angular momentum taken away via the wire resistance. The interresting exception to this is the case of one-way motion caused by electrons moving through a straight wire from one charged sphere to another. Here net momentum is still zero throughout the duration of electron motion, yet the copper wire should be expected to move laterally while the electrons are in opposing motion. Since the mass of the electrons in motion is very small, the copper wire acceleration force would be very small. The motion would also stop when the electrons decellerated upon reaching the opposing sphere. However, a net translation of the copper wire should result. The difficulty to practical use for generating motion is in restoring the initial conditions without reversing the copper wire's translation. Does all this gibberish make sense? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 11:09:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23320; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 11:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 11:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607201753.KAA26346@dfw-ix12.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: Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion" Effect X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: July, 20, 1996 Saturday Back around the time of the ICCF-5 (1995), Dr. Edmund Storms Physicist (hot fusion) of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Retired) had a few copies of a pre-print "Review of Cold Fusion" which he had submitted to the Physical Review B. The 'Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion" Effect' has finally appeared in public print. It has appeared in the Journal of Scientific Exploration Volume 10, Number 2 Summer, 1996 ISSN 0892-3310. This is a publication of the Society for Scientific Exploration printed quarterly. Tel. 415-593-8581, Fax 415-595-4466. Membership is open to anybody with a science bent for about $50.00/year including the publication. The Review covers 190 studies on the cold fusion effect as contrasted with 170 studies in the pre-print copy. It is a 59 page presentation including a 12 page reference list of 193 papers to a broad range of over-unity studies. I think it behooves the membership of the Vortex to obtain a copy (or join the SSE) of the Review for a convenient current reference of the cold fusion field. I think many of us felt a sense of vindication when a valid hot fusioneer physicist joined the cold fusion field. The Abstract of the Review has a last sentence: "The field can no longer be dismissed by invoking obvious error or prosaic explanations." This is now an understatement to most vortexers. The greater public has to be made aware of this fact. Drs. Potapov (& son) and Glueck are now in the United States (Detroit) enroute to LANL ---- interesting times! -AK- ps: I guess the Physical Review has not matured enough to accept his Review. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 11:36:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA27111; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 11:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 11:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607201815.LAA29675@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Greetings Rick; >Because some of us might be thinking along the lines of the article, that there >might be a viscous or surface tension sort of attraction between the upper >surface and the air molecules above, that it yanks them downwards, and an >upward reaction yanks back on the wing (Coando effect?). >I'm not necessarily arguing for this thing, it sounds pretty fishy to me too. >But wasn't it you who just posted that wonderful piece about looking at things >in a different light, to see just exactly what it is the people with the new >ideas are trying to convey? At least here you are expressing that you are considering some form of attractive force that I gather is unknown, ie some form of vacuum attraction which is separate from the kinetic interactions of material molecules in our air. And touche on the consideration aspects, so I'll play along. If the effect is derived from interaction of air molecules on the wing, then the mechanism of this in all of our fluid dynamic models that I studied in school originate from the kinetic energy and the momentum of the molecules as they collide. This is how Bernoullis equation and all other fluid dynamic equations are derived, ie based on interactions from one particle of matter to another particle of matter via interatomic forces when they get really close. It cannot simply be an effect of the vacuum without those forces or else the Space Shuttle would fly straight when in space as well as when in air. So that rules out some vacuum effect. When we are left with molecules, they are neutral in charge and magnetically neutral or randomly oriented. That rules out EM effects. The molecules are further apart that the nuclear force can reach, so nuclear strong and weak are out. Gravitation is far too weak a force of interaction, and it is acting downward any way so the air foil is not attracted upward to the lower density air above so gravitation is out. This leaves us with just one parameter that is still a part of the process, namely the kinetic energy of the impacts of molecules. That kinetic energy transfer arises due to the collisions of one atom or molecule with another. Collisions occur from air to air molecules and are known to occur with a characteristic mean free path that is a function of the T P profile of the gas. But air to air collisions will have no affect on the airfoil since it did not feel the impacts between two air molecules no mater where they are since they are neutral and have no means with which to communicate the collision over to the air foil (again if such occured via some new vacuum force then the shuttle would fly while in space and it does not) They can also occur between the air molecules and the surface of the craft. When this happens, the interatomic bonding of the atoms in the airfoil **CAN** communicate the impacts to the balance of the "crystal", ie airfoil. If we draw a control volume around the whole airfoil we find four planes of contact vectors that are useful in engineering to discuss. Two are horizontal and two are vertical. By summing forces on the vertical planes, we learn that there is a greater net force directed in the direction of the air flow (opposite to the direction of motion of the air foil, depends on whether you are thinking in terms of a wind tunnel or a flying airplane), and a lesser force directed in the opposite direction due to the rarefaction of the air behind the wing. This is drag. On the horizontal planes we again can sum all of the force vectors around the air foil and we find that there is a certain force directed downward and another one directed upward. The latter is greater, and it is applied to the surface under the foil. All of these forces are the result of direct collisions of air molecules on the actual, physical surface of the air foil. These collision may be communicated into the boundary layer film of air, but that air is at a certain temperature and pressure. Pressure simply means density, or number of molecules in a given region, ie energy density. And Temperature is simply a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms in the material in question. In other words, when the atoms of a given material ricochet off of your fingers atoms, how hard are they hitting? That is temperature. You can derive temperature from the atomic motions directly via the equation KE=mv^2/2. So, I will play along in looking for this mysterious vacuum force, but please tell me where in the above it is hiding? I find no room in experiments for the least bit of ambiguity. The air foil is forced to accelerate rearward and upward by the kinetic impacts of air molecules against the metalic crystalline structure of the foil (acceleration is the result of all forces. That acceleration is transmitted throughout the lattice, and summed with other accelerations like gravity, to determine the net airfoil acceleration which is ofter zero) I am happy to play along here, but I really feel it is intrinsically important to come to understand that there is no such thing as an attractive force in a fluid dynamic universe. To take the concept further would entail tying strings from Andromeda galaxy to earth in order to "pull" earth toward Andromeda via gravitation. Shielding makes more sense at every level and one can obtain logical mechanisms for the wave mechanical compressions that will result. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 12:08:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01655; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:01:21 -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: Real longitudinal force? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > On Bill's comments about longitudinal force, I suppose I had always thought > about it like this: we have a cylindrical magnetic field around a wire, right? > And we can think of those as little discs, one from each 'current element'. > Now, if we have a bar magnet and slice it along its N-S axis - what happens? > The two halves repel, don't they? In fact, two NIBs will break strong glue to > get away from one another. > > So - maybe it's the heat and it being the weekend - but what's the big deal? > Sure, the bits of a wire will repel one another and snap the wire if there's > enough amps. Or am I being unusually thick today? Hi Chris! But the Ampere force is supposed to be longitudinally attractive, no? I agree that it's convenient to imagine that each current element in a wire generates a disk of b-field. But is this real? What if we zoom our microscope all the way in, and imagine that each current element is acutally a moving charged particle. Does each electron carry an infinitely-thin disk of b-field along with it? If so, then electrons would only experience pinch forces if they were marching perfectly abreast through the wire, no? | | * > > > | one moving electron with its | thin disk of b-field. | | * > > > | two electrons won't experience magnetic | | pinch forces if not perfectly aligned? | * > > > | | If the fields are in the form of thin disks, then beams of charged particles of uniform velocity wouldn't exhibit a pinch force, since the particles would rarely line up perfectly enough that their disks interacted. I had previously always imagined moving charges to carry a b-field which fills the same space as their e-fields, somewhat like this: ||||| ||||||||| |||||*||||| > > > direction of motion > > > ||||||||| ||||| I see what you mean about repulsion. If electrons march abreast through a wire, they should attract and exhibit the pinch force, but if they march single-file, their field patterns imply that they should experience magnetic repulsion. These forces would be in addition to the eletrons' normal electrostatic repulsion, of course. It shouldn't be totally impossible to verify the reality of the thin disks of b-field. Make a wire having very sparse carrier population: use a hose full of deionized water, then add a tiny bit of salt and connect the hose ends to a DC supply. Wind a one-turn thin-film coil around the hose. Look at the noise being picked up by the coil, and see if there are sub-picosecond spikes caused by magnetic disks, or are there nanosecond spikes caused by magnetic fuzz-balls. Not EASY, but not impossible. ....................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 Sat Jul 20 12:09:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA02004; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Chicken Reactor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > A scientist I know told me of a study he read concerning the diet of a >chicken. This chicken was raised from chick to chicken in a laboratory cage. It >was fed a rich diet including everything but CALCIUM. However, when the chicken >laid eggs they had a shell just like other chickens' eggs. Where did the >calcium for the eggs come from? The proposed theory is that somehow the chicken >MADE calium from some other element; hence the name chicken reactor. One problem I have with this experiment, without knowing the details, is that all biological cells contain some calcium--maybe not a lot, but detectable. Ca is necessary for certain cell functions. Therefore, if this experimental chicken was fed any food derived from cells, then it was also receiving some calcium. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 12:14:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA02208; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:04:49 -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: Demo Software with Utility attached... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Demo Software with Utility attached... - As the Vortex list might have guessed, I have begun to form an obsession as an adjunct to Cold Fusion---I.e. collecting "Demo" software that is "quasi functional". (Primarily can't save, can't print stuff.) - I would suggest two other Internet available downloads which may be of interest to the Vortex: CircuitMaker---Although you can't save or print, you CAN build wonderful schematics on this, capture with Ctrl-PrintScrn, put into Paintbrush and print them out on a 300 to 600 DPI laser and get great results. - Type in "CircuitMaker" on a web search and you will find it. - Another one that is DYNAMITE is VISSIM. Tupe that in at a web search, the company is now located UK. Download this demo. The AMAZING thing about this demo is that it READS and OUTPUTS ASCII data files. This thing allows you do do a VARIETY of processing of ASCII data, quickly, transparently, easily. It even lets you print the screens. Just the DEMO files themselves are dynamite. - Last: Check under "Working Model". Their demo has some USEFUL simulations, which you can "modify" to use. Like the automobile accident senerio. Again, does not save or print, but you can capture the screen quite easily. (Working Model is by Knowledge Revolution.) - Anyother suggestions? MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 12:57:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA08820; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:50:44 -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: Electrons attract when in semiconductors? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Scott Little wrote: > At 09:18 PM 7/19/96 -0700, BillB wrote: > >There's an article in EE Times, 6/24/96, DEVICE BUILDS ARTIFICIAL ATOMS, > >where R. Ashoori at MIT is building quantum dots.... > > what are quantum dots? > Tiny raised pillars etched onto the surface of semiconductor wafers. I think the top of the pillar is usually made conductive, while the rest of the pillar is insulating. The dimensions of the conductive dot are small enough that wave mechanics of electrons become very significant. The SciAm has had articles on the physics in the last few years. Also stuff on lasers based on arrays of quantum dots. Search WWW for "quantum dot" ....................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 Sat Jul 20 12:58:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA09048; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607201919.MAA05541@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 7/20/96 You wrote: snip . . . >I am happy to play along here, but I really feel it is intrinsically >important to come to understand that there is no such thing as an >attractive force in a fluid dynamic universe. To take the concept >further would entail tying strings from Andromeda galaxy to earth in >order to "pull" earth toward Andromeda via gravitation. Shielding >makes more sense at every level and one can obtain logical mechanisms >for the wave mechanical compressions that will result. > >Later, Ross Tessien Hey Ross, Check out van der Waals forces. Incidently, He won the Nobel prize in 1910 for his studies of intermolecular forces in gases and liquids. They include, but are not limited to, dipole-dipole forces, temporary dipole (London forces) and hydrogen bonding which is a case of special dipole-dipole interaction. I'm ever so shocked that a man who is trying to solicit $2,000.000.00 on a theory alone, would have such a superficial knowledge of physicics and chemistry. If you are not humble, you will stumble. RWW From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 13:27:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA13536; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 13:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 13:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720200828_100433.1541_BHG42-1@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: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: What Horace says about currents in metal conductors is very interesting. He's pushed the way I was thinking along a notch. Peter Graneau makes it clear that one puzzle is that standard relativistic electrodynamics works jest fine for particle physics. So, if there is a difference in solid conductors, maybe we have a hope of finding something peculiar in physics. Here are a few thoughts: 1. Basic EM of wires and magnets was pretty much abandoned in around the 1920s, possibly because of the growing acceptance of relativity at about that time. Before that, the journals were full of all kinds of queer findings - and after that the whole thing sort of died. 2. Perhaps my idea can explain the Ampere force without any modification to Maxwellian ideas. 3. Or perhaps it is - as Horace suggests - the presence of the metal ions 'moving the other way'. But a copper ion masses more than 100,000 times as much as an electron. 4. If (3) is true then maybe that fits Maxwell. But unless (2) is true (and we are assuming the Ampere force is real) then there is a loophole in conventional electrodynamics - as applied to metal conductors. 5. If there is - as so many claim, but so few publish numbers - a 'free lunch' in EM, then we should be looking at any very obvious anomalies - in the hope of using them. I have the feeling that there are just too many cracks being papered over in basic physics, and that the physics of 2010 is going to be about as much like that of 1995, as 1910 physics resembled 1895 - not much. But we need anomalies to make that happen, and an anomaly has to be an *accepted* anomaly. So if we assume the Ampere force exists (in metals only) then that gives us a chance to look for the reason. It's quite irrelevant to argue whether the force exists or not - what needs to be done is some serious thinking based on the notion that it *does*. And I will admit that I do have a nice warm feeling about the Ampere force taking people somewhere. How about it - assembled intellects? Any bright ideas about how metal conduction is unlike any other? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 13:52:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA16177; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 13:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 13:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720202253_75110.3417_CHK49-1@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: Chicken Reactor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Mitchell, >> he needs 1-2 grams of oral calcium a day, and can chew on chalk or one of the commercial more pleasant preparations. a nice tan would help since vitamin D is necessary for calcium absorption lower down in the gastrointestinal tract. << Don't forget that vitamin C is vital to calcium absorption and distribution in the body. 1-2 grams of calcium without 1 gram (or so) of vit C will result in calcium deposits in the joints over a period of time. Vit C is a precursor to the calcium ion transport mechanisms in the body. Adequate magnesium must also be present. (IOW, don't increase one thing without increasing related micro-nutrients.) Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 14:35:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA23133; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 14:29:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 14:29:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720211612_100433.1541_BHG69-1@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: Longit. force, Chickens, Atlanta X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thanks, Bill Beaty, for the comments on Ampere force. I'd really like it if we could bang something together out of this - like I say, *assuming* the Ampere force is real. All comments are helpful. On Mike's comments on chickens - without accepting the experiments, I think it's fair to say that an eggshell needs a lot of Ca. And *if* one can devise a diet which produces soft-shelled eggs, and then add K to it and get hard-shelled eggs....? On a lighter note, here is some comment from one of my correspondents: ----------------------------------------- >From today's Times. >From Quentin Letts in Atlanta With the glitter of 1.6 million sequins, 5,000 fireworks and $300 million of cold-steel security, President Clinton was opening the 26th Olympic Games in sweltering Atlanta last night. Four years ago the Barcelona Olympics attracted 13 world leaders, but this time Mr Clinton was the only head of government there - although other notables on offer included the Croatian Deputy Prime Minister and Virginia Bottomley. They were being entertained by that great symbol of the Deep South - a fleet of chrome pick-up trucks, parading in formation. An unfortunate choice, perhaps, since such vehicles are the trademark of the rednecks whose idea of a grand night out is to [deleted on the grounds of international harmony]. With the temperature index hitting 105 degrees, the cast for the four hour opening ceremony drank a million bottles of water during rehearsals, and medical orderlies were on standby to treat heatstroke. Atlanta's police and games officials have been equipped with pith hats, making the shorter, fatter ones look like Lofty from "It Ain't Half Hot Mum". [an early BBC sitcom, 'Lofty' was an extremely short, fat soldier with shorts, pith helmet and wire glasses] The day began badly for the FBI. A large number of its agents were roused at dawn to be told that their hotel had failed safety tests. FBI men, holsters strapped around their pyjamas, were told to find other accommodation - not easy in a city that has been fully booked for months. The American boxing team was meanwhile embarrassed by the realisation that a large number of its members had a criminal background and their combined police record resembled the prize fighting squad of HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs. Atlanta's main shopping arcade was also licking its wounds after a blatant attempt to rip off tourists backfired splendidly. The complex tried to charge a $5 entry fee, resulting in a mass boycott. It was the same story in Central Atlanta car parks which tried to charge $40 a car and were almost deserted. The Chinese Squad have complained about the food in the Olympic Village and refused to eat the hamburgers and ribs on offer. The bill for gas for the Olympic torch will be approx. $31,000. This will be paid for partly by NBC television whose advertisements for the Games feature people playing cricket. In fact, the noble game has not been an Olympic Sport since 1900 when the Devon & Somerset Wanderers won gold for Britain. ---------------------------------------------- Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 15:12:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA27662; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 15:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 15:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F1585A.1E83@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Bill Beaty's fuzz balls X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A William Beaty wrote: Snip: > Look at the noise being picked up by the coil, and see if there are > sub-picosecond spikes caused by magnetic disks, or are there nanosecond > spikes caused by magnetic fuzz-balls. Not EASY, but not impossible. Good discussion Bill! As I look at the Biot-Savart law, assuming you can treat a moving electron as a current element, it looks like your magnetic fuzz-ball model should be correct! There should be B-lines in front of and behind the electron. But wait! The field varies like the sine of the angle between the electron-field-point line and the trajectory line. This would mean that each of two in-line-of-motion electrons would not feel the magnetic field of the other! Also, one electron would not see the other as a current unless there was RELATIVE motion between them! MICHAEL SCHAFFER, H E L P! If I ever sound like I understand electromagnetics, will somebody HIT ME WITH A STICK UNTIL I STOP! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 15:58:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA02627; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 15:49:48 -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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >If you are not humble, you will stumble. > >RWW > >From a creativity viewpoint, nothing comes from inertness, therefor nothing good comes from inertness. It takes a big ego to tackle big problems, be the ego hidden or not. So, the important thing is action, be it stumbling or not. Stumbling is good from a creativity viewpoint, and to be encouraged! Speaking of stumbles, I know there is the old thing about integrating the charge on a sphere and showing the center of charge is the center of the sphere, etc. I just wonder if there is not some inconsistency about this, if maybe the charge of an electron, being spread over a wider volume, a larger debroglie wavelength at a given velocity, a greater volume psi^2 distribution, is maybe somehow different from the charge of a proton, which is spread less. Here's an example of what I mean. Consider two proximal atoms A and B. For simplicity, lets consider each nucleus to be of charge 2Q and centered at a point. Consider a plane through the two points the nuclei occupy. This plane cuts each atom's electron cloud into two symmetric sections. Each section must have a center of charge. Call the points of centers of charge QA1, QA2, and QA3 for atom A and QB1, QB2, and QB3 for atom B, where QA2 and QB2 are each the nuclei of charge +2Q and the other centers of charge are each -Q. QA1 and QB1 are opposed. Here's a picture: QA1 QB1 } distance x QA2 <-- distance d --> QB2 } distance x QA3 QB3 Now, if we consider, as standard practice, all the charges to be located at the center of mass we have the force between the two atoms as zero. As we separate the centers of charge by increasing x, the forces between opposed centers F(QA1, QB1), F(QA2, QB2), F(QA3, QB3), remain unchanged, but the forces on diagonals change. For example, F(QA1,QB2) = (k)(-2)/(d^2+x^2), and F(QA1,QB3) = (k)(1)/(d^2+4x^2). Breaking out the component vectors we can immediately see that there must be a laterally compressive force on the atoms due to the sudden addition of diagonal forces as x increases. Further, the net longitudinal change in force on the electrons, due to the opposing atoms, must be attractive as x increases, simply because the distance between diagonal electron clouds, for example, QA1 and QA3 grows faster than the distance between the electron cloud and the opposing nucleus, i.e. QA1 and QA2. The net force between the nuclei and the opposing atom becomes more repulsive as x increases because, in effect, the sheilding of the electron cloud moves away. To make calculation simpler let's express F in terms where D is unity and k is removed so we get the following table of individual forces between centers of charge: F B1 B2 B3 A1 1 -2/(1+x^2) 1/(1+4x^2) A2 -2/(1+x^2) 4 -2/(1+x^2) A3 1/(1+4x^2) -2/(1+x^2) 1 Summing the forces, we get: F = 1 + 4 + 1 + 4(-2/(1+x^2)) + 2(1/(1+4x^2)) F = 6 + 2/(1+4x^2) - 8/(1+x^2) Note that at x = 0 we have F= 6 + 2 - 8 = 0. The valid range for x is 0 to .5, otherwise the atoms are overlapped. From the laterallly compressing force we can see the upper limit on x must be lower than that, because as the atoms approach they should elongate and form dipoles. If we now break out the longitudinal force vectors only, we multiply by cos1 = 1/(1+x^2)^0.5 and cos2 = 1/(1+4x^2)^0.5, i.e. for triangles with far sides of x and 2x, so we get: F = 6 + (2/(1+4x^2))1/((1+x^2)^0.5) - (8/(1+x^2))(1/(1+4x^2)^0.5) However, evaluating at .5 we get F = 6 + (1)(0.7071) - 6.4(.8944) = 0.9829, a net repulsion. No matter where we calculate in the range x = 0 to .5 we get a positive value betweeen 0 and 0.9829. Thus, as neutral atoms approach we should see a repulsion. The Casimir force has a weak competitor? The original assumption of action everywhere equivalent to center of charge (F = 0) seems invalidated. So, where did I stumble? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 16:00:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA03501; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 15:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 15:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720224909_76216.2421_HHB31-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross - In my message I mentioned "surface tension". Richard called 'em by their formal name: Van der Waals forces. Again, I emphasize I don't know what this is all about. I've never been able to understand the simple spoon trick in terms of aerodynamic theory either, but in my case that's not saying much, if you catch my drift. So I just went out to the garage, turned on the air compressor with the jet tip attached, and shot a thin stream of air over a spoon. With angle of attack as near zero as I could make it, the spoon still lifted into the stream. Air impacting and compressing against the rising leading edge curve of the spoon should have counteracted the rarification action on the area to the rear on the roughly symmetrical spoon. There was essentially still air above the air jet beyond where it impinged on the spoon's surface, and still air below the underside of the spoon. But the effect was quite strong. I felt no corresponding reaction force on the nozzle wanting to twist it in my hand towards the spoon, so whatever was happening was out there between the spoon and the air and not propagating back to the nozzle, as we would expect in either case. What was it? I don't believe all the conditions in your elegant descriptions of standard wing aerodynamics in a normal top-and-bottom slipstream were not met in the experiment I just performed. How can the results be accounted for? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 16:00:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA03619; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 15:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 15:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720225153_100433.1541_BHG76-1@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: Re: Bill Beaty's fuzz balls X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank writes, > If I ever sound like I understand electromagnetics, will somebody > HIT ME WITH A STICK UNTIL I STOP! Yup. The upsetting thing is that we all learn this stuff parrot- fashion, and later if we get any really awkward questions we gradually start to realise that it ain't necessarily so - the things that we're li'ble to read in the bible. What bothers me is why (with EM being the basis of physics, in my mind at least) none of the problems seem to bother many physicists. So many of them seem perfectly happy with it all. That truly puzzles me. Like Hering's experiment (deliciously referenced as Tr A.I.E.E XXVII (1908), Part II, p1341 or The Electrician, LXXV (July 16,1915)p.559). Rats, I was going to try to describe it but it's beyond my ASCII art abilities; it's the old flux-linkage/flux-cutting thing. Or maybe it's just me. But seriously folks, couldn't we (i.e. you) just work out if the Ampere force really does conflict with Maxwell/Lorentz? And if it does, could we (you) work out what that means? Assume throughout that *everybody* is right. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 16:14:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA04740; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 16:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 16:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720230102_76216.2421_HHB63-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ***CORRECTION*** I said: < "I don't believe all the conditions in your elegant descriptions of < standard wing aerodynamics in a normal top-and-bottom slipstream were < not met in the experiment I just performed." But what I meant to say was that I thought the conditions were *not* met. The double negative was a typo. I was trying to imply that the net pressure from the bulk of air surrounding the entire system was essentially equal and should cancel, revealing something essential and important about the thin stream of moving air and the upper spoon surface themselves, wholly apart from the surrounding pressure gradients. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 16:30:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA07221; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 16:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 16:26:11 -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: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Alloy D X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Alloy Drift - I have been told by several practical metallurgists working in the electronics fields that high local current densities maintained over long time periods (months/years) can cause an intermixing between two or three metals which is not extant in an original soldered joint. Specifically (if I recall right) Cu has been seen to grown into Sn/Pb solder, in the form of spikey dendrites. - Assuming we do not develope local heating here, can anyone explain this "diffusion" under current flow? Can anyone find some papers? Examples? - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 16:45:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA09125; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 16:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 16:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720194210_160610983@emout16.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: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The chatter about the Takahashi magnets is a bit off the point. I don't know if all of you subscribe to IE (if not you should), but there have been statements in recent issues which clarify things to the careful reader. Takahashi has a solid technical reputation, and Japan is indeed a center of high performance magnet research. His 3 Tesla magnets would be remarkable in themselves, and reportedly have been confirmed in US laboratories. Better magnets can make smaller gadgets, including motors, and can increase efficiency. I know of no evidence which links better magnets directly to o/u performance. The Kawai patent claims o/u performance, which is not dependent on a magic magnet; its operation is more complex than that. Same with the Muller motor; it utilizes a unstated magnetic material with very low or zero hysteresis and eddy-current losses. The battery enhancer is a magnet applied to a Nicad battery during the charging cycle; supposedly the magnetic field somehow counteracts the memory effects in such batteries and allows full charge each time. Since transistor batteries commonly have a steel case, it isn't clear how the external magnet will affect chemicals on the other side of the steel shield. On the other hand, the steel is thin, and could be brought to saturation by a very strong external magnet. This is not an o/u effect, nor is any claim so made. Takahashi was guarded in his conversation with Chris Tinsley over the demonstration of the Sciex scooter, not claiming o/u, but when Chris challenged him on the point, he grinned (Chris, do I have it right?). If Takahashi overtly claims o/u, he is immediately open to charges of fraud and is on the defensive. Yet there is the video of a Takahashi motor driving a generator lighting automobile headlamps, with no external input to the motor -- if not a fraud, this is as clear a demonstration of o/u as one could want. The "improve the efficiency of the motors" could well be a ploy to deflect attention and attack while slowly introducing the technology. Remember that a key Japanese strategic goal is market share, not necessarily fame and glory. Think, gentlemen: if you were dealing from a position of strength and were not hungry, what would you do? Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 17:07:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA11607; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 17:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 17:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607202357.QAA10279@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: UN-SPACE... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: snip > It seems to me that if you exceed a certain amount of energy in a unit >volume of space in certain critically short periods of time a stress develops >in the volume of space that can only be relieved by forming a more stable >form of energy: matter. Precisely. In order to form a more densely packed energy packet the most efficient form is that of a spherical standing wave. The total energy per unit volume of space scales as the radius ratio raised to the 7th power. > This curious state of energy (matter) must also displace the space in >which the energy burst occurred. I think that it might be that this displace- >ment of space may be the cause of gravitational forces. Here you go astray as far as my concepts would imply. You separated space and matter as being two separate things. If matter exists as standing waves in aether, then space exists as a resonant nodal structure in the one and same aether. There is no need to separate one from the other. When you do this, then all of a sudden you find that the structure of space is resonant at the identical frequency as is matter, ie the Planck scale QVF at f = E45 Hz and lambda = E-35 m. However in a very real sense your comment about the matter "displacing" space is insightful. The reason is because space is (out in deep space ie away from matter) essentially a rectilinear structure (though if you want to get technical, more energy can be packed into that rectilinear structure if you add a periodic helical twist, ergo "spin"). And a matter standing wave is essentially (according to my model anyway) a spherical standing wave (ie electron) or a group of spherical standing waves (ie proton neutron). So, how do you get a spherical structure to fit into a rectilinear structure? The answer is, with a compressible medium you can warp one mesh of a structure into the other sort of like some of the images you may have seen that try to depict the curvature of space near a black hole. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 17:29:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA13665; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 17:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 17:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210024.RAA13645@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Brian To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Ross, I support your theory that a particle of matter is a spherical standing wave of energy. I would like to see if we are in agreement about its effects: For whatever reason, when this "matter" condition occurs, you will then be able to detect a gravitational force, right? OK, then what is it about energy being locked into a standing wave that gives it the property of gravitation? Is it because the energy can not propagate? Is it that the stream that once carried the EM wave becomes a grav- itation wave when their is no EM radiating away? (I realize this is a reach...) Well time for me to get back to work. Thank you for responding to my post! See Ya! -Brian QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 18:41:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA21830; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 18:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 18:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720213525_242079161@emout16.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: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The Hamiltons ask: >Are you implying that gravity is the result of unequal >pressure, i.e. >the existance of reduced pressure between two masses? There are models (LeSage) in which this is indeed what's happening, wherein the pressure is caused by the shielding of vacuum fluctuations (ZPE). Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 18:46:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA22510; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 18:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 18:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960720213723_242081158@emout13.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: Warp Drive X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: For those interested in "warp drive" from a metric-engineering viewpoint, see my just-published paper: H. E. Puthoff, "SETI, the velocity-of-light limitation, and the Alcubierre warp drive: An integrating overview," Physics Essays, vol 9, pp. 156-158 (March 1996). Hal P. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 19:30:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA26961; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:14:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:14:27 -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: Bill Beaty's fuzz balls X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > There should be B-lines in front of and > behind the electron. But wait! The field varies like the sine of the > angle between the electron-field-point line and the trajectory line. > This would mean that each of two in-line-of-motion electrons would not > feel the magnetic field of the other! Also, one electron would not see > the other as a current unless there was RELATIVE motion between them! Without cracking a physics book I had always simply assumed as you do, that the magnetic field around a moving charge varies as the sine of the angle. The lines-of-flux viewpoint suggests this. Even if this is so, it does not eliminate the longitudinal force, since there still will be a longitudinal component of the force between charges at an angle: (-) ---> The vertical component of the forces on (-) ---> the middle electron balance to zero. But (-) ---> there must still be a longitudinal component. And I assumed that the longitudinal force was attractive, since the magnetic force between two electrons moving abreast is attractive. Maybe in a quantum nano-wire, where electrons march single-file, might the longitudinal force be zero. I've always given up before being able to completely visualize the fields and forces of two wires. For example, suppose we model a wire as a beam of electrons flowing along a row of positive ions, with charge density adjusted so electrostatic fields cancel outside the "wire:" - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > stationary (+) with + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + moving (-) - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - single nearby electron Will the single electron experience no force if it's stationary relative to the positive ions? Or, in order to eliminate the magnetic force, does the single electron have to travel with the electron beam? Or, does it have to travel at half the electron beam velocity? At half the e-beam velocity, the single electron would see the positive ions travel one way and the electrons in the beam travel the other. If 1/2V is the solution, then odd (but small) forces should be present near real wires, since the positive ions are stationary and the electron sea is moving. This should apply anomalous forces to nearby charges, forces which would vanish when the current was switched off. Yet the force laws for wires are controlled only by the total charge transport per second and the velocity falls out. Are the magnetic forces surrounding a wire having slow-moving dense carriers REALLY the same as those around a wire having sparse carriers moving fast, with the value for current in each wire being the same? ....................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 Sat Jul 20 19:28:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA28420; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:23:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:23:37 -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: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris writes: [snip] > >3. Or perhaps it is - as Horace suggests - the presence of the >metal ions 'moving the other way'. But a copper ion masses more than >100,000 times as much as an electron. I think there has been no communication problem here, but just to be sure I want to say that my prior post did not mean to imply that individual metal atoms dislodged from the matrix and moved about, only that the motion of the electrons relative to the lattice would create the magnetic "disks" on the surplus proton charges from the electron's point of view, and that such disks would appear to a observer moving relative to the crystal lattice. Also, that an EMF induced in the metal would distort the lattice at the holes and impart momentum to the lattice as well as in the opposite direction to the electrons. [snip] > >And I will admit that I do have a nice warm feeling about the Ampere >force taking people somewhere. How about it - assembled intellects? >Any bright ideas about how metal conduction is unlike any other? > >Chris Theory and creativity may handle this, but another possibility is brute force simulation. That can be done in an uninspired way completely with known formulas. However, it's tedious. The idea would be to write a finite element analysis program to model ala Ampere and compare results ala Maxwell etc. Such a program would permit experimentation with both possible and impossible physical configurations. Why you could imagine 100 impossible things before breakfast, if your computer is fast enough. 8^) No blown fuses, no exploding capacitors. Much to be said for that. But darn, there goes all the excitement, and you might plod on for years. Maybe the most interresting thing to do would be to attempt to simulate events known to be anomalous like the "ribbon candy" effect on rail guns, or maybe the experiment with wire segements compressed together with springs where the segments separated. These things would require combined EM and structural dynamics simulations though. It would be nice to pin down something steady state, simple and realistic that shows a clear calculation difference. Maybe there is some kind of program in public domain that can be modified to do the formula comparison. As for ideas for differences in metal conductors, in addition to the reference frame added by the metal lattice, the electrons are in conduction bands. This brings up the question of where is the mass of the electron as well as where is the charge? I have seen differing theories about this. One is that the probaility distribution, psi^2, is extended nearly uniformly throughout the conduction band. Every electron in a band is everywhere with some probability. Another is that the electrons are physically spread out in the conduction bands, but only to the extent that if there are N electrons in V volume of conduction bands that each conduction band electron occupies N/V volume on average. Both of these models might limit the finite element size, which could have a real effect. Just some thoughts. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 19:28:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA28572; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F1933C.32FA@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Alloy D X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: Snip: > Assuming we do not develope local heating here, can anyone explain this > "diffusion" under current flow? Can anyone find some papers? Examples? > - > MDH Mark: Are you refering to something other than plane old solid-state diffusion? My old metallurgy text (1952) mentions that the process is slow at room temperature, but still important for studies of alloys. In solder joints, you are essentially putting one metal in solution with another. The concentrations will change with time over short distances. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 19:44:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29850; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210223.TAA15440@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hey Richard; you wrote; >Check out van der Waals forces. Incidently, He won the Nobel prize in >1910 for his studies of intermolecular forces in gases and liquids. >They include, but are not limited to, dipole-dipole forces, temporary >dipole (London forces) and hydrogen bonding which is a case of special >dipole-dipole interaction. Check out the amplitude of the QVF. Then consider what would happen if one particle interfered with those more random fluctuations, but a nearby particle had some nice smooth and uniform wave energies emanating from it. Both of those two particles will interfere with the energy arriving from outside, and they will not interfere with energy arriving from each other. So, the interference will induce a filtering of the incident radiation just as is the case in Josephsons Junctions where they frequency lock together even thought individual junctions on their own might prefer to resonate at a slightly different frequency. They do that because by frequency matching their resonances they can each allow the wave energy to more easily pass through. So, with you Van der Waals forces, suppose for one minute that I am correct. Then what do you get? Well, you get a large force due to interference with the outside energy, that thrusts each of the particles toward the other. And until they get so close that the energy density of their standing waves becomes too great they experience a force directed toward each other. JJ's will experience this but it will be very small. Huygens discovered this while infirmed and starring at the pendulum clocks all day long. The two pendulums influence each other such that they phase and frequency lock together due to the filtering forces imposed by the outside and inside air pressure waves. So, of course the atoms are forced toward one another. But it is not intrinsically an attraction. It is a compression due to the interference with the QVF, just as is the Casimir effect. That was, though, a very insightful comment. Try another one. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 19:50:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29888; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210223.TAA15444@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I have the feeling that there are just too many cracks being papered >over in basic physics, and that the physics of 2010 is going to be >about as much like that of 1995, as 1910 physics resembled 1895 - not >much. But we need anomalies to make that happen, and an anomaly has to >be an *accepted* anomaly. So if we assume the Ampere force exists (in >metals only) then that gives us a chance to look for the reason. It's >quite irrelevant to argue whether the force exists or not - what needs >to be done is some serious thinking based on the notion that it *does*. Personally, I think that there is a tremendous gap in physics too. I think that it originates in our conception of space and of time. We think of each of these as innate properties of the universe and as such it is very strange to think that they can be altered. I address this here in response to your comments because I think that this is at the bottom of the problem in the transmission of forces in the conductors. Does anyone know any more about the experiments that showed a correlation between the radioactivity of radium I think it was. The experimenters measured the radioactivity at a few different locations separated by thousands of miles and they all changed their reactivity simultaneously. I think Stirniman may know more about this if I recall. Any way, how could that happen if matter is stable and quantum mechanical in an unto itself? The reactivity should remain constant and independent of any outside influence. If on the other hand, matter is confined by the QVF, then such particles will be dependent on the regular arrivals of that energy. And if there is any large group of QVF disturbances moving through space it would affect all of the laboratories at essentially the same time since these experiments were accumulating information over many minutes per sample if I recall ( such QVF waves would move right on through the earth without any problem since the earth is transparent to wave energy at a wavelength of E-35 m). This would make for a new kind of telescope analogous to the neutrino telescopes, but a whole lot cheaper. Regarding positive and negative charges in the conductor; For those of you experienced with the concepts of phased array radar and or holograms, think in terms of the positive charges and the negative charges being emitters at 180 degree phase angles of one another but at the same frequency. Then you wind up with the positive 3D "radar beam" (which is like a 3D hologram more than it is like a "beam") being fixed relative to the apparatus, and the negative radar beam moving relative to the apparatus. In other words, the emitters are moving which would be like attaching the antenna to a car or an aircraft and causing it to move. The thing that is extremely interesting about this study is when you succeed at figuring out the constructive and destructive interference nodal structure. It turns out that if you follow the positive and negative nodes out in the space around a coil, the nodes are receiving time delayed energy from the electrons and the protons. The interference inside of the coil winds up precessing in opposite directions for the electron 180 degree phase angle nodes and the positive 0 degree phase angle nodes. It is sort of like a kaleidoscope the way you get counter rotating constructive interferences with the positive interferences rotating one way and the negative interferences rotating the other way. It doesn't matter that the positive nuclei are actually stationary. The nodes still precess because it is the relative velocity that matters. As best I can figure, what you have are like a bunch of barber poles all parralel to one another and counter rotating. This is a dramatic simplification since the nodes are not cylindrical. Rather they are more like a bunch of balls with an axis of symmetry for rotation with every other ball rotating in the opposite direction. That rotational component leads to the magnetic effect on other moving charges that couple to that field and to electrons standing waves being rotated one way and positive charged particles standing waves being rotated the other way. So I agree with the other comments that the stationary protons are involved. But I also feel that all of the electrons and the protons are small potatoes compared to the ambient forces involved, ie the QVF. The electron motion is conspiring to alter the shape of the QVF nodal resonances within the device. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 19:48:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29932; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210223.TAA15448@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rick, greetings; snip That was an excellent experiment you thought up. As I said in earlier posts I own an engineering company and have a full machine shop. So I just went out to replicate your experiment so I could speak apples and apples about the effect. This clearly shows that there is a motion of the spoon into the air stream with a substantial force of lift being induced by the high velocity stream of air. So, what happened? >What was it? I don't believe all the conditions in your elegant descriptions of >standard wing aerodynamics in a normal top-and-bottom slipstream were not met >in the experiment I just performed. How can the results be accounted for? > The answer is in the two kinds of pressure that you learn to deal with in fluid dynamics. Static pressure and velocity pressure. Static pressure is the ambient pressure of the gas being considered. And the velocity head is due to the kinetic energy of the moving molecules. What you are missing is that the static pressure of the air stream coming out of your nozzle has been reduced due to expansion out of the nozzle. So, the pressure in the stream flowing away from your nozzle and across the top surface of the spoon is actually less than atmospheric. this happens because the molecules coming out of the nozzle have a lot of kinetic energy. They got that because you pumped up the pressure in the tank which increased the potential energy (ie pressure) of the air inside of the tank. When the molecules came out of the nozzle, they found that they were now in a lower pressure environment and so they no longer needed to bash each other so hard as they did inside the tank. (I am not going to get into nozzle design here, just a simple constant diameter tube that abruptly ends. Though a rocket nozzle does similar things and things get really wierd when you want to design a supersonic nozzle. I always had a hard time with that so I will avoid it here) Instead, the molecules are able to bounce off of each other and then the ones near the outside next bump the air molecules that were outside, ie our atmosphere. Those guys have hardly any PE or KE by comparison, and so the molecules coming out of the high pressure environment win the battle like in a football scrimage between one line of defenders standing still and the attacking line coming in at full speed. Guess who wins? So, there is an expansion going on in your gas as it comes out of the nozzle. The expansion actually begins deeper inside of the nozzle and results in the acceleration outward. By the time the air stream makes it outside for your real nozzle, it is at a lower static pressure than the ambient air. So, the air under your spoon pushes it up into the air stream until the downward vector that is a function of the kinetic energy balances the system. In fact, you can really learn even more if you turn your spoon upside down and let it float on top of the air stream. Then you are doing the same thing as the kinetic energy transport from the wedge of air that builds up under the air foil. There is still no attraction per se. It is still a reduction of the downward push as compared to the upward push that caused your spoon to experience lift. Hope this helps. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 19:40:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29999; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210223.TAA15453@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Think, gentlemen: if you were dealing from a position of strength and were >not hungry, what would you do? Grin and say nothing. I have considered ou devices via magnets and magnet constructions. The reason is the shape of the nodal structure of space I imagine. If correct, then magnetic fields are no more than rotations of the acoustic nodes in 3D about an axis at the Planck scale. But here is the rub. If you could get a rotor to get ahead of the constructive interference from nearby emissions, then such a motor might actually phase lock to space. In that case, the motor might actually lock on with no further power input. Put another way, it would be sort of like sticking a paddle wheel out into the QVF by shielding the half of the paddle that is rising and interfering to a greater degree with the half that is falling (I use a vertical reference for familiarity, but the QVF could be tapped in this manner at any angle if they can be tapped at all) There is, it seems to me, a fine line between the atoms attaining enough rotational velocity (rpm) to get the waves ahead of the game before the rotor flies apart. Keep in mind that at the speed of light, communication between atoms is much like a frozen crystal even between the rotor and the stator since the actual velocity is paltry compared to that of light (the velocity of the QVF) which forces the atoms together. One thing that occured to me 6 months ago is that a magnetic structure could help us out here. In addition to the rotation of the atoms macroscopically, we have the electrons rotating in the valences microscopically. If you could set up a counter rotation of the generated fields that induced a smooth helix for light speed communication through the magnetic atomic matrix, then the QVF might be able to be deflected in a uniform manner. Such a deflection would be like a turbine in a fluid stream and would provide thrust. In other words, the magnet might be neat, but when you construct it in an actual motor and then spin it up, you might just get some brand new effects like o/u. Again, this is nothing at all to do with high effeciency. This is tapping into QVF in an organized manner. One recent experiment that leads me to believe this is possible with atomicly constructed structures is the Japanese experiment that seemed to show a reduction in the mass of a rotor depending on the direction of rotation. The effect is supposed to be easily replicated and well laid out. For that reason, PRL I think it was published the paper. Again, this would be the same thing where the interference was a function of the meshing with space in an assymetric manner. ie, the device had to have been pumping QVF through it in one direction to a greater degree than through the other direction. You might better consider this a form of channeling the energy through the atomic structure. If you form a helix, and then rotate that helix, you may be able to produce the equivalent of lift just like with a helicopter rotor. You will need to get up to as high an rpm as possible, and you will need a few more tricks in the manner in which you construct it to stand a chance. Normally, the QVF don't like to be channeled. So to succeed is not likely, but I would shy far from the word impossible. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 19:49:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA00170; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210223.TAA15450@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Alloy D X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Alloy Drift >- >I have been told by several practical metallurgists working in the electronics >fields that high local current densities maintained over long time periods >(months/years) can cause an intermixing between two or three metals which is >not extant in an original soldered joint. Specifically (if I recall right) Cu >has been seen to grown into Sn/Pb solder, in the form of spikey dendrites. >- >Assuming we do not develope local heating here, can anyone explain this >"diffusion" under current flow? Can anyone find some papers? Examples? A lot of metals do this including Ag as a notorious candidate. It is used in conductive ink circuits, but it has a nasty habit of growing dendrites and shorting adjacent circuits. At Aerojet they manufacture some of the fuel mixers for rocket motors. A technique they developed which is now used by many others is to laminate metals. I used to machine some of the components out of stainless steel but I will be a bit short on design specifics. In any case, what they do is to manf. the components in sheets that are polished to a mirror finish and then several layers are stacked one on top of another. The whole stack, which might have a hundred platelettes with acid etched raceways for 5ksi liquid fuels, is compressed to a high pressure, heated to a temperature below melting, and held there for some period of time. In doing so, the added thermal agitation of the atoms causes them to bump and jostle and migrate around. Because the surfaces are so flat, atoms on opposite sides of the boundary migrate back and forth. The result being a single solid piece of metal with all sorts of internal channels. Quite a trick. In automotive racing, there is a company called Metalax. The constructed a machine that seemingly does nothing and they charge a lot for it. When the thing first came out everyone thought it was a hoax. What it does is to inject ultrasonic energy into a crank shaft or whatever piece of metal. The wave energy apparently interferes with the atomic structure of the lattice inside the metal and induces a relaxation of stress concentrations. The results were real, and it is now used by most INDY car teams and other serious performance freaks. Again, note that the atoms are moving around inside of the "solid". So, whay might be causing the effect in soldered junctions? Well, you have a lot of current, and you are dumping electrons that are flowing at a good clip and carrying a good deal of energy from one metal lattice structure into another one. The atomic spacings and the see saw frequency of motions of the electrons moving through the copper are bound to be different through the lead. The thermocouple effect proves this without the high current. So, there should be an abnormal amount of energetic resonances in the atomic lattice near those joints and it seems very reasonable to me that you would experience migration of the atoms. Do you know if the motion was in one direction as opposed to the other, or was the current AC at which point there should be no difference? Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 19:40:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA00225; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Alloy D X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Search 'electro migration" much work done in semiconductor field. On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: > From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > Subject: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Alloy Drift > - > I have been told by several practical metallurgists working in the electronics > fields that high local current densities maintained over long time periods > (months/years) can cause an intermixing between two or three metals which is > not extant in an original soldered joint. Specifically (if I recall right) Cu > has been seen to grown into Sn/Pb solder, in the form of spikey dendrites. > - > Assuming we do not develope local heating here, can anyone explain this > "diffusion" under current flow? Can anyone find some papers? Examples? > - > MDH > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 19:58:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA03043; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:50:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:50:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960720223359.2ff7584c@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: UN-SPACE... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 05:04 PM 7/20/96 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: >snip > >> It seems to me that if you exceed a certain amount of energy in a unit >>volume of space in certain critically short periods of time a stress develops >>in the volume of space that can only be relieved by forming a more stable >>form of energy: matter. > >Precisely. In order to form a more densely packed energy packet the most >efficient form is that of a spherical standing wave. The total energy per >unit volume of space scales as the radius ratio raised to the 7th power. > could you show that please with an equation or derivation? thanks in advance. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 19:59:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA03300; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F1986B.1781@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Brian wrote: Snip: > OK, then what is it about energy being locked into a standing wave that > gives it the property of gravitation? Brian: Energy does not need to form matter to "have gravitation". If you have E joules of photon energy trapped in a mirror box, it will have the same gravitational field as: m = E/c^2 mass units, having the same distribution. Photons also have momentum to the extent that if you turn on a flashlight, your holding a VERY weak rocket engine with photons as the reaction mass! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 20:17:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06199; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210305.UAA16974@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Warp Drive X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >H. E. Puthoff, "SETI, the velocity-of-light limitation, and the Alcubierre >warp drive: An integrating overview," Physics Essays, vol 9, pp. 156-158 >(March 1996). Where can I send a paper to be published in that journal and what sort of articles do they accept? Seems like the above is out on the fringes, so I ought to be able to publish some of my stuff there too. Do they have a web cite, email address.....???? Thanks, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 20:17:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06011; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210305.UAA16963@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > I support your theory that a particle of matter is a spherical standing >wave of energy. I would like to see if we are in agreement about its effects: >For whatever reason, when this "matter" condition occurs, you will then be able >to detect a gravitational force, right? Yes and no. All forces in this model are just a measure of how much the standing waves in the matter forming one body interact with incident radiation. The incident waves are filtered of all sorts of out of freqeuncy match waves, but you must think in terms of the body being almost entirely transparent so that most of the waves pass right on through. Still, there is a net filtering, and another body nearby will experience those waves. If both bodies have equal numbers of 0 degree phase angle energy and 180 degree phase angle energy, then they are balanced in the amplitude of "charge". Thus, they will not "attract" or repel each other via the electric field. But all of space is buzzing, so each will filter some of that buzzing a bit and the signal leaving each will be cleaner than the signal that was incident. Thus, matter in each object, if they are nearby, will be in the same space encountering the same local resonant frequency and so they will be frequency locked to one another. thus, they will form shields of the QVF from space which are *not* frequency matched. That is the gravitational force. but if the same standing waves are closer, they will perceive the individual cadences at 0 degrees and 180 degrees. There will, inside the atoms, develop excess amplitudes in the respective phase angles when you are in and around the standing waves proper. So, you will experience from the same sort of resonances another force of tremendously higher amplitude which we call electric. And if you move further into the nucleus, you will find a group of standing waves all tightly packed together. Those are very much similar in concept to the MIT bag model for quarks in that they exist inside of a single very large standing wave with shape assymetries that become separate inside of the E-15 m of the nucleus. From there the convergences go on down to the Planck scale at E-35 m. Those standing waves, due to proximity, are all tightly phase and frequency matched to one another and so you find yet another reason for the amplitude of the interactivity, ie communication of wave energy, to become tremendously greater. That is the nuclear force. So you see that all of the forces come from the same fundamental mechanism in this model. The difference from one to the next is the degree with which the standing waves are able to phase and or frequency synchronize. > OK, then what is it about energy being locked into a standing wave that >gives it the property of gravitation? Is it because the energy can not >propagate? Is it that the stream that once carried the EM wave becomes a grav- >itation wave when their is no EM radiating away? (I realize this is a reach...) It is because matter way out there in other galaxies, moving away from us and therefore their emissions of QVF are Doppler shifted wrt us. That frequency shifted QVF set of sources in deep space is unique. The amplitude is so low because the distance to those objects is so large the amplitude of their percentage contribution to local QVF is tiny. Here, try it this way. If I shine a flashlight at you, the photons will exert a thrust to you, small, but real and fully accepted and verified by experiment in radiometers (the real ones, not the store science ones which use air molecules). Now, imagine that the earth is transparent, which it is to QVF. Then, all of the QVF hitting you from every direction are compressing you. Our air pressure does this and you have a force of ~10,000 pounds on the front and rear of your body right now. But that doesn't push you in any direction, it just compresses you which you know is the case from sci fi astronauts loosing pressure. So, imagine that the universe is like a really bright light source from all directions. But then we have the earth. And the earth acts to filter some of the energy, the red shifted energy coming from deep space. So when you look up, you see a bunch of redenned galaxies. But when you look down through the earth, you see all of the Milky way stars plain as ever since they are resonating at essentially the same frequency as we are, ie no relative motion. But then you look through the earth and way out into space. And now that redened energy has a bit of a problem getting through the earths standing waves. Some of that red energy is absorbed just like real light in our atmosphere whic leads to the blue sky. So, you have all of the local energy making it through the earth, but you have some more distant energy that has been dimmed a bit. Above, we have all of both sorts of energy. So, all of the local energy cancels out, but the reddened energy has an assymetry. You see more of it coming from above than from below due to the filtering of the earths matter. When you add up the compressive effect, you find a new physical constant in nature, G. It is proportional to the amount of energy that each body filtered. This identical analogy can be applied to radiant heat transfer through translucent objects and the result is mathematically the same. There is a net energy flux due to the waves that are incident on the objects, and that net results in an acceleration of both bodies toward each other. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 20:17:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06076; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210305.UAA16966@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >The Hamiltons ask: > >>Are you implying that gravity is the result of unequal >pressure, i.e. >>the existance of reduced pressure between two masses? > >There are models (LeSage) in which this is indeed what's happening, wherein >the pressure is caused by the shielding of vacuum fluctuations (ZPE). > >Hal Puthoff LeSage created the concept of extremely small particles flowing through space and demonstrated the equivalence of gravitation compression as compared to gravitational attraction. He called his particles, "ultra mundane particles" if I recall since they were really trivial. For clarity, my model does not advocate this construction. I treat the particles as having a mean free path of much less than the Planck scale such that their cummulative effects of collision lead to the fabric of space at that scale. This leads to the model dealing with wave interactions, rather than particles flowing about. The best model I have thought of to help explain this concept is of a piece of driftwood in the ocean buffeted by waves that have a different frequency of arrival than the log does of bobbing. This leads to an interference between the logs motion (particle standing waves), and the waves arrivals (QVF). If there is a different amount of wave energy interfering with the log on one side as compared to on the other, then the log will be forced in that direction. This is normally the beach. And the log does not need for there to be any wind, or any currents in the water in order to wind up on the shore. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 20:31:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA08125; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Memory ... new technology (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 23:06:21 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: John Schnurer Subject: Memory ... new technology Dear VORS, Often one finds useful inventions on a path leading to a different intended destination. I will relate one I recently found. The path is headed toward NDE, or, Non Destructive Evaluation. This is one of my favorite fields. NDE encompasses many disciplines, including but not limited to X-ray, sonography, magnetic fields effects [an example of this is the use of magnetic particles admixed with flourescent dyes which are applied to metals, the metal is exposed to magnetic field[s] and the dye/magnetic particle/penetrant shows up cracks under, usually, exposure to ultraviolet light to make the dye glow] .... and the list goes on. So NDE is multidisciplinary, and includes but is not limited to materials science[s], transduction, fields, behavior of fields, detection and manipulation of same ... and so on. NDE is great fun. What I found going down the path: A new type of methodology to make computer memory. Note that I am writing this is a new methodology. Not any "new" or earth shattering invention. This is simply an application of well known and well accepted "pieces" of different disciplines that result in a useful memory element. I will leave it to reader to understand the advantages and disadvantages to differing memory types, some examples being DRAM is nice and fast but needs constant and periodic "attention" or refreshing, SRAM does not need the refresh but does need power, flash EPROM reads fast ... but writes slow, and there are many types of magnetic and magneto optical memory methods, each with their own quirks. The previous was not intented to be, by any means, inclusive. What I found is a way to make an eletronic RAM cell which can be realized with standard CMOS transistors which retains data without power. *What it is not: a) magnetic method b) EEPROM "floating" charged gate method in use at present c) special circuit configuration. d) optical, magneto optical or electro optical *What is it: Method of latching or holding state of standard CMOS transistor based on a materials sciences technology which is at present in use, but not in use in the computer memory field. My problem is that I have no avnue wherby I can introduce it to the industry. I am a scientist, not a marketer or businessman, I have no "champion" in any company in the computer memory arena. This is a big hill to climb. Any of you VORS have a way up the mountain? I am a "hard ball, nuts and bolts, belt and suspenders" APPLIED sciences type. I have a couple full scale working units [one cell] made with COTS, or comercially available off-the-shelf discrete and IC semiconductors the demonstrate reduction to practice. I will be happy to show these to a qualified "black box" or "eunich". Thanks for you time. John Herman Schnurer From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 20:32:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA08159; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Memory ... new technology (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill, Can you send this on, please? Thanks, J ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 23:06:21 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: John Schnurer Subject: Memory ... new technology Dear VORS, Often one finds useful inventions on a path leading to a different intended destination. I will relate one I recently found. The path is headed toward NDE, or, Non Destructive Evaluation. This is one of my favorite fields. NDE encompasses many disciplines, including but not limited to X-ray, sonography, magnetic fields effects [an example of this is the use of magnetic particles admixed with flourescent dyes which are applied to metals, the metal is exposed to magnetic field[s] and the dye/magnetic particle/penetrant shows up cracks under, usually, exposure to ultraviolet light to make the dye glow] .... and the list goes on. So NDE is multidisciplinary, and includes but is not limited to materials science[s], transduction, fields, behavior of fields, detection and manipulation of same ... and so on. NDE is great fun. What I found going down the path: A new type of methodology to make computer memory. Note that I am writing this is a new methodology. Not any "new" or earth shattering invention. This is simply an application of well known and well accepted "pieces" of different disciplines that result in a useful memory element. I will leave it to reader to understand the advantages and disadvantages to differing memory types, some examples being DRAM is nice and fast but needs constant and periodic "attention" or refreshing, SRAM does not need the refresh but does need power, flash EPROM reads fast ... but writes slow, and there are many types of magnetic and magneto optical memory methods, each with their own quirks. The previous was not intented to be, by any means, inclusive. What I found is a way to make an eletronic RAM cell which can be realized with standard CMOS transistors which retains data without power. *What it is not: a) magnetic method b) EEPROM "floating" charged gate method in use at present c) special circuit configuration. d) optical, magneto optical or electro optical *What is it: Method of latching or holding state of standard CMOS transistor based on a materials sciences technology which is at present in use, but not in use in the computer memory field. My problem is that I have no avnue wherby I can introduce it to the industry. I am a scientist, not a marketer or businessman, I have no "champion" in any company in the computer memory arena. This is a big hill to climb. Any of you VORS have a way up the mountain? I am a "hard ball, nuts and bolts, belt and suspenders" APPLIED sciences type. I have a couple full scale working units [one cell] made with COTS, or comercially available off-the-shelf discrete and IC semiconductors the demonstrate reduction to practice. I will be happy to show these to a qualified "black box" or "eunich". Thanks for you time. John Herman Schnurer From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 21:12:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA13572; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 21:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 21:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f0e100.10815644@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: Chicken Reactor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:07:31 -0700 (PDT), Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >A guy called Kervran reported this, having seen it previously. You feed >your chickens on a zero-calcium and zero-potassium diet. They lay >soft-shelled eggs. Then you let them have potassium - bingo, hard >shells again. That's the tale. This raises the question of whether or not the shell actually contains calcium, or perhaps the ingenious chicken has found a hard potassium salt. > >Two problems. How did the chicken transmute the K to Ca? Well, after >all this about CF cathodes transmuting, maybe. But if the reaction were > >39K + p -> 40Ca > >then we get 8MeV each time. I vaguely recall calculating that out to If you listen to Joe Champion, then this can be compensated for by concurrently allowing a different reaction to occur that consumes 8MeV. 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 Jul 20 21:58:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA20463; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 21:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 21:51:57 -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: UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >When you add up the compressive effect, you find a new physical constant in >nature, G. It is proportional to the amount of energy that each body filtered. > [snip] > >Ross Tessien What is G like at the edge of the universe? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 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 WAA21630; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:01:24 -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: Bill Beaty's fuzz balls X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Like >Hering's experiment (deliciously referenced as Tr A.I.E.E XXVII (1908), >Part II, p1341 or The Electrician, LXXV (July 16,1915)p.559). Rats, I was >going >to try to describe it but it's beyond my ASCII art abilities; it's the old >flux-linkage/flux-cutting thing. > [snip] > >Chris Try words. I'll listen. No fair teasing like that! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 22:15:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA22630; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210505.WAA21347@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I think there has been no communication problem here, but just to be sure I >want to say that my prior post did not mean to imply that individual metal >atoms dislodged from the matrix and moved about, only that the motion of >the electrons relative to the lattice would create the magnetic "disks" on >the surplus proton charges from the electron's point of view, and that such >disks would appear to a observer moving relative to the crystal lattice. >Also, that an EMF induced in the metal would distort the lattice at the >holes and impart momentum to the lattice as well as in the opposite >direction to the electrons. I think these are excellent ideas and on track with the solution. If you treat the positive particles as little antennas with frequency of emission f, and phase angle = 0, and you treat the electrons as some other little emitters with freqeuncy f and phase angle 180 degrees, then you will learn something very interesting. It is very hard to visualize the construction of the nodal pattern, and you must consider the wavelength to be tiny, ie Planck scale at E-35 m. But if you can get that image, then what you find is that at any locaion in or around a coil, there is a rotational precession of the constructive interference of the waves emitted from all of the matter in the system. Also, you will find that the construction , ie the rotation, does not depend on which of the emitters is moving, but only on the relative motion of one with respect to the other. So, in short, and for what it is worth, I think this is an important observation. To me, this observation gets at the core of the problem of what space really is. I have been trying to better formulate what the constructive interference would be in the case of the straight conductor, and I am finding a build up in energy that should be expansive on the conductor. But I can't quite get the image right yet so I will get back if I can work that out. Mean time, I have read a lot of excellent posts on the topic. Just wanted to chime in here because I thought the points are excellent and on the right track to somewhere. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 22:17:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA22701; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210506.WAA21349@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: UN-SPACE... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 05:04 PM 7/20/96 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: >>snip >> >>> It seems to me that if you exceed a certain amount of energy in a unit >>>volume of space in certain critically short periods of time a stress develops >>>in the volume of space that can only be relieved by forming a more stable >>>form of energy: matter. >> >>Precisely. In order to form a more densely packed energy packet the most >>efficient form is that of a spherical standing wave. The total energy per >>unit volume of space scales as the radius ratio raised to the 7th power. >> > could you show that please with an equation or derivation? > thanks in advance. A spherically convergent wave in aether will accelerate as it moves inward. This is because the compression wave front (spherical) must occupy smaller and smaller volumes. The volume of a spherical shell of aetehr dR thick is given by V = 4piR^2 dr So, if you are reducing R, and if you have a compression wave, then the wave must accelerate by the factor of v = 1/R^2 But KE is proportional to the velocity squared. So, we get, KE is proportional to 1/R^4. And finally, if the structure of the QVF has indeed a fine structure to it with a fundamental wavelength at the Planck scale of E-35 m, then any convergent standing wave must have a wavelength that matches this. And finally, this requires that there be a real live sphere at the center of this huge standing wave of concentric spherical shells as we move down from our scale all the way to E-35 m. Thus, at that level there must be a spherical core of fundamental radius, I will say R = 1 for electron. The volume of that sphere is proportional to The third power of the radius of the standing wave. Now here it gets dicey. What we really need to do if we want to add all that up is to integrate the entire density amplification that was induced by the entire standing wave. I could not accomplish that because I would have needed to integrate from radius = E-35 m or therabouts, out to infinity. My QED is not that good. Here is the logic I used to get the **ratio** instead of the actual amplitude. If this is indeed the structure of an electron, then one would expect that a more energetic standing wave should be possible to create. But, the arrivals of the waves cannot be out of phase with the total standing wave. Also, my model requires that there be a condensation, ie a change of phase of the aether at that radius. My entire theory would fall to pieces if this were not so since all phenomena depend on this assumption. But as QCD makes assumptions not unlike this, I do think it is accurate but you may object since you do not know of all of the interconnectivity I have worked out from time to inertia to mass and energy .... In any case, if there is condensation, then that is a non linear damping mechanism that will provide a back stop against which the convergent waves can slam and reflect with the normal inversion of the wave front at a short circuit in the impedance of the medium. So, therefore, one could not create any old increase in the energy of a stable standing wave of this construction. You need to go up to the next higher amplitude, ie at R = 2, or R = 3.... In my model, these correspond to muon and tau and as you can see, other electrons are implied, though our accelerators may not be able to make them due to the geometry of the impacts, not the energy. So, we had an increase in the energy that followed E = E_o(R_o/R)^4 where R_o is the radius at which we needed to begin the convergence in order to get up to the energy density at a radius of 1 in the case of electron. R_o is in essence, infinity. But we can take it to be just a large number. And E_o is the energy in the QVF out there at infinity. So now if I want to get to the next larger electron, I must double the amplitude of the wave front at which condensation occurs, ie R = 2. But I need for the pressure to be the same, ie that pressure at which the aether condenses. And the area is now larger by a factor of R^2 since the surface area that must be confined is given by A = 4piR^2 where R is now 2. So, I need the same pressure, but I need it at double the radius. This means that the radius ratio must be twice as large. Put another way, the starting radius must be larger by 2^2=4. Thus, we get the total energy of the standing wave at E = E_o (4R_o/2R)^4 = E_o (radius ratio of electron) (2)^4 And for the volume of that standing wave we get V = V_electron (2R/R)^3 = V_e (2)^3 So, the total energy, or the total aether accumulation is the energy times the volume of the wave, or; Mass muon = mass electron * (2)^4 * (2)^3 / k Mass tau = mass electron * (3)^4 * (3)^3 / k The reason for k is because the electron only has the innermost sphere that is condensing and vaporizing. Once you increase the amplitude of that wave front, the innermost sphere will no longer be able to vaporize, and that dynamic, cyclic process will be occuring in the first concentric shell, (muon), or in the second concentric spherical shell, (tau). k turns out to be about 0.62. What this says is that 62 percent of the mass of muon and tau reside in their standing waves. And 38 percent of the mass of muon and tau resides in their cores that remain condensed. This in turn allows you to calculate the mass of each of those cores directly and you come up with around 40 MeV for the muon core. But there is an error in this derivation. The innermost sphere in the case of muon, and that sphere plus the first concentric shell (ie the volume in which the condensate resides), are being counted twice in the case of muon and tau. This is happening because I "inflated" the standing wave up by doubling it, and then I calculated the mass of the core as a percentage. This should shift the percentages slightly such that the core possesses less mass as a percentage of the total mass of muon and or tau. I found this error when I tried to derive the mass of proton. I used 9 muon cores in three groups of three, set at 120 degree angles from a central convergence. Then, I divided by the percentage of the total that could reside in the cores as found above, ie Mass proton = 9 (mass muon core)/ (0.38) = 950 MeV This should be 931 MeV. The masses of the concentric spherical shells must be some sort of series expansion summation. Something like sum(1 + 1/2^2 + 1/3^2....) or like 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 .... I don't have a clue what sort of an expansion it should be, but there must be a form like that which would be used in a formal derivation of the integral of the mass build up in such a standing wave. If that sequence could be found, then it could be shown mathematically how much mass should be subtracted from the core. Ray Tomes came up independently with a value of 34.5 MeV rather than the 40 MeV that I came up with based on some different observations of harmonics. My standing waves and his harmonics are sort of like coming at the problem from the top down, or the bottom up. But they are very similar in a lot of respects as far as the resonances go. We have very different concepts as far as the details of the constructions. If anyone has some input on how to perform the derivation, great. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 22:32:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA24592; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:27:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:27:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607210526.WAA26722@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >What is G like at the edge of the universe? Well, you get the originality probe question of the day award. I don' know if you want to know the answer my model predicts, but here goes. There is no edge. Our universe is an expanding region that is, just like all the discussion on electrons, resonant. Thus must be so since there had to be a prior convergence in order for there to have been a black hole core breach to give rise to our universe. This means that the variances in the CBR must have been caused when that tremendous fireball slammed into other galaxies of stars during the inflationary phase of the expansion. Needless to say that is a compelling image of Hell. So, way out there, you should simply transition into larger and larger structure. I call it a Megaverse. and it must follow that there are other regions of spherical resonance that are in synchronized expansion and contraction with our region of that Megaverse. Don't blame me for the image, it is simply the only way that you can work out all of the motions in a consistent manner. But I will say this, it makes a heck of a lot more sense (at least after you come to understand the phase change ability of aether) that a convergence will induce a macroscopic flow of aether into the hole due to the constant pressure of condensatin being less than the convergent kinetic energy (see the post on the derivation of the mass of the electron. the same mechanism in principle will give rise to a black hole due to the inflow velocity exceeding that at which the condensation occurs. This leads to a very long run before the hole's core is filled up because you created the convergence not in a large standing wave, but rather in a relatively low density region of aether inside of a star. Remember there were 20 orders of magnitude of essentially empty space from the scale of a proton to the scale of the electron core where condensation occurs. that is a lot of volume to fill up. But in any case, things should work vis gravitation as per norm, though the amplutide may be different since you will now be receiving frequency shifted QVF from a very different source(s). What is an even more strange prediction is that during a compression period in a universe, I think that mass increasing reactions will be exothermic in order to releive the building pressure of the quantum vacuum, ie aether static pressure. In other words, the universe is thus in a state of constant pressure evaporation in our current period, and it would be in a state of constant pressure condensation in the other collapsing period. But the momentum for that collapse would have to come from a compression and convergent flow inward that originated from an expansion in other universes way out there in the Megaverse. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 22:54:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA27260; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f1c2ff.20966895@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: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Alloy D X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 20 Jul 1996 16:26:17 -0700 (PDT), Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Alloy Drift >- >I have been told by several practical metallurgists working in the electronics >fields that high local current densities maintained over long time periods >(months/years) can cause an intermixing between two or three metals which is >not extant in an original soldered joint. Specifically (if I recall right) Cu >has been seen to grown into Sn/Pb solder, in the form of spikey dendrites. [snip] Is this DC only, AC only, or both? And if with DC only, is the direction of the current important? 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 Jul 20 23:21:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA00762; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 23:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 23:12:22 -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: Bill Beaty's fuzz balls X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: > >Yet the force laws for wires are controlled only by the total charge >transport per second and the velocity falls out. Are the magnetic forces >surrounding a wire having slow-moving dense carriers REALLY the same as >those around a wire having sparse carriers moving fast, with the value for >current in each wire being the same? > >....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. >William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 If the electons are quantum waveforms of very large size residing in conduction bands, then none of the previously referenced point type models seem to apply. At a micro level it therefore seems logical that the electrons must experience forces (in a probablistic way) similar to macro level current elements in the vicinity of stationary positive point charges. It's not one electron in front of the other, they are in parallel all over the place. What is mind boggling to me is that in some (most?) conductor crystal structures the conduction bands are not linear, but are a matrix. It seems to me that lots of fast (JJ like) switching events must be going on at a micro level in a conductor. This thought, if true, just adds more credence to the idea that observable noise should be visible on the surface of a conductor. Maybe a very thin insulating layer and a MOSFET probe would do a good job of listening for the changing electrostatic field component that must correspond to and be generated by the changing magnetic field Bill Beaty proposes. Lots of models, especially thermal, must predict this noise. What might be useful is showing an increase in noise with current, all with temperature held steady or decreasing. The noise is undoubtedly there, so what about models for prediction? Its interresting that low voltage vacuum arcs increase their noise level in the 1-15 MHz band with decreasing DC current, until going out. The voltage of the noise actually *exceeds* the DC arc voltage before extinction. I wonder what the relationship of surface EM noise to current level at a given T is in an ordinary wire. The mechanics must be very different. Same with acoustic noise. Seems like this kind of work would already be done, like it would be important info for sub design, for example. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 23:25:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01875; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 23:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 23:21:50 -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: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >If you >treat the positive particles as little antennas with frequency of emission >f, and phase angle = 0, and you treat the electrons as some other little >emitters with freqeuncy f and phase angle 180 degrees, then you will learn >something very interesting. > >It is very hard to visualize the construction of the nodal pattern, and you >must consider the wavelength to be tiny, ie Planck scale at E-35 m. [snip] > >Ross Tessien The difficulty with this is the conduction band electron's waveform, the principle item of investigation, is *huge*, many atomic radii by some theories, macrolevel by others, but certainly never smaller than the deBroglie wavelength determined by lamda=h/p. If they are antennae they are huge and ghostly antennae. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 00:33:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA08352; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 00:28:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 00:28:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f1affa.16097891@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: Raymond Ashoori, and Why Not Protons? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 20 Jul 1996 09:50:28 -0700 (PDT), Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: [snip] >Already Professor Ashoori has used the technique to study phenomena that >scientists have long been interested in but heretofore could not >observe. For example, he has been able to detect a single electron's >which it is spinning, which in turn forces it into a higher energy >state. Why is it, that only the critical sentences get screwed up? [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 Sun Jul 21 00:52:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA10385; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 00:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 00:48:07 -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: stumbling on repulsion of proximal neutral atoms X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: See bottom for correction. I wrote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Speaking of stumbles, I know there is the old thing about integrating the charge on a sphere and showing the center of charge is the center of the sphere, etc. I just wonder if there is not some inconsistency about this, if maybe the charge of an electron, being spread over a wider volume, a larger debroglie wavelength at a given velocity, a greater volume psi^2 distribution, is maybe somehow different from the charge of a proton, which is spread less. Here's an example of what I mean. Consider two proximal atoms A and B. For simplicity, lets consider each nucleus to be of charge 2Q and centered at a point. Consider a plane through the two points the nuclei occupy. This plane cuts each atom's electron cloud into two symmetric sections. Each section must have a center of charge. Call the points of centers of charge QA1, QA2, and QA3 for atom A and QB1, QB2, and QB3 for atom B, where QA2 and QB2 are each the nuclei of charge +2Q and the other centers of charge are each -Q. QA1 and QB1 are opposed. Here's a picture: QA1 QB1 } distance x QA2 <-- distance d --> QB2 } distance x QA3 QB3 Now, if we consider, as standard practice, all the charges to be located at the center of mass we have the force between the two atoms as zero. As we separate the centers of charge by increasing x, the forces between opposed centers F(QA1, QB1), F(QA2, QB2), F(QA3, QB3), remain unchanged, but the forces on diagonals change. For example, F(QA1,QB2) = (k)(-2)/(d^2+x^2), and F(QA1,QB3) = (k)(1)/(d^2+4x^2). Breaking out the component vectors we can immediately see that there must be a laterally compressive force on the atoms due to the sudden addition of diagonal forces as x increases. Further, the net longitudinal change in force on the electrons, due to the opposing atoms, must be attractive as x increases, simply because the distance between diagonal electron clouds, for example, QA1 and QA3 grows faster than the distance between the electron cloud and the opposing nucleus, i.e. QA1 and QA2. The net force between the nuclei and the opposing atom becomes more repulsive as x increases because, in effect, the sheilding of the electron cloud moves away. To make calculation simpler let's express F in terms where D is unity and k is removed so we get the following table of individual forces between centers of charge: F B1 B2 B3 A1 1 -2/(1+x^2) 1/(1+4x^2) A2 -2/(1+x^2) 4 -2/(1+x^2) A3 1/(1+4x^2) -2/(1+x^2) 1 Summing the forces, we get: F = 1 + 4 + 1 + 4(-2/(1+x^2)) + 2(1/(1+4x^2)) F = 6 + 2/(1+4x^2) - 8/(1+x^2) Note that at x = 0 we have F= 6 + 2 - 8 = 0. The valid range for x is 0 to .5, otherwise the atoms are overlapped. From the laterallly compressing force we can see the upper limit on x must be lower than that, because as the atoms approach they should elongate and form dipoles. If we now break out the longitudinal force vectors only, we multiply by cos1 = 1/(1+x^2)^0.5 and cos2 = 1/(1+4x^2)^0.5, i.e. for triangles with far sides of x and 2x, so we get: F = 6 + (2/(1+4x^2))1/((1+x^2)^0.5) - (8/(1+x^2))(1/(1+4x^2)^0.5) However, evaluating at .5 we get F = 6 + (1)(0.7071) - 6.4(.8944) = 0.9829, a net repulsion. No matter where we calculate in the range x = 0 to .5 we get a positive value betweeen 0 and 0.9829. Thus, as neutral atoms approach we should see a repulsion. The Casimir force has a weak competitor? The original assumption of action everywhere equivalent to center of charge (F = 0) seems invalidated. So, where did I stumble?" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The above force equation should have been: F = 6 + (2/(1+4x^2))1/((1+4x^2)^0.5) - (8/(1+x^2))(1/(1+x^2)^0.5) but the calculation following it was correct, so that is not where I stumbled. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 01:04:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA11314; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 01:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 01:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960721075500_76216.2421_HHB31-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross - > There is still no attraction per se. It is still a reduction of the > downward push as compared to the upward push that caused your > spoon to experience lift. My answer is yet another real experiment. I thought you might be able to invoke reduced pressure in the stream to explain it. I'm still not completely convinced, however. So how about this: put an airfoil in a vacuum chamber, and let some air from the outside shoot over it from a tube, and observe the reaction before the chamber begins to fill up with air and reaches a density capable of providing a significant pressure differential as you say it does in the open air. This would best be tried on a wing in the vacuum of outer space, but my personal shuttle's in the shop just now. My little chamber on the workbench will have to do. Just a minute... ...ok, I'm back. Here's what I did: The small chamber I used is about 7" dia. by 9" high. I stuck a 5/32" brass tube through the finger-vent hole, and packed the joint with clay. I then hung a small airfoil about 1" by 1" square and about 1/2" thick made of modelling clay from the inside of the cover, in approximately the center of the chamber. I used a piece of #22 ga. multistrand hookup wire to support it instead of thread so it would be springy and wouldn't just flip around in the turbulence. The brass air tube terminated inside the chamber about 3/4" above the clay foil, and was set to aim just along the top of the bulge of the foil, straight down at a 0 angle of attack. Vacuum was drawn by an industrial single-stage pump to under -29" mercury. A small ball of clay blocked the atmosphere end of the brass tube. Ok, so the air left in the chamber at around -29.5" vacuum would have very little pressure in it to work against the 1" square of the bottom of the clay foil. In addition, the pressure in the spray of incoming air *has* to be higher than the ambient low pressure air left in the chamber, thus it's trying to spread out as it exits the tube, and spread as well against the upper surface of the test foil, pushing it away from the stream. In the process of admitting air, the ambient pressure begins to creep up, but the pump was left running the whole time, and the pressure never rose above -28", in fact it hardly went higher than -29". Now we *know* that the pressure of the air in the stream is going to be greater than the air 'under' the foil. So what happened? The airfoil moved immediately and strongly into the stream. This is awfully remote from publication grade work or anything, and I didn't quantify the force in any way, but it was very convincing to see. It was not a weak effect, it was a firm, solid, and immediate lunge into the stream, where it 'locked' into place as long as the air continued to flow. I can't believe that what I witnessed was a higher pressure working behind the foil than on top of it in that air jet in a vacuum chamber. I'm beginning to believe there's really something to this after all! Would you, Ross, or anyone else interested in this out there with a handy vacuum chamber take a few minutes to confirm this effect? It took me less than 10 minutes to set up and try the experiment as described. And if anyone can argue that the air in the jet was at a lower pressure than the ambient pressure behind the foil, I'd sure like to hear how that could have been possible. Any ideas? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 01:11:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA11765; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 01:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 01:07:55 -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: stumbling on repulsion of proximal neutral atoms X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Sorry for the inconvenience. A corrected version: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Speaking of stumbles, I know there is the old thing about integrating the charge on a sphere and showing the center of charge is the center of the sphere, etc. I just wonder if there is not some inconsistency about this, if maybe the charge of an electron, being spread over a wider volume, a larger debroglie wavelength at a given velocity, a greater volume psi^2 distribution, is maybe somehow different from the charge of a proton, which is spread less. Here's an example of what I mean. Consider two proximal atoms A and B. For simplicity, lets consider each nucleus to be of charge 2Q and centered at a point. Consider a plane through the two points the nuclei occupy. This plane cuts each atom's electron cloud into two symmetric sections. Each section must have a center of charge. Call the points of centers of charge QA1, QA2, and QA3 for atom A and QB1, QB2, and QB3 for atom B, where QA2 and QB2 are each the nuclei of charge +2Q and the other centers of charge are each -Q. QA1 and QB1 are opposed. Here's a picture: QA1 QB1 } distance x QA2 <-- distance d --> QB2 } distance x QA3 QB3 Now, if we consider, as standard practice, all the charges to be located at the center of mass we have the force between the two atoms as zero. As we separate the centers of charge by increasing x, the forces between opposed centers F(QA1, QB1), F(QA2, QB2), F(QA3, QB3), remain unchanged, but the forces on diagonals change. For example, F(QA1,QB2) = (k)(-2)/(d^2+x^2), and F(QA1,QB3) = (k)(1)/(d^2+4x^2). Breaking out the component vectors we can immediately see that there must be a laterally compressive force on the atoms due to the sudden addition of diagonal forces as x increases. Further, the net longitudinal change in force on the electrons, due to the opposing atoms, must be attractive as x increases, simply because the distance between diagonal electron clouds, for example, between QA1 and QB3 grows faster than the distance between the electron cloud and the opposing nucleus, i.e. QA1 and QB2. The net force between the nuclei and the opposing atom becomes more repulsive as x increases because, in effect, the sheilding of the electron cloud moves away. To make calculation simpler let's express F in terms where D is unity and k is removed so we get the following table of individual forces between centers of charge: F B1 B2 B3 A1 1 -2/(1+x^2) 1/(1+4x^2) A2 -2/(1+x^2) 4 -2/(1+x^2) A3 1/(1+4x^2) -2/(1+x^2) 1 Summing the forces, we get: F = 1 + 4 + 1 + 4(-2/(1+x^2)) + 2(1/(1+4x^2)) F = 6 + 2/(1+4x^2) - 8/(1+x^2) Note that at x = 0 we have F= 6 + 2 - 8 = 0. The valid range for x is 0 to .5, otherwise the atoms are overlapped. From the laterallly compressing force we can see the upper limit on x must be lower than that, because as the atoms approach they should elongate and form dipoles. If we now break out the longitudinal force vectors only, we multiply by cos1 = 1/(1+x^2)^0.5 and cos2 = 1/(1+4x^2)^0.5, i.e. for triangles with far sides of x and 2x, so we get: F = 6 + (2/(1+4x^2))1/((1+4x^2)^0.5) - (8/(1+x^2))(1/(1+x^2)^0.5) However, evaluating at .5 we get F = 6 + (1)(0.7071) - 6.4(.8944) = 0.9829, a net repulsion. No matter where we calculate in the range x = 0 to .5 we get a positive value betweeen 0 and 0.9829. Thus, as neutral atoms approach we should see a repulsion. The Casimir force has a weak competitor? The original assumption of action everywhere equivalent to center of charge (F = 0) seems invalidated. So, where did I stumble?" Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 03:29:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA20473; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 03:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 03:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607211020.DAA03812@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >The difficulty with this is the conduction band electron's waveform, the >principle item of investigation, is *huge*, many atomic radii by some >theories, macrolevel by others, but certainly never smaller than the >deBroglie wavelength determined by lamda=h/p. If they are antennae they are >huge and ghostly antennae. Yes indeed, huge. In fact the wave form is as large as the speed of light will have caused it to grow since the last time it was forced to accelerate into a new direction. Technically, it is infinite. Practically, it is still very large vis many feet. We know this because we indeed can measure the effect of a zero net charge for a great distance (a null measurement) and we also can measure the effect of a very large charge for a large distance as well. Up to several miles in the case of lightning and more if you count the sprites above the clouds. So yes, the wave form is huge and large numbers of those particles can create a tremendous stress on the aethers nodal structure and organization. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 06:08:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA00586; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 06:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 06:04:59 -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: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>The difficulty with this is the conduction band electron's waveform, the >>principle item of investigation, is *huge*, many atomic radii by some >>theories, macrolevel by others, but certainly never smaller than the >>deBroglie wavelength determined by lamda=h/p. If they are antennae they are >>huge and ghostly antennae. > >Yes indeed, huge. In fact the wave form is as large as the speed of light >will have caused it to grow since the last time it was forced to accelerate >into a new direction. Technically, it is infinite. Practically, it is >still very large vis many feet. We know this because we indeed can measure >the effect of a zero net charge for a great distance (a null measurement) >and we also can measure the effect of a very large charge for a large >distance as well. > >Up to several miles in the case of lightning and more if you count the >sprites above the clouds. So yes, the wave form is huge and large numbers >of those particles can create a tremendous stress on the aethers nodal >structure and organization. > >Ross Tessien I am talking about quantum waveform psi, not charge field E. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 06:15:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01026; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 06:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 06:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960721130419_100433.1541_BHG54-1@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: Re: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross says: > Does anyone know any more about the experiments that showed a > correlation between the radioactivity of radium I think it was. > The experimenters measured the radioactivity at a few different > locations separated by thousands of miles and they all changed > their reactivity simultaneously. I think Stirniman may know more > about this if I recall. That sounds interesting, but I found the language somewhat opaque. Could you please restate this? Perhaps I'm not making my difficulties clear. (1) you can't have 'a correlation between the radiocativity' of anything. (2) Do you mean that widely separated samples showed a simultaneous change in the level of their radioactive emissions? I would have thought that even one sample doing that would be pretty remarkable. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 06:16:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01142; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 06:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 06:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960721130422_100433.1541_BHG54-2@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: Re: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mike writes: > Takahashi was guarded in his conversation with Chris Tinsley over > the demonstration of the Sciex scooter, not claiming o/u, but when > Chris challenged him on the point, he grinned (Chris, do I have it > right?). Well, he was claiming that the apparent o-u resulted from a gradual loss of strength (5%/year, he said) of the magnets. Naturally I laughed. He laughed back, we understood one another... Yes, the video was hoax-or-real, precisely zero possibility of error I would say. > Remember that a key Japanese strategic goal is market share, not > necessarily fame and glory. In this case, Takahashi has made it perfectly clear that he specifically wants the recognition of the science community. I also have seen that some say he is not a big wheel in Sciex, but his business card says 'C E O'. Can I tack on here my astonishment at Rick Monteverde's little expt? What's happening? I thought wings worked by pressure differential, but now it's Van der Waals? Isn't that a zpf manifestation? Hasn't anybody ever done before what Rick has done? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 06:17:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01082; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 06:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 06:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960721130425_100433.1541_BHG54-3@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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace wants to know about the Hering experiment, so I'll try. You know those clips which can be used to secure broom handles and suchlike? Their jaws meet and then open out so you can push the handle in: * X * * * * * ** ** * * * Y * * * * * * * *--M---* 'M' is a meter. Now, instead of a broom handle, you have - in the outer jaws at 'X' - a very large magnetised iron hoop with a circular cross-section which keeps the circuit closed as you push the hoop (or endless bar, I suppose) through the jaws and into the clip proper (Y). "During this motion, the voltmeter circuit is completed through the iron of the magnet; when [at X] the flux of the magnet does not link the circuit, while [at Y] it does. Consequently there has been a change in the amount of flux linking the circuit. Would you expect this to result in an induced emf?" There. Make yourselves miserable with that one, I'll post what Cullwick says about it later... Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 06:22:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01217; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 06:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 06:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607211311.IAA04029@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: new beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: As of last Thursday, a new batch of beads from Kirk Shanahan has been running in our dual-method calorimeter. He has designated these beads as "Batch #1". Kirk, why don't you explain to the folks what is different about these beads? This run started off at 20mA and 50C, a slight departure from previous runs in which the initial 20mA charging period was conducted at 25C. The current was held at 20mA for 24 hours, then raised to 50mA for another 24 hours. Now the current is at 100mA. Thus far, there has been no hint of excess heat. This run is using about 60ml of 1M Li2SO4 and 1.6 grams of beads. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 09:00:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19758; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 08:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 08:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607211546.IAA19046@dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 7/21/96 You wrote: snip . . . > >Check out the amplitude of the QVF . . . Ross, perhaps you would care to define the QVF for us. What's its quantum wave function, frequency spectrum, average wave length, field orientation, etc.? I do believe you've described it as random fluctuations. No doubt, you have measured it. The problem with cohering energy from this vast energy field is precisely it's random orientation. This random field orientation along with the random orientation and kinetic energy induced velocity of even a single gas molecule make it extremely unlikely of even single molecular resonance. Now you would have us believe that somehow a second equally random molecule (often a different type of gas molecule) becomes locked in sympathetic resonance with another. And, somehow they interfere with the QFV which pushes them together. Sort of a molecular Casimir effect. You've demonstrated this of course. Have you or anyone you know of, even demonstrated the putative Casimir effect on even a macroscopic scale? Random orientation dispells your co-resonance scheme. Pluck a string and bring it parallel to a tuned second string. Sympathetic resonance is obvious. Pluck the same string and bring it perpendicular to the same second string. They don't resonate. Neither will two matched pendulums with orthogonal orientation. Orientation in co-resonance is everything, assuming the are similarlly matched. In totally randomized systems, ie., random QVF and equally randomized high velocity gas molecules with very short mean free paths, co-resonance just doesn't take place. If you have experimental evidence that it does, please provide it. Since van der Waals forces are essentially intrinsic dipole-dipole attractive forces, do you now tell us that that there is no intrinsic attraction between opposite charges, according to your new theory? Or, do the experience only another vacuum Casimir effect? If so, how do you explain repulsive forces between like charges? Do you now disavow intrinsic attractive forces between unlike charges and intrinsic repulsive forces between like charges? Is the concept of charge a myth in your new theory? Also, conspicously absent, in your vacuum co-resonant molecular Casimir theory is your shielding explains everything theory. Where did it go? What gets shielded in this system? Are you familiar with William of Occam? RWW From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 09:25:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA23394; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 09:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 09:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Stumbles and more stumbles X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: More interresting stumbles are added to the bottom of this post, but all the stumbles are stated here for consistency and completeness. Speaking of stumbles, I know there is the old thing about integrating the charge on a sphere and showing the center of charge is the center of the sphere, etc. I just wonder if there is not some inconsistency about this, if maybe the charge of an electron, being spread over a wider volume, a larger debroglie wavelength at a given velocity, a greater volume psi^2 distribution, is maybe somehow different from the charge of a proton, which is spread less. Here's an example of what I mean. Consider two proximal atoms A and B. For simplicity, lets consider each nucleus to be of charge 2Q and centered at a point. Consider a plane through the two points the nuclei occupy. This plane cuts each atom's electron cloud into two symmetric sections. Each section must have a center of charge. Call the points of centers of charge QA1, QA2, and QA3 for atom A and QB1, QB2, and QB3 for atom B, where QA2 and QB2 are each the nuclei of charge +2Q and the other centers of charge are each -Q. QA1 and QB1 are opposed. Here's a picture: QA1 QB1 } distance x QA2 <-- distance d --> QB2 } distance x QA3 QB3 Now, if we consider, as standard practice, all the charges to be located at the center of mass we have the force between the two atoms as zero. As we separate the centers of charge by increasing x, the forces between opposed centers F(QA1, QB1), F(QA2, QB2), F(QA3, QB3), remain unchanged, but the forces on diagonals change. For example, F(QA1,QB2) = (k)(-2)/(d^2+x^2), and F(QA1,QB3) = (k)(1)/(d^2+4x^2). Breaking out the component vectors we can immediately see that there must be a laterally compressive force on the atoms due to the sudden addition of diagonal forces as x increases. Further, the net longitudinal change in force on the electrons, due to the opposing atoms, must be attractive as x increases, simply because the distance between diagonal electron clouds, for example, between QA1 and QB3 grows faster than the distance between the electron cloud and the opposing nucleus, i.e. QA1 and QB2. The net force between the nuclei and the opposing atom becomes more repulsive as x increases because, in effect, the sheilding of the electron cloud moves away. To make calculation simpler let's express F in terms where D is unity and k is removed so we get the following table of individual forces between centers of charge: F B1 B2 B3 A1 1 -2/(1+x^2) 1/(1+4x^2) A2 -2/(1+x^2) 4 -2/(1+x^2) A3 1/(1+4x^2) -2/(1+x^2) 1 Summing the forces, we get: F = 1 + 4 + 1 + 4(-2/(1+x^2)) + 2(1/(1+4x^2)) F = 6 + 2/(1+4x^2) - 8/(1+x^2) Note that at x = 0 we have F= 6 + 2 - 8 = 0. The valid range for x is 0 to .5, otherwise the atoms are overlapped. From the laterallly compressing force we can see the upper limit on x must be lower than that, because as the atoms approach they should elongate and form dipoles. If we now break out the longitudinal force vectors only, we multiply by cos1 = 1/(1+x^2)^0.5 and cos2 = 1/(1+4x^2)^0.5, i.e. for triangles with far sides of x and 2x, so we get: F = 6 + (2/(1+4x^2))1/((1+4x^2)^0.5) - (8/(1+x^2))(1/(1+x^2)^0.5) However, evaluating at .5 we get F = 6 + (1)(0.7071) - 6.4(.8944) = 0.9829, a net repulsion. No matter where we calculate in the range x = 0 to .5 we get a positive value betweeen 0 and 0.9829. Thus, as neutral atoms approach we should see a repulsion. The Casimir force has a weak competitor? The original assumption of action everywhere equivalent to center of charge (F = 0) seems invalidated. Where have I stumbled? Note that x is the distance from the atom center, i.e. the nucleus center, to the center of charge of a spherical segment. Keeping the two atoms out of contact requires x to be much less than .5 or even .25 due to the fact the center of charge of the spherical segment is less that halfway through it from the atomic center. Now, lets look at the atom sliced another way, laterally, with all the centers lying longitudinally. This gives a picture like this: |<--X-->|<--X-->| |<--X-->|<--X-->| QA1 QA2 QA3 QB1 QB2 QB3 |<------------------ d ------------------>| Calculating the individual forces in a manner similar to the above: F B1 B2 B3 A1 1 -2/(1+x)^2 1/(1+2x)^2 A2 -2/(1-x)^2 4 -2/(1+x)^2 A3 1/(1-2x)^2 -2/(1-x)^2 1 Summing up all the forces we get: F = 6 + 1/(1-2x)^2 + 1/(1+2x)^2 - 4/(1-x)^2 -4/(1+x)^2 Which is different from the force equation for slicing the atom longitudinally (stumbled again!), but is also monotonically increasing in the range 0 PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 10:19:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA01835; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:15:08 -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: Bill Beaty's fuzz balls X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > William Beaty wrote: > > > > >Yet the force laws for wires are controlled only by the total charge > >transport per second and the velocity falls out. Are the magnetic forces > >surrounding a wire having slow-moving dense carriers REALLY the same as > >those around a wire having sparse carriers moving fast, with the value for > >current in each wire being the same? > > > >....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. > >William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 > > > If the electons are quantum waveforms of very large size residing in > conduction bands, then none of the previously referenced point type models > seem to apply. This raises interesting points. Do the Ampere forces arise only in metals? Some of the Graneau articles discuss arc explosions and lightning (thunder may come from the Ampere force, not from sudden heating.) But these involve plasma, where electrons are more particle-like. Also, it's only the low mass of electrons vs. high mass of ions which makes the wave-nature of electrons so significant, no? The particle model doesn't apply to all aspects of electron currents simply because electrons are so light. Conduction in plasma and electrolytes is a different story than that with wires. In electrolytes the charges are ions, so the particle model fits much better. One guy on the east coast (Richard Hull?) was working with Peter Graneau trying to measure the energy throughput for capacitor discharges through water, looking for possible o/u effects. The "water explosion" effect during high currents through water might involve ions alone, and if this phenomenon involves Ampere forces, then Ampere forces don't require metals or metals' huge, wavelike electrons. ....................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 Jul 21 10:20:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA02069; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:16:27 -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: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Al X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/20/96 22:54 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Al DC, and yes the flow does determine the drift of the metals. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 10:31:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA03507; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:27:31 -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: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Al X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/20/96 19:28 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: OK Gang, out of the theory box and into observations-Al Frank Stenger: No Frank, I'm not just refering to "diffusion". If I were, we'd have solder joints failing all the time because of age! The observations I'm refering too, as John S. pointed out to me, go under the generic name: Electro Migration... MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 10:46:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA05344; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607211741.KAA01727@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: Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion" Effect X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I have been corrected in describing Dr. Edmund Stormns as a Nuclear (hot fusion) Physicist by Dr. Mallove. Dr. Storms was/is a Nuclear Chemist. Still, I think it very significant that a scientist from that center of hot fusion (LANL) research would find For CF. What is the defining line between a physicist and a chemist on research on the nuclear level? Is there need for such a line? -AK- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 11:20:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA10483; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 11:16:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 11:16:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960721180408_100433.1541_BHG56-1@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: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Richard Wall asks: > Have you or anyone you know of, even demonstrated the putative > Casimir effect on even a macroscopic scale? Well, Casimir did back in the 40s (or was it 50s), in the Netherlands - Phillips Labs, I think. And my understanding of van der Waals forces is that they *are* 'Casimir' forces. > Are you familiar with William of Occam? Gently now. We are *very* familiar with Ol' Bill - though I admit I prefer 'Ockham'. People here have nasty habits of invoking Bill in matters like the physical existence of magnetic fields and photons - stuff like that. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 11:44:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA13622; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 11:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 11:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960721143147_581510782@emout17.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: Re: your visit and work -3 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: My business partners, John Barrron, Ron Madison and I are leaving today to travel to Detroit. We are going to meet with Vlad, Peter Glueck, and Yuri Potapov on monday. We plan to discuss a possible joint venture to bring the Yusmar technology to market. Yuri and Peter are leaving tuesday for Lanl where Ron McFee is going to test the technology. My group is planning to visit LanL in about two weeks. We should have results by then. I'll try to get some pictures for Jed R, Gene M., and Charles Yost. We are in the process of putting a business plan together. I believe that we can reach an agreement to is a benefit to Yuri and to my group. I am also interested in bringing Puthoff onto our team if after we get going. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 11:44:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA13528; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 11:39:46 -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: Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion" Effect X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/21/96 10:46 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion" Effect I think some people should be aware that there are several dividing lines on people involved in Physics, Nuclear Science, Nuclear Chemistry, Health Physics, etc. First off: In Physics there are the particle bangers and the "hot fusion" crowd. How can you tell the difference between the two? A. Particle bangers are the ones who show up at the "anti-nuclear" rallies as the anti-nukes "nuclear experts". They all wore a radiation badge 20 years before when they got their Phd's and spent a couple years "particle banging" at a local University accellerator facility. Another characteristic of the "particle banger" type is they like to bang just a couple particles, and do it at higher and higher energy, under the theory that the more parts they find left over the more they will know about the construction of the original particles. (File this under the image of some primatives putting Swiss watches into cannons, firing them at each other, picking up the pieces and attempting to figure out how the Swiss watches work.) Then you have the "hot fusion" types. Now this is a different breed of cat. Generally these folks DO NOT show up at the local "anti-nuke" rallies, and try to keep themselves "a-political" on everything, except their government funding. When ever their funding is threatened, then they crawl out of the woodwork and start whining about "cheap, clean, unlimited power". Please be forwarned that bringing up factors like the neutron activation of potential fusion reactor vessel materials---and subsequent radioactive waste production, are NOT permissable topics in the discussion. (Even further be forwarned that any mention of doing things on a "lab scale" and THEN scaling up will bring up HOURS of bogus discussion of why they NEEEEEEEEEED to spend BILLIONS of dollars to build bigger and "better" test devices before acheiving a self sustaining plasma.....) - OK, now that we have disected the various "Physics" types, let's get to the "nuclear scientists". When it comes to "fission" power, the discussion is very simple: They are all dead, dying, retired, fishing, or in general going away. I personnally tell the young people I know that it would be more advantageous for them to go into a respectable career like drug dealing or garbage removal than become involved in "nuclear science" or any such nonsense. I think the reason for this is that the "nuclear science" types made a terrible mistake. They created systems that WORK, that are essentially fully understood, and are currenlty responsible for generating 20% of the U.S. electric supply. OBVIOUSLY anyone that practical MUST be eliminated in the "BRAVE NEW WORLD", and given nothing but GRIEF for having the Kutzpa to do something worthwhile. File them as low and as despicable as you can, and just slightly below "oil companies" and "logging companies"... we don't need any more of that type in our world!!! - Last, we have the "engineer type". I could waste several more lines on describing this type of individual, but Scott Adams has done it so WELL that my efforts would be conter-productive. I hope this helps..! From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 12:21:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA17671; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 12:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 12:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607211910.MAA29943@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 7/21/96 You wrote: snip > >And my understanding of van der Waals forces is that they *are* >'Casimir' forces. Naah. They are electrostatic in nature. Due to charge dipole as exhibited by certain molecules such as H2O and CO2. Without them water would not exist with its known liquid characteristics. Also, hydrogen bonding would cease to exist and all organic lifeforms would literally fall apart. We would not exist without them. > > > Are you familiar with William of Occam? > >Gently now. We are *very* familiar with Ol' Bill - though I admit I >prefer 'Ockham'. People here have nasty habits of invoking Bill in >matters like the physical existence of magnetic fields and photons - >stuff like that. > >Chris And they should. Around 1320, William of Occam (sp by my reference) wrote that we ought not to admit into explaination of any phenomenon any more unproven assumptions than are strictly necessary; we are to shave off any excess. Hence this principle became known as Occam's Razor. In my opinion still applicable today and in particular to this list. RWW From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 12:46:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA21588; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 12:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 12:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F28604.63BC@rt66.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Richard Thomas Murray To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thank you Ross Tessien. Lift over a moving convex airfoil is based mainly on the normal Van der Waals molecular attraction between the molecules at the surface and the adjacent moving molecules of the air, which in turn are attracted by the same force to the next outer layer of slightly slower moving molecules, so that a boundary layer of air is dragged along with the moving airfoil. Momentum is thus transferred, since as the air is constantly being pulled gently down, the airfoil is constantly being pulled up. As another example, suppose a horizontal flat plate is electrically charged, and a sheet of oppositely charged water is directed horizontally over the plate, close, but not so close as to have contact or sparks. The sheet of moving water will be pulled toward the plate, and the plate will be pulled upward toward the water. So, the molecule to molecule Van der Waals attraction is a subtle electromagnetic effect that can transfer momentum throughout a fluid or create "quasistructural order" in water, for instance, enough surface tension to float a clean pin. I hope this clarifies how momentum transfer happens in moving gas streams, allowing attractive (lift) as well as repulsive (pressure) as well as lateral (drag) momentum transfer. The story becomes more intricate when the flow is turbulent, not simple laminar flow. Thank you for your close attention. Rich Murray From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 13:29:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA28055; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 13:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 13:25:35 -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: Re: your visit and work -3 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/21/96 11:44 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: your visit and work -3 Frank: Thanks for your good work on this.... I'm hoping that maybe somewhere along the line, if the Yusmar DOES PRODUCE something, that a "kiss and make up" can be acheived between Scott Little, Gene Mallove, Jed Rothwell and the Potopov group. If the Potopov device does not work, we will have to consign Yuri to the scrap heap of history. However, if it does, we will have to consign Scott, Gene and Jed to that terrible void of "mis- communication"...Which, in dealing with someone speaking an entirely different language, and who does not seem to speak much English, could be possible! I would also hope, however, in the long run, that the Gene/Jed/ Little nexus might receive perhaps a payoff for their funds they put into trying to test the Yusmars originally. This is NOT a huge amount of money, but enough to keep any of the group supplied with Dentyne for a couple decades. (Which should get rid of any bad tastes in their mouths.) MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 13:37:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA28813; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 13:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 13:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960721201550_76216.2421_HHB53-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris - > Can I tack on here my astonishment at Rick Monteverde's little > expt? What's happening? I thought wings worked by pressure > differential, but now it's Van der Waals? Isn't that a zpf > manifestation? Hasn't anybody ever done before what Rick has > done? I'm sure that the quick and dirty vacuum experiment I did was just beneath trivial, and isn't really very different from what happens when you hang a spoon against a stream of water from the faucet. It's probably been done many times before. I would like to run it again in my larger chamber (17" x 40"), and have a double ended differential ("U") manometer setup during some runs to look at the pressure differential between the top surface in the air jet and the bottom of the airfoil. I feel pretty sure that the pressure would be higher in the stream during the vacuum runs, but I'd like to confirm that with a trustworthy visual reading. I have to do a batch of 'real world' stuff for a couple of days though. And is it van der Waals or Van der Waals? I have a small collection of physics texts and couldn't even find the name, though I remember it from what little studying I did of aerodynamics years ago. Anyway, I recall that there's been a persistent minority of people who have believed this about wing lift for some time. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 14:12:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA03340; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:05:38 -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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/21/96 13:37 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Wings I think what Rick has seen here is used in what is called a "jet pump"... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 14:37:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA06029; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607212122.OAA01549@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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:16 PM 7/19/96 -0700, you wrote: > > >Does he claim ou or not? If he claims high effeciency, then I would vote to >eliminate the topic from vortex as discussed and not applicable to ou >schemes. If he claims energy greater than the batteries posessed, then even >if he is hiding from saying ou for fear of retribution, we should continue >to follow his development. So, which is it, efficiency or ou?????? > >Ross Tessien > > > > O U ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 14:38:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA06199; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:29:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:29:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960721212331_100433.1541_BHG52-1@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: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Richard comments on van der Waals forces - yes, I appreciate that plain electrostatic forces play their part. However, I think maybe others here will be able to say more about the role of Casimir forces in this area of interest. Just not quite that simple, they tell me. What is? Occam/Ockham/Schmockam. I just use the form of spelling which is correct for the small village he came from. No big deal. But could I perhaps point out that the Razor does not appear in any of his writings, it was a fairly common idea at the time and maybe got ascribed to him 'cos he was a notorious big-brain. You know he did time for proving that you can't prove the existence of God? However, I much prefer the actual wording (tr from the Latin with which I shall not bore anybody): "Entities may not be multiplied beyond necessity." I feel it's crucial for straight thinking that the exact form be used, every word counts. You are right that it is applicable in the present. Since I am lacking in mathematical ability, I like to poke around in the logic of physics - and often wish that more physicists would do likewise. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 14:39:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA06080; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607212122.OAA01556@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: Memory ... new technology (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 08:27 PM 7/20/96 -0700, you wrote: > snip > >*What is it: Method of latching or holding state of standard CMOS transistor >based on a materials sciences technology which is at present in use, but >not in use in the computer memory field. > > My problem is that I have no avnue wherby I can introduce it to >the industry. I am a scientist, not a marketer or businessman, I have no >"champion" in any company in the computer memory arena. > > This is a big hill to climb. Any of you VORS have a way up the > mountain? I am a "hard ball, nuts and bolts, belt and suspenders" >APPLIED sciences type. I have a couple full scale working units [one cell] >made with COTS, or comercially available off-the-shelf discrete and IC >semiconductors the demonstrate reduction to practice. I will be happy to >show these to a qualified "black box" or "eunich". > > Thanks for you time. > > John Herman Schnurer > > John, in the last week an interesting personal entry has opened up to me with the founder of one of the world's leading memory manufacturers. We could arrange an introduction and evaluation once we think through suitable safegards for you. I have no time until the end of this week, however. Then I will contact you ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 14:42:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA06128; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607212122.OAA01567@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: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:12 AM 7/21/96 -0700, you wrote: >Ross says: > > > Does anyone know any more about the experiments that showed a > > correlation between the radioactivity of radium I think it was. > > The experimenters measured the radioactivity at a few different > > locations separated by thousands of miles and they all changed > > their reactivity simultaneously. I think Stirniman may know more > > about this if I recall. > >That sounds interesting, but I found the language somewhat opaque. >Could you please restate this? > >Perhaps I'm not making my difficulties clear. (1) you can't have 'a >correlation between the radiocativity' of anything. (2) Do you mean >that widely separated samples showed a simultaneous change in the level >of their radioactive emissions? I would have thought that even one >sample doing that would be pretty remarkable. > >Chris > > Indeedy! I sure would like to hear more about this lead. I suspect it will evaporate, but it is surely intriguing. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 14:54:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA08577; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: More Re: Memory ... new technology (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Folks, If you have a lead, as Michael found, please contact me directly. If one does not work out, I will of course entertain another. Thanks so much for your support. On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, Michael Mandeville wrote: > At 08:27 PM 7/20/96 -0700, you wrote: > > > > snip > > > >*What is it: Method of latching or holding state of standard CMOS transistor > >based on a materials sciences technology which is at present in use, but > >not in use in the computer memory field. > > > > My problem is that I have no avnue wherby I can introduce it to > >the industry. I am a scientist, not a marketer or businessman, I have no > >"champion" in any company in the computer memory arena. > > > > This is a big hill to climb. Any of you VORS have a way up the > > mountain? I am a "hard ball, nuts and bolts, belt and suspenders" > >APPLIED sciences type. I have a couple full scale working units [one cell] > >made with COTS, or comercially available off-the-shelf discrete and IC > >semiconductors the demonstrate reduction to practice. I will be happy to > >show these to a qualified "black box" or "eunich". > > > > Thanks for you time. > > > > John Herman Schnurer > > > > > > John, in the last week an interesting personal entry has opened up to me > with the founder of one of the world's leading memory manufacturers. We > could arrange an introduction and evaluation once we think through suitable > safegards for you. I have no time until the end of this week, however. > Then I will contact you > ____________________________________ > MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing > Michael Mandeville, publisher > mwm@aa.net > http://www.aa.net/~mwm > > JHS From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 15:39:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA16180; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 15:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 15:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607212214.PAA25205@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I am talking about quantum waveform psi, not charge field E. I may not be making the link from my concepts to QED concepts here properly, but I think I am. I am also talking about the quantum waveform and not a charge field E per se. What I am dealing with in essence is the quantum standing wave and the manner in which a group of them will constructively and destructively interfere. In this respect I think we are talking about the same thing. I mentioned the lightning bolt not as an example of the abstract concept of a charge field E, but rather as a demonstration of what a very large assemblage of resonant emitters can do when their phased array emissions result in a constructive interference along a path toward the ground. It is sort of like ripping open a channel in the quantum vacuum that allows a large coherent conduction through that channel. In a similar, if lower power model, an antenna then winds up having the sum of the electrons individual wave energies give rise to a phased array beam normal to, or axial with, the conductor. So, if you are sending a varying voltage up the antenna, then what you are doing is amplitude modulating that phased array beam. As the electrons move out the antenna, the beam should distort slightly forward, and as the electrons move back out of the antenna, the sum of the emissions (phased array summation methods) should be directed slightly backwards. Also, the beam should be primarily directed normal to the antenna. I may not be getting this perfectly as there is a complexity in the helical curvature of the nodal structure that I am having difficulty figuring out how it applies to this particular model. But, the summation begins at the wave mechanical level of the electrons individually interacting with their surroundings in the conduction band of the metal atoms in the antenna. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 15:39:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA16225; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 15:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 15:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607212215.PAA25207@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Greetings Chris; > > > Does anyone know any more about the experiments that showed a > > correlation between the radioactivity of radium I think it was. > > The experimenters measured the radioactivity at a few different > > locations separated by thousands of miles and they all changed > > their reactivity simultaneously. I think Stirniman may know more > > about this if I recall. > >That sounds interesting, but I found the language somewhat opaque. >Could you please restate this? > >Perhaps I'm not making my difficulties clear. (1) you can't have 'a >correlation between the radiocativity' of anything. (2) Do you mean >that widely separated samples showed a simultaneous change in the level >of their radioactive emissions? I would have thought that even one >sample doing that would be pretty remarkable. I mean that widely separated samples show a correlation to the rate of decay product emission (ie radioactivity rate), to time. And further that the correlation showed up to be synchronous at a variety of different labs at very disparate locations around the globe. Further, there seemed to be some interesting time scales at which the variability occured, and some of these had to do with 24 hours, and 28 days. This, to say the least, is very interesting if it is true. I read second hand that the experiments had been published, but I never found the original source, so I would caution that this may be in error and that the experiments may not have been performed properly. The evidence was presented not as a tremendously strong correlation, but as a weak, but definite and statistical correlation. The thing is, radioactivity is supposed to be perfectly random. If there is any correlation to time that implies motion of earth, (24 hours) or the moon (28 days), then there is some effect that originates with the coupling of the radioactive material to the outside space. Gravitational perturbations are far too weak to alter the decay rate. The only possibility is that the QVF are somehow affected by these motions. If it can be demonstrated that the QVF are variable to even a tiny degree based on the direction the lab is pointing relative to space (earth shielding) or to the direction that the earth is pointing relative to the solar system (solar plus lunar shielding), then the supposition that space is somehow intimately connected to the existence of matter becomes more strong. Another point of note that is at this time worthless on its own is the recent experiments to measure G. Three well performed experiments with small error boxes failed to find a value that agreed. This leaves open the supposition that G is not a constant if you treat gravitation as "attractive". But, the labs with the greatest view factor to space had the highest value, and the ones with mountains nearby had lower values (I forget if it was one with a large value and two with small or the other way around. In any case, the ones with the lower altitude and larger mountains nearby had the lower values) But since I did not go over to inspect their cites or have them replicate their experiments at a different location on a mountain top, I don't know if the ranges I found on the world map really mean anything or not. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 15:40:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA16295; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 15:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 15:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607212215.PAA25216@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Richard, Thanks for the questions, I'll do my best to answer them based on my model. >> >>Check out the amplitude of the QVF . . . > >Ross, perhaps you would care to define the QVF for us. What's its >quantum wave function, frequency spectrum, average wave length, field >orientation, etc.? I do believe you've described it as random >fluctuations. I don't know it's quantum wave function as I haven't formulated it in that manner. I do have an equation for the mass amplification of the electrons standing wave and that energy is what is emitted out into space acoustically. But the summation is a very complicated three dimensional dual manifold that I don't know yet how to formulate. I'll let you know if I figure it out. The frequency spectrum and scale as I have stated several times is that of the Planck scale. This is, lambda ~= E-35 m and f ~= E45 Hz. The structure is not "random" in the sense that there is a greater than zero organization for the structure of space into a dual manifold which I have described in other posts so won't tie up bandwidth here repeating that. But most importantly, while there is a tremendous amount of energy to the motions, it is not random at the QVF level. There are "random" waves or pressure variances moving through the aether that originated from sources that were frequency and or phase decoupled from a given region in the quantum vacuum. But that randomness is of a lower amplitude than the organisation. >No doubt, you have measured it. This depends on how one asserts that the measurement of it can be attained. If you say that I must use one wave at E-35 m with which to measure the existence of another wave, then obviously not. But, if you are willing to agree that when Brown measured the perturbations to fine grains of dust in water when viewed in his microscope that physicists of that day should have come to the conclusion that water was made up of smaller particles that we today call molecules, then yes I have measured this aether. Each time we shoot an electron or a photon through a two slit experiment, they are forced to follow trajectories that lead to an interference pattern on the opposing screen or measuring device that detects their positions of impact. Even if we throw just one particle at a time, we still get the same pattern. The positions of impact are "random" in the sense that we do not know where the next particle will strike. But the positions are ordered in that there are regions that are hit more often and this gives rise to the interference pattern. So, on this point I would say that this fact is evidence of the structure of the quantum vacuum that has been altered in shape in both the space, due to the configuration of the apparatus and the two slits, and in time, due to the fluid dynamic nature of the nodal structure. Sorry if I implied that the structure is some simple, fixed in position for all time sort of thing. It is constantly changing, but the nodes are rigidly coupled. Distortions, then, could only occur as a macroscopic curvature to the structure of the nodes. Sort of like a tornado is a node into which the air is flowing and it remains rigidly the focus of inflow. But since it is fluidic, it is distorting and bending constantly. The random trajectories are then due to the dynamic nature of the nodes, while the overal pattern is due to the apparatus. But yes, we do observe sub atomic matter become perturbed by these fluctuations. > >The problem with cohering energy from this vast energy field is >precisely it's random orientation. This random field orientation along >with the random orientation and kinetic energy induced velocity of even >a single gas molecule make it extremely unlikely of even single >molecular resonance. Now you would have us believe that somehow a >second equally random molecule (often a different type of gas molecule) >becomes locked in sympathetic resonance with another. And, somehow >they interfere with the QFV which pushes them together. Sort of a >molecular Casimir effect. You've demonstrated this of course. Have >you or anyone you know of, even demonstrated the putative Casimir >effect on even a macroscopic scale? You state "putative Casimir effect". Putative means, "to suppose, supposed; reputed; commonly considered or deemed;..." By this I must assume that you are asking if the Casimir effect is real. The answer is yes. Many people have constructed devices and physically measured the force. It is a very easy device to construct in todays laboratories. Regarding phase and frequency locking and sympathetic vibrations, see the article in Science News "Keeping the Beat" 4/13/96. The article deals with frequency synchronization of JJ's which are superconductive in nature. Another article, (SN; 12/9/95) deals with systems of coupled pendulums. These are one dimensional phenomena that demonstrate that indeed coupling does occur in systems of oscillators. > >Random orientation dispells your co-resonance scheme. Pluck a string >and bring it parallel to a tuned second string. Sympathetic resonance >is obvious. Pluck the same string and bring it perpendicular to the >same second string. They don't resonate. This is incorrect. The second string will still resonate sympathetically. Any oscillator which is brought into contact with energy at its natural frequency will sympathetically begin to oscillate. Huygens was the first to discover this with two pendulum clocks on the same wall. The trick is that for under damped oscillators, the amplitude of that resonance will increase to a level greater than that which a single impulse of the wave energy could initiate. This is called the amplification factor and for oscillators where you get them going and then remove the source driving them, it is easy to determine from the exponential decay profile of the sinusoid. Your error above is that the second string will indeed begin to resonate, but that orientation is ineffecient at coupling the energy. So, the amplitude of the sympathetic oscillation will be dramatically reduced. It will, however, still oscillate. Neither will two matched >pendulums with orthogonal orientation. Here you are correct. Also it occured to me there are two "perpendicular" orientations for the string above. if you meant that you were orienting the first string such that the second was normal to the first, then I agree that there would be no sympathetic resonance above. But I don't think that is what you meant. Orientation in co-resonance is >everything, assuming the are similarlly matched. Absolutely. But consider spherical convergences in three dimensions where the waves are able to deform the density of the medium. In such a case, you can wind up with coupling that leads not to randomness, but to organization. What we perceive as random motions, then, are meerly the paths that the particles were required to take in order to remain coherent. They were thus forced along those paths. In totally randomized >systems, ie., random QVF and equally randomized high velocity gas >molecules with very short mean free paths, co-resonance just doesn't >take place. OK, consider the velocity scales for the two phenomena you cite. What velocity is a particle likely to have in a gas. How about air, on earth. The sound speed is about 1100 ft per second. So the average velocity of the air particles is in that ballpark. But if you are reading closely, you know that I am treating the interactions from one particle to the next via QVF that I say are more than organized. And that energy is moving in the ballpark range of c I hope we can agree. (QED tells us that one must consider that on microscopic scales c is not strictly a constant, but rather an average velocity for long distances, and the molecule to molecule distances in this gas are "long" by QED standards it seems to me, but then this is a bit semantic) So, what is our velocity scale difference, 186,000 mi/s = 982 E6 ft/s So you see, your rapidly moving particles look about like the growth of the earth via the accumulation of comets. ie practically a frozen crystal. We like to think in terms of rapidly moving gases and fluids, but we forget the very much larger velocity of light which allows those particles to communicate. So, now you have a crystal that is frozen in space for a high temperature plasma too. A plasma might have particles that are moving at 1 or 10 E6 ft/s. We could do the calc for any temperature of any ion you wish, but I hope you get the point. > >Since van der Waals forces are essentially intrinsic dipole-dipole >attractive forces, do you now tell us that that there is no intrinsic >attraction between opposite charges, according to your new theory? I define "intrinsic attraction" to mean that one particle reaches out and via some mechanism "pulls" on the other. Based on this definition, yes, there are no such mechanisms. >Or, >do the experience only another vacuum Casimir effect? in essence, yes. remember that the Casimir effect is the action of the QVF on the outside of the plates pushing them toward the region between that had excluded a measure of the QVF due to the wavelengths that could not fit between teh mirrors. If so, how do >you explain repulsive forces between like charges? Do you now disavow >intrinsic attractive forces between unlike charges and intrinsic >repulsive forces between like charges? Is the concept of charge a myth >in your new theory? Not a myth at all. The observations are perfectly accurate. The equations describing the directions and amplitudes the objects with charge will move are perfectly correct (well, maybe not quite perfect yet, there is that longitudinal force problem to be resolved). As I have stated, charge is a measure of the phase angle relative to the nodal structure of space oscillations. The universe, is thus modeled as a huge coupled oscillator. But it is so large and fluid dynamic that across large distances things can distort and the shape of the structure if you follow from node to node can be curved (sound familiar?). Thus, within that structure you have just two phase angles that particles can couple to in any given location. call them arbitrarily 0 and 180 degrees. If you have two particles that have their resonance coupled to the nodes at 180 degree phase angle, then they are collapsing, expanding, collapsing.... And at zero degrees, you have the opposite motion of expanding, collapsing, expanding.... It gets very difficult to describe in ascii if we want to consider the meshing of the standing waves which are more like a bunch of concentric spherical shells of that sort of motion (see the article in SciAm 2/95 on sonoluminescence, note the bounce following the initial collapse, and then think yourself radially outward from that bubble wall surface and consider what must be the shape of the compression waves in the water in order to give rise to that reciprocal motion) In any case, a simple rendition just notes that if two particles are expanding at the same time, their waves tend to push on one another and it is easier for them to have that motion if they are further apart. The converse is true if the particles are 180 degrees out of phase. The expansion of one particle can move into the compression effect of the other. This leads to it being more difficult to expand in the direction away from the region between the two differently charge particles. So, on each cycle of expansion and contraction the oppositely charged particles will sort of ratchet toward each other. You can think of this either like an attraction to the lower pressure region between them where their waves destructively interfere, or you can think of it for what is really going on, ie the greater pressure on the outside is forcing them toward each other. but that "greater pressure" is really misleading. It is really the sum of waves arriving from all of space that are not as well frequency and phase angle timed as the two particles being considered. > >Also, conspicously absent, in your vacuum co-resonant molecular >Casimir theory is your shielding explains everything theory. Where did >it go? What gets shielded in this system? I assume you mean what gets shielded in the Casimir system. Simple, the mirrors do not allow certain resonances, ie wavelengths, to exist inside the region due to destructive interference. But those same waves are allowed to exist, and do, on the outside of the two plates. So, when they strike the outside of the plates, they, along with all of the other incident energy that interacts with teh atoms in the plates (most of which by the way is of much shorter wavelengths than the interatomic spacing and flows right on through as you well know that short wavelengths are able to penetrate materials. We just don't normally discuss wavelengths all the way down to teh Planck scale of E-35, but clearly that energy moves right on through without interacting). In any case, of the energy with which the atoms are able to interact, there is a difference in force from the action applied from the outside in, vs the inside out. the difference is that of the energe excluded from existing inside. But the action is derived from that same wavelength(s) energy that **DOES** exist on the outside and compresses the plates. The force by the way is proportional to the inverse fourth power of the separation distance but I haven't derived that so I am not certain what factors are involved. I think it has to do with the number of waves that are excluded, combined with the greater energy of smaller wavelengths. > >Are you familiar with William of Occam? "For the birth of modern science, then, a necessary condition was an emancipation from Thomist philosophy. This was brought about chiefly as a result of the work of William of Ockham, an English Franciscan friar, who lived in the first half of the fourteenth century. In metaphysics, Ockham introduced principles which need not concern us here, but which undermined Aristotelianism and led ultimately to that general rejection of medieval philosophy which was associated with the Renaissance; and it was he who made a beginning of rational dynamics, which after his death was developed by his followers, and on which all subsequent progress was founded. The most decisive advances were the new conception of the relation between the earth and the sun, proposed by Copernicus in 1543, and the success of Kepler, in the early years of the next centruy, in disproving the Aristotelian principle that celestial bodies are different in kind from terrestrial." You mean this guy? What I am trying to do is not unlike what he did. I will likely not succeed, but I am trying and that is all I can do. My goal is to remove our comfortability with the separation of the concepts of space, time, matter, energy, inertia, .... in short, our current view of the universe. I hope to show that by considering things all to be the outcome of the interaction of acoustic resonances that take the forms of spherical standing waves and smoke ring vortices and other such natural shapes that result from action and reaction in a compressible, deformable super fluid, that what you will find is that we are not made of some distinct form of substance called matter which is separate from the whole of the universe. Rather, I hope to show that we are composed of resonances in a huge super fluidic ocean and that the substance of that ocean, aether, is conserved. Such an endeavor is huge and frought with all sorts of opposition from those who do not think such a construction can be made to work, and it is brash to even assert what I just did. Had I not been working on this concept and found lots of evidence in phenomena across the board, I would not make it. But that is my goal. Whether or not I succeed is entirely another matter and that will depend on how much help and insight I get from others, and as well, it will depend on whether or not the entire concept is based on a lunatics fantasy, or whether it is based on a representation of the functioning of the univesre that is superior to the currently held views. Just that one point that aether must be conserved is a tremendous one. Why not try to find a place where large amounts of exothermic reactions take place where there is no evidence of aether emissions. I cite solar flares, solar coronal heating, a small deviation from the normal velocity decrease in the motions of stars in globular clusters, the emissions from galaxies that should provide an outward thrust that falls off with distance faster than gravitation and which would be considered to be due to matter that we cannot find (dark matter problem). I also cite the fact that if my model is accurate, then any kinetic convergence of aether that has enough KE to overpower the condensation energy density will condense. This leads to a constant pressure convergent condensation of the very aether filling our space as well as the matter standing waves in that aether. but such a highly pressurized object should eventually explode. To that end, I cite huge galactic jets that emit just synchrotron radiation and some electron positron anihalation gammas. Quite bizarre things. And they come with one jet, or two jets. One such single jet variety has been observed by Hubble to have an emission point (suspected black hole, I could look up the galaxy if you wish), that is 20 light years off center. Now, if that was a condensed aetehr core that breached one polar vortex first, then the emission of the contents would provide a tremendous thrust on a par with the mass of the black hole due to the core of the hole being the source of the emission jet. How you get this to happen without such a mechanism is a mystery to me, and to the physicists studying the thing. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 16:27:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA22863; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 16:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 16:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960721191457_366762966@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: Warp Drive X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross, Physics Essays is an international physics journal, large circulation, published in Canada, and yes they are interested in innovative ideas. Might well be worth a try for your stuff. I sent my paper to one of the Associate Editors, and it got to the right place, so you could do the same. Address is: Prof. R. B. Mann Assoc. Ed., Physics Essays Dept. of Physics Univ. of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario Canadaq N2L 3G1 Good luck! Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 16:28:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA22891; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 16:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 16:22:45 -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: Bill Beaty's fuzz balls X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: [snip] > >This raises interesting points. Do the Ampere forces arise only in >metals? Some of the Graneau articles discuss arc explosions and lightning >(thunder may come from the Ampere force, not from sudden heating.) But >these involve plasma, where electrons are more particle-like. Also, it's >only the low mass of electrons vs. high mass of ions which makes the >wave-nature of electrons so significant, no? The particle model doesn't >apply to all aspects of electron currents simply because electrons are so >light. > >Conduction in plasma and electrolytes is a different story than that with >wires. In electrolytes the charges are ions, so the particle model fits >much better. One guy on the east coast (Richard Hull?) was working with >Peter Graneau trying to measure the energy throughput for capacitor >discharges through water, looking for possible o/u effects. The "water >explosion" effect during high currents through water might involve ions >alone, and if this phenomenon involves Ampere forces, then Ampere forces >don't require metals or metals' huge, wavelike electrons. > > >....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. >William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 One of the important things here about metals is the effect of the limitations of the capacity of conduction bands on increasing current density caused by pinching. This could explain effects like the spring loaded rod experiement where the rods vibrated longitudinally. Electrons bent inward by the apparent magnetic field of the protons in the lattice are pinched together. There is therefor a longitudinal force on them. This force could be called resistance. The circluar fields of the protons bend the electrons inward, exarting equal but opposite forces on the lattice and electrons. The electromotive force presses longituidinally on the electrons which are pinched by the proton magnetic fields which causes the the electrons to resist the EMF. It is like having a pinch in a hose. If there is enough water pressure the hose will stretch and then break. This pinch effect might be amplified in metals due to the limited space for electron conduction (and the rigid lattice to resist and hold the magnetic fields static) but it seems like it would exist in plasma as well. Maybe this could be and explanation for the vibrating rod experiment, but the railgun experiment might provide a counter example, I don't know. They key is that the force on the metal should be in the direction of the electron flow (e.g. the rods should move in that direction). If this is a valid explanation then the railgun rails should tend to break or ribbon on the cathode side, especially at a constriction. I don't know if this is true. Perhaps the rail would also tend to ribbon up (actually compress) going into the turn to the armature on the cathode side of the armature, even though the turn of the current is actually tending to stretch the rail at the bend. This is because the magnetic pressure on the bend current would be pressing toward a cold rail while the pinch induced resistance force in the the rail is in hot metal. In addition the pinch effect would tend to reduce the rail strength by nonuniformly heating the rail (in the center). A rail half liquid is more flexible than a rail all borderline solid. Maybe if we took experiments one at a time we could find explanations for them or new hypotheses to test. It does not seem like the exploding water experiments should be included unless there is a clear longitudinal force in evidence. Over unity does not necessarily imply longitudinal force. We need some good solid data to analyze. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 17:54:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA02791; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 17:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 17:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960722004351_75110.3417_CHK50-1@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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Rick, >> I was trying to imply that the net pressure from the bulk of air surrounding the entire system was essentially equal and should cancel, revealing something essential and important about the thin stream of moving air and the upper spoon surface themselves, wholly apart from the surrounding pressure gradients. << Try this: Take a 1 foot square sheet of cardboard (thin sheet metal or whatever), duct tape it to the edge of a table so the cardboard hangs down toward the floor. Then take your air hose and blow air across the table (or from the center of the table) over the duct-taped edge. What happens to the cardboard. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 18:49:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA10286; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 18:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 18:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960722013826_75110.3417_CHK54-1@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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Rick, >> It was not a weak effect, it was a firm, solid, and immediate lunge into the stream, where it 'locked' into place as long as the air continued to flow. I can't believe that what I witnessed was a higher pressure working behind the foil than on top of it in that air jet in a vacuum chamber. I'm beginning to believe there's really something to this after all! << Woah, wait a minute. Maybe it's a good thing I'm not an aeronautical engineer, because I sure wasn't expecting that result. Is there any way for you to put a diaphragm across the middle of the tube and evacuate both sections -- then while still keeping the vacuum pump going, shoot a stream of air across the diaphragm to see which way it moves? This is confounding what I thought was happening (but then, I'm perhaps easily confounded ). Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 20:22:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA25092; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 20:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 20:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Nasrudin, the famous Sufi was tasked to spread the word by humor. The idea was if the message was in the form of a joke it would "carry itself along" Example: Nasrudin Q: Why is the moon a more important source of light than the sun? A: Because you need the light a lot more at night. Any sufi please forgive the poor translation. J On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Richard comments on van der Waals forces - yes, I appreciate that plain > electrostatic forces play their part. However, I think maybe others > here will be able to say more about the role of Casimir forces in this > area of interest. Just not quite that simple, they tell me. What is? > > Occam/Ockham/Schmockam. I just use the form of spelling which is > correct for the small village he came from. No big deal. But could I > perhaps point out that the Razor does not appear in any of his writings, > it was a fairly common idea at the time and maybe got ascribed to him > 'cos he was a notorious big-brain. You know he did time for proving > that you can't prove the existence of God? > > However, I much prefer the actual wording (tr from the Latin with which > I shall not bore anybody): "Entities may not be multiplied beyond > necessity." I feel it's crucial for straight thinking that the exact > form be used, every word counts. > > You are right that it is applicable in the present. Since I am lacking > in mathematical ability, I like to poke around in the logic of physics - > and often wish that more physicists would do likewise. > > Chris > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 20:23:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA24827; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 20:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 20:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607220248.TAA20211@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Brian To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: More UN-SPACE... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: OK Folks, here I go again... I have been thinking again about the Ross Model and have been trying to get a better mental picture of the idea. Regarding the spherical wave collapsing and expanding, I have a couple of comments I would like to air. When the spherical wavefront collapses to around zero radius, what makes it expand again? Is there a mutually repulsive effect that the wave experiences as it tries to collapses upon itself, causing it to slow down, stop, then re- expand outward again? Or could it be that the spherical wave passes through itself at zero radius like an implosion of sorts giving the "impression" of expansion?(this would allow a constant velocity of the energy) Also, when the spherical wave has expanded to its outer radial limit, what causes it to collapse again? What keeps it from continually expanding outward? Is it an attractive force with itself which causes it slow down, stop and then condense? Could it be that again we have a case in which too much energy is trying to radiate away too quicky for the energy speed C so that it is "reflected" back, again becoming a collapsing wave? I hope I am not becoming an annoyance with this issue. -Brian QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 20:24:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA25278; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 20:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 20:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Glenda ... LadyNada X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Header sais 'er. Anyone know if she is still "on the air" and what he E mail is? J Thanks From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 20:33:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA25194; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 20:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 20:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Humour in Space (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Subject: Captains Log, Stardate 9986.104 , "Sentient Meat" "They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "Meat. They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "There's no doubt about it. We picked several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars." "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines." "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact." "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines." "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat." "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in the sector and they're made out of meat." "Maybe they're like the Orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage." "Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take too long. Do you have any idea the life span of meat?" "Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the Weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside." "Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads like the Weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through." "No brain?" "Oh, there is a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat!" "So... what does the thinking?" "You're not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The meat." "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!" "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?" "Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat." "Finally, Yes. They are indeed made out meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years." "So what does the meat have in mind?" "First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the universe, contact other sentients, swap ideas and information. The usual." "We're supposed to talk to meat?" "That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there? Anyone home?' That sort of thing." "They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?" "Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat." "I thought you just told me they used radio." "They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat." "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?" "Officially or unofficially?" "Both." "Officially, we are required to contact, welcome, and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in the quadrant, without prejudice, fear, or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing." "I was hoping you would say that." "It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?" "I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say?" `Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?" "Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact." "So we just pretend there's no one home in the universe." "That's it." "Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you have probed? You're sure they won't remember?" "They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them." "A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream." "And we can mark this sector unoccupied." "Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?" "Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again." "They always come around." "And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how utterly, cold this galaxy would be if one were all alone with no-one to talk to but meat." *********************************************************************** <---- End Included Message ----> -> Posted by: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 20:38:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA27875; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 20:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 20:33:48 -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: Glenda ... LadyNada X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, John Schnurer wrote: > > > Header sais 'er. > > Anyone know if she is still "on the air" and what he E mail is? See NEOTECH discussion group in Weird Science, under http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wlists.html Glenda Stocks runs Neotech ....................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 Jul 21 22:29:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA14181; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 22:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 22:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960722052126_76216.2421_HHB61-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dean - > Is there any way for you to put a diaphragm across the middle of > the tube and evacuate both sections -- then while still keeping the > vacuum pump going, shoot a stream of air across the diaphragm to > see which way it moves? Eh? For a second there, I thought I knew what you were getting at. But then you suggest evacuating both sides, and I lose you. When you say "tube" did you mean the whole vacuum chamber? Flexible membrane? Richard Thomas Murray wrote: > Thank you Ross Tessien. Lift over a moving convex airfoil is based > mainly on the normal Van der Waals molecular attraction between > the molecules at the surface and the adjacent moving molecules of > the air, which in turn are attracted by the same force to the next > outer layer of slightly slower moving molecules, so that a > boundary layer of air is dragged along with the moving airfoil. > Momentum is thus transferred, since as the air is constantly being > pulled gently down, the airfoil is constantly being pulled up. This makes sense to me at this point. Additionally, Richard helps with: > As another example, suppose a horizontal flat plate is electrically > charged, and a sheet of oppositely charged water is directed > horizontally over the plate, close, but not so close as to have > contact or sparks. The sheet of moving water will be pulled toward > the plate, and the plate will be pulled upward toward the water. Along these lines, let's say you can shoot individual (Neutral charge? Dipole? Does it matter?) molecules of gas one at a time in a horizontal flight path passsing very close to the crest of the bulge of a convex foil in a total vacuum. Casmir, Van der Walls, or whatever it is operates like a tensile force between the molecule and the solid surface. The molecule is diverted downward in a path along the sloping rear section of the foil (and is also retarded a bit - skin "friction" drag - but without physical contact). The resulting reaction on the airfoil is a lift (and drag) due to reaction with the inertia and momentum of the gas molecule, and that reaction is mitigated through the mysterious near-surface and between-molecule force, whatever it is called. There is no conventional gas "pressure" involved here at all! Also, a vertical array of such molecule guns shooting simultaneously with the barrels mounted very close together would produce a vertical column of molecules, each with a perfectly flat trajectory initially. They might be pulling together before they reach the vicinity of the foil due to the forces between them in this case, but as long as the bottom molecule(s) in the vertical 'chain' is/are close enough to the wing to feel the forces, the whole chain is diverted downwards, perhaps stretching at the bottom near the wing, as those molecules feel a stronger component of force and begin to drag as well, forming the essence of a boundary layer. Stretch too much and there is a break with the rest of the chain - a stall occurs. Fire consecutive chains very rapidly from an array of such guns, and you've got a volume of gas - very very cold gas that probably wants to condense into a liquid or even a solid, but initially a gas stream which would probably draw the wing up, even with a total vacuum below the wing. Again, no conventional pressure at all from the gas. Zero above, zero below. And the wing is never even touched. Would this work? This could explain why I saw the effect I did in the vacuum chamber. It seems to me now that the message that started this thread is essentially correct, and Richard's statement above is correct as well. But my (Giancoli, 1980) basic physics text says: "[snip - usual setup about greater velocity above the foil than below, etc.] Hence the air pressure above the wing is less than that below and there is thus a net upward force; this is called lift." Reads kind of like a law, doesn't it? But maybe they're wrong, at least in the larger measure with regard to real-world wings, and the work originally mentioned is more correct. I think I saw a foil work rather normally in a stream above it that was probably denser and at a higher internal pressure than the gas below the foil. But that just helps to point to the irrelevancy of gas pressure, and that's Wierdness #1. Weirdness #2, the one that really tends to fly in the face of what is taught about vacuums and pressures, is that if you accept #1, the wing must in fact be "sucked" upward! And you know when you think about it, that sometimes seems to be the subject of the quintessential internet discussion; whether in fact something does, or does not, suck. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 23:17:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA20227; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607220604.XAA24193@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Warp Drive X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hal; Thanks. I'll see if they will publish some of my stuff. Ross From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 23:17:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA20295; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607220605.XAA24196@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >O U >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher OK. Then are there some diagrams, schematics, patents....??? I would be interested in taking a look for a couple of possible effects that I have tried to find with some other device concepts. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 23:17:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA20121; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607220604.XAA24188@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Try this: > >Take a 1 foot square sheet of cardboard (thin sheet metal or whatever), duct >tape it to the edge of a table so the cardboard hangs down toward the floor. >Then take your air hose and blow air across the table (or from the center of the >table) over the duct-taped edge. What happens to the cardboard. Attach some pitot tubes to the top and bottom of the cardboard so that you can measure the velocity and static pressure heads. Couple the static pressure head lines from the tubes to a manometer and check out which side of the cardboard has the lower pressure. If you are offsetting the force of gravitation and providing lift, you will find a pressure differential if you sum the pressure at all points around the surface. When you sum the pressure difference per unit area for the locations you choose, ie each square inch of surface, multiplied by the area you will get F = PA And when you then weigh the cardboard (multiplied by the trig function to give the projected area on a horizontal surface if the cardboard is not horizontal during "flight"), then you will find F = PA = mg This is first year ME windtunnel stuff. Been and done the above with a bit more than just a piece of cardboard. The source of the lift in the air foil comes from the leading edge of the foil where the air is deflected upward in greater proportion than downward (take a look at the leading edges of all airfoils when oriented at their flight angle of atack. This even applies to the jagged contours of the stealth fighters). Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 21 23:17:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA20171; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607220604.XAA24190@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Guitar strings and resonators X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: OK, while out at the river today I was contemplating some of the comments on guitar strings and resonators. I thought some of you might enjoy a little mind bending since we do not normally consider how waves in "space" (or in this case air) and resonators sensitive to that energy will interact. I thought I would make an attempt to break things down into the basic components so that some of the things I have been discussing become more clear. I will make this up on the fly, and will likely get some things wrong. So the sharks out there can have some fun and in not too much time I hope we will sort this all out. This is essentially breaking down into one dimension, all of the stuff I have been discussing regarding particles in three dimensions (four if you count time, but then this discussion would then be "two" dimensional since resonance is in this too. For three dimensions it is hard to understand what was meant by what was said in ascii. It is thus easy to say "yeah that will work", or "That is impossible, your nuts". So, hopefully in one dimension with a very basic mechanism we can come to agreement. Then we can progress to two and or three dimensions and ultimately, then we can begin to discuss macroscopic variances in the aether density as you move into a galaxy or down onto the surface of the earth. When we do, we will then be discussing the changes in acoustic transmission velocities and thus the change in pace of the pulsations, ergo time, the fourth dimension. ************************************************************** So, here are the rules for this thought experiment: I will use a fixed emitter, ie a guitar string. It is rigidly fixed in position, or put another way, we will fix our reference frame to that emitter and consider accelerations of the other objects due to their interaction with the emitted energy. The objects and the emitter will reside on a plane, and the acoustic energy will move lateraly with the string oscillating in that plane. The objects we will study will all be considered to be perfectly frictionless as far as translatory motions are concerned. This is a thought experiment, so such an assumption is valid. If the accelerations do not take place in some real experiment, the forces will still be there, but it is more clear to consider the potential for motion rather than a transient force. Also, this leads to Doppler shifting, and it better represents standing waves in a superfluidic medium. The mass of the test objects is not important. That will affect the rate of acceleration, not the existence of the force. We are studying whether or not there will be a force imposed, and if there is, what that will do to the ability of the emitter to communicate with the absorber ie object. *********************************************** Case 1; ^ E __________________________ v O __________________________ E is my emitter guitar string and O is my object. I tried to show the direction of motion of the string E with the ^ and v . I hope you can all imagine the string in motion and the shape it will take on which is a bow shape up and down for the first resonance of the string, ie its fundamental frequency. This set up will be common to all of the following examples. E is rigidly fixed in position, and O is free to move without friction in either direction. We will ignore the mass and the pressence of the guitar itself and just consider the acoustic energy exchanges. **************************************************** For this case, O is an infinite wall that perfectly reflects the waves striking it. The pressure (static) is the same on both sides of the wall. So, we have the pressure against the surface of the wall is given by; Initial conditions; P = k, a constant away from E P = k + A sin (wt + phi) on side facing emitter. The wall should begin to oscillate back and forth ** slightly** due to the wave impacts. In order for this to occur, some of the energy from the incident waves will necessarily be attenuated. The mechanism for this at the molecular level is that a molecule strikes the wall with a given velocity, but the wall moves away (is accelerated) by the impact. That acceleration during the time of contact acts to reduce the velocity that the molecule would have had if the wall had not recoiled away. Sum that for all impacts and you get the acceleration of the wall. That will set up the oscillatory motion of the wall, and in time the system will attain a steady state. When it does, the motion of the wall will induce identical pressure variances on the back side as are striking the wall on the front side. These will offset. However, something important happened prior to equilibrium. In order to establish the momentum of the wall (cyclic), some energy had to be attenuated from the incident waves coming from the emitter at E. That attenuation will have imposed a macroscopic acceleration on the wall. Depending on all of the parameters of the system, the velocity of recession will be some value v. Another important thing to note from this is that the resonant frequency of the wall, if we place two identical clocks running from some independent time keeper, at E and at O on the moving wall, we will find that the resonant frequency at O will be Doppler shifted to a lower value due to the recession. So the frequency at O will be f_emitter - df. And df could be obtained directly from the sound speed and from the velocity v of the moving wall. Every thing ok here? ************************************ Next case, the object at O is now another guitar string but not tuned to the same frequency as the emitter at E. So the string tends not to oscillate much at all. Now we have what seems simple, but it is much more complicated and I may well goof. Perhaps Barry Merriman can help out if I do. Some of the energy that hits the string is reflected backwards. But some of it is deflected upwards and at angles to the string. So this is a very messy thing. The string will be an inefficient reflector of the incident wave energy since much of the wave energy will pass by without striking the string. Still, a measure of energy will strike the string and be reflected. Again, just like the wall, if there is energy arriving, even if it is not at the natural frequency of the string, the string will resonate at precisely that incident frequency. The thing that happens is that the amplitude will not be very great. This turns out to be virtually the same thing as the wall, and the string will as well be accelerated for the same reasons. ********************************************************* Now, lets use another string that has the same resonant frequency as the emitter. At first, the string is just sitting there. So all of the initial reflections and acceleration of the string is identical. But the amplitude of this string is going to naturally grow much more easily. In other words, the other objects which had a very different resonant frequency only built up their resonance to the level that a single wave front incident upon them could induce. An underdamped oscillator can build up a resonance that is many times larger than what would be the case from a single impulse of energy. You know this intuitively because you do it when you push a child on a swing. If you were to push at a frequency that did not match the resonance, the kid would not climb in height and instead would just get a "spanking" at the bottom. The amplification of the wave front entails a substantial absorption of wave energy more so than the other objects. And that energy builds up into the resonant standing wave of the string. Again, it takes time for that build up to occur, and the string will be accelerated away from the energy during that entire period of energy filtering (ie attenuation of some of the incident energy in order to build up the standing wave. You might imagine the kid on the swing if the swing set was on a large platform that was frictionless. You would be chasing after the kid in order to apply the impulses of energy) Again, notice that the frequency of arrival of the energy at the string will be Doppler shifted as the string attains a terminal velocity v (this assumes that the wave builds up to an equilibrium condition due to thermal losses in the string material etc.) But, if the string has a natural frequency matching E, and it is now moving with respect to E, the arriving energy is Doppler shifted. The string must resonate at this freqeuncy since that is what is driving it (this is counter intuitive, but I assure that this is the case. See an undergraduate text on vibration theory). What the string can do, however, is it can interfere with that energy following its acceleration to v. In other words, the mechanical properties of the string cause it to resonate more comfortably at the frequency of E, f_E which is its natural resonant frequency. So, in this case, the story is not over. The strings mechanical tendencies are interfering, still, with that arriving energy. And so the acceleration will continue. Now, however, the direction of that acceleration will reverse and the string will slow down and following some overshoot and meandering back and forth, the string will settle down and become stationary with respect to E. And it will resonate at precisely its natural resonant frequency since the arriving energy will no longer be Doppler shifted. ************************************************************* Now, how about one last one with the wall. Lets suppose hypothetically that the wall did not take on the vibrations. It either absorbs or it reflects the energy. Then what will happen? It will continue to accelerate until some other damping mechanism kicks in like aero dynamics. But for discussion (since we will eventually head out into these effects in a super fluid, lets pretend that there is no air. I know I cannot have acoustic energy input, and not have any aerodynamic drag with increasing velocity, but what if I could?) Well, the answer is that the wall would accelerate until there was no more energy arriving at its surface. And that would occur when it reached the sound speed. So, as the wall approaches that velocity, the energy coupling will become increasingly difficult. If our goal was to accelerate the wall surface at a constant rate of acceleration by emitting waves, then as the wall approached the acoustic sound speed for energy transmission, the arrivals of energy would be less effective. And so, therefore, we would need to turn up the power of the emissions at E in order to overcome this affect. But, the closer the wall speed gets to c (the sound speed), it turns out that the energy we will need to pump out will tend to infinity. So, from the emitter point of view, we could look at this in either of two ways. 1) The energy coupling is losing its efficiency and so we need to send out more per unit time due to the Doppler red shifting of the sound (red implying that the frequency perceived by the wall is dropping and thus has less energy) 2) The mass of the wall is increasing and tending to infinity as it approaches the sound speed limit. (sorry for any confusion interjected by the tacit usage of light speed and EM energy terms. But the effect is a bit similar. I consider this last example a bit like throwing energy at particles in a particle accelerator. If we could attach a particle accelerator to a space craft and approach c, then I think we may well observe Cherenkov radiation out in empty space by firing a particle at near c into the space ahead of the craft as it cleared the wake ahead of the craft. And as a caution, this is absolutely not accepted by the current models of space and physics) ****************************************************888 Now, if you managed to get all of that then you are ready for a more difficult question. Consider that we have E and O stationary with respect to each other, O is resonating and at its resonant frequency some distance d away from E. O is free to move as always and E is fixed as always. Case 1: We now have a dial on E and we dial the frequency to a slightly higher frequency. Case 2: We start again with both object fixed in position and we dial the freqeuncy of E to a slightly lower frequency. Case 3: We start again and we superpose upon the signal at the natural resonant frequency, some noise composed of random frequencies at random phase angles, but the most powerful component of the total emission is still at the fundamental frequency Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 00:03:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26232; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607220653.XAA26366@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: More UN-SPACE... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Brian; > When the spherical wavefront collapses to around zero radius, what makes >it expand again? Is there a mutually repulsive effect that the wave experiences >as it tries to collapses upon itself, causing it to slow down, stop, then re- >expand outward again? Or could it be that the spherical wave passes through >itself at zero radius like an implosion of sorts giving the "impression" of >expansion?(this would allow a constant velocity of the energy) Go to library, check out Sci Am 2/95, read article on sonoluminescence and look carefully at the resonant bounce following the initial collapse. That resonance is at about 1 Mhz. The energy put into the system by the drivers is at 20 Khz. In other words, that is the natural frequency of the water and bubble system. Around that bubble are a series of concentric spherical shells of wave energy where at each layer of greater radius, the fluid velocity is reversing. that is a standing wave that is exponentially decaying. By measuring the amplitude ratio you can calculate the magnification factor for the underdamped wave and you come out with about 2.5 to 1 if I recall. In other words, if you input energy 1 into the system, the standing wave will build up to energy content 2.5 before equilibrium is attained. you can think of the wave as running into the ultra dense core and reflecting or you can think of the wave as passing through, both are correct. > Also, when the spherical wave has expanded to its outer radial limit, what >causes it to collapse again? What keeps it from continually expanding outward? refraction of the emitted waves combined with a lot of wave energy already existing in space, ie the quantum vacuum fluctuations. The expanding waves (lots of them ie E20 wave fronts to get from the Planck scale to the nucleus of an atom) interact with the more randomly moving waves in space which form the nodal structure fo the QVF. The interaction of each of the concentric waves distorts, or curves, their propogation direction. This is like a graduated index optical fiber in a sense that the refraction occurs without any "hard" surface. So, the expanding waves refract the QVF into convergence from their more rectilinear nodal structure and the converse is true as well (action reaction). Thus, space is distorted into spherical convergence, and the expanding waves headed out of the particles are distorted, ie curved, into rectilinear match with the structure of space. One leads to the other. With that, you will get a stable standing wave so long as there is wave energy in the QVF that match the resonant frequency of the standing waves. The reflection occurs because you have exceeded the energy density ability of the aether to resist condensation. thus, if the velocity of convergence exceeds c, then the aether will condense. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 01:57:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA08295; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 01:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 01:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960722084100.006ee68c@bahnhof.se> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: David Jonsson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: ZPE spectrum not Lorentz-invariant X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I am reading Puthoffs et als "Inertia as a ZPF Lorentz force". In this publication they mention deductions made by Marshall, Boyer and Santos saying that the cubical electromagnetic spectum of vacuum (rho(w) dw = k w^3 dw) is Lorentz-invariant which is the same as saying that the spectrum of vacuum is the same for all moving observers. I can not see how see how this can be the case. Assume two observers one stationary v=0 and moving with v'=c/2. The frequency f of the stationary observer is transformed to f'=f*(1+v'/c)/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5=k*f=~1.732 f in the direction of movement. Both experience the same intensity I(f)=I(f')=I(3f/2) but this is contradicting to ZPE theory wich requires I(3f/2)=(3/2)^3 I(f). Can anyone plese send me any of the deductions mentioned above. You find my faxnumber below. There is a lot of both theoretical and experimental results indicating an absolute room. Especially in the field of vacuum/ether. David David Jonsson Phone +46-18-24 51 52 Fax +46-8-681 20 66 Cellular GSM +46-706-339487 E-mail david@bahnhof.se Uppsala, Sweden Web: http://bahnhof.se/~david Postgiro 499 40 54-7 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 03:25:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA14585; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 03:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 03:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960722101346_75110.3417_CHK40-1@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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Rick, >> For a second there, I thought I knew what you were getting at. But then you suggest evacuating both sides, and I lose you. When you say "tube" did you mean the whole vacuum chamber? Flexible membrane? << Yup, flexible. Just an attempt to make sure there is no air on the non-injection side of the membrane to cause it to be pushed toward the air stream. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 05:09:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA20957; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 04:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 04:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960722075447_242781709@emout08.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: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Occasionally inventors of purported o/u devices say they were approached by government agencies and told to cease and desist, or had their patents classified. I have no fuel to add to this particular fire, but I can think of a very legitimate reason why some governments would want to classify such knowledge. It's just that in war, a fundamental tactic is to lay seige by cutting off access to fuel and food. If you enemy has working o/u technology, it upsets all the calculations in which government budgets have been invested. I'm happy for the Internet and the wide dispersal of the knowledge that o/u is possible; the rest are details, details, details.... Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 05:09:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA21003; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 04:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 04:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f21cd3.43967181@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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 21 Jul 1996 01:01:32 -0700 (PDT), Rick Monteverde wrote: [snip] >Would you, Ross, or anyone else interested in this out there with a handy >vacuum chamber take a few minutes to confirm this effect? It took me less than >10 minutes to set up and try the experiment as described. And if anyone can >argue that the air in the jet was at a lower pressure than the ambient pressure >behind the foil, I'd sure like to hear how that could have been possible. Any >ideas? Yes. Unfortunately, your setup was flawed from the beginning. The air "under" the foil, was supplied by the inlet tube, at the same time as the air "above" the foil. In fact the leading edge of the foil separated the incoming air stream, with part going over and part going under, just as with the real thing. Furthermore, once the foil moves even slightly into the stream, there is a positive feedback enhancing the movement of the foil into the stream. This is precisely why I previously suggested that the foil would need to be mounted on an evacuated box (i.e. with a permanent hard vacuum against the underside of the foil), and such that no air could reach that part of the foil at any time during the experiment, from any source. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > 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 Mon Jul 22 05:56:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA27228; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 05:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 05:47:55 -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: (fwd) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here's something from alt.sci.physics.new-theories ....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Alexander V. Frolov" Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy,sci.electronics.misc,sci.physics Subject: re: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge Date: Mon, 22 Jul 96 20:30:51 +0400 > > It seems an interesting possibility and there are patents applied for and > > some already granted. The patents granted are > > 5,416,391 of 16 May 1995 > > 5,449,989 of 12 Sept 1995 and > > 5,502,354 of 26 March 1996. It is old story. Before these patents... Stop, I feel as you say: "Ohh.. russian try to prove that they were first in this aspect also..." Yes, Sir. Again I try to report for you that in 1950th B.A.Trubnikov explaned the nature for plasma unstability by means of pinch-effect. In the Institute of Atom Energy, Moscow, Dr. Filipov and Dr. Sinitsin made currents from 100 000 A to 4 000 000 A, 1952 year. For this currents was described oscillation process compression-decompression of the plasma arc. Also neutrons were emitted from discharge. But it was not thermonuclear nature neutrons since if neutron was moving along of current the energy of it was more than 2.4 MeV and if the neutron was moving in opposite direction to current of arc its energy was lesser than 2.4 Mev. Explanation by Trubnikov is in next: when magnetic field of the arc current compressing current to zero all energy is placed in magnetic field and then it is transforming in very strong pulse of electric field that produce pulse of current. Note, the same situation is used in any auto car electro system: breaker produce powerful arc. It is self-induction effect. So, by Trubnikov this pulse of electrical field accelerate the iones and electrones of plasma to 100 000 eV and produce sometimes neutron and rentgen radiation. The paradox of the situation is in next: people are worked by power source for future world and they try to make the STABLE plasma for thermonuclear fusion power generator. Alexander Chernetsky use other way: he use effect of unstability of plasma to produce over-unity power output. He demonstrated it for Harold Puthoff also. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ One experiment of Chernetsky was fantastic: 500 Kw power output free of source! And this power was inverted into electrical grid and power station was broken. He was died and very few people are working on this technology. I made small scale experiment and I claim that arc in electrical circuit can be source of power for load. Primary source for arc will not see this load. More than: it is possible to invert power from arc (discharge) to primary source. I used current up to 10 A. It is enough to demo the effect. Many people claimed over-unity in systems are using arc or electrical discharge as important part of the system. Sometimes it is battery powered system with re-charging in the process of work and this system use the battery almost without limit since battery is re-charging from the arc. Sometimes is "hidden arc" like electrolysis. YES, it is arc or plasma since it is motion of charged particles. In any case the mechanics of the over-unity here is work of the potential field that move and accelerate the iones and electrones in the space between electrodes. In my version of experiment very small current 0.3 A was used to prove that maximum effect is correspond to maximum distance between electrodes. I worked with 2 Wt power and demonstrated it. So, techology is patented in USA. Very good. Sometimes news were not patented at all. If someone is interesting in the history of the question and in optimal developing for this technology you are welcome for joint work. Alexander V. Frolov / alex@frolov.spb.ru / russian engineer ....................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 Mon Jul 22 07:17:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA08454; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 07:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 07:04:27 -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: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/22/96 05:09 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: On Government Suppression of O/U I'm glad Mike C. doesn't want to add fuel to the silly fire of the "governement " suppressing O/U. These claims are nonsense. The goverment isn't that intelligent, the left hand does NOT know what the right is doing...MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 15:10:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA23123; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 14:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 14:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607221631.JAA27845@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Hi Rick, > >>> For a second there, I thought I knew what you were getting at. But then you >suggest evacuating both sides, and I lose you. When you say "tube" did you mean >the whole vacuum chamber? Flexible membrane? << > >Yup, flexible. Just an attempt to make sure there is no air on the >non-injection side of the membrane to cause it to be pushed toward the air >stream. I agree. Do this, launch air across the top of a flexible membrane with a vacuum underneath and I will find a hat and eat it if it rises up into the stream. But make certain the membrane is strong enough to support the pressure on top so that it does not burst. A "vacuum" from most peoples equipment is not really a very good vacuum and there are a lot of molecules still remaining in the vessel. This is quite a problem with cryogenics and other high vacuum devices. At 1 psi and a one foot square the net force on the membrane will be 144 pounds. You will need to evacuate the air from below and from above at the same time but be careful not to be tricked by air flowing into the lower chamber backwards through that evacuation tube as the pressure rises in the upper chamber. A check valve might help there. Rubber sheeting would probably be a good membrane choice because then you can watch it expand like a balloon into the lower region of lower pressure. Good luck and have fun with it. Ross Tessien By the way, I have been thinking about the concepts you are studying (I am not at all adverse to considering such things, but try to put some reality into misconceptions when that is possible). I think I have found a way that you could experience a lift on that airfoil (of course still due to interference from below rather than a pull from above) The trick is, acceleration. I don't think you can do it with constant velocity in any manner. But, if you had material directed by one object through a nozzle and past the wing surface such that the molecules were accelerating, ie you are increasing the velocity of the molecules coming out of your jet with time, then I think that in addition to the aerodynamic lift, that you would also get a ZPE lift. This would almost certainly not be measureable with your apparatus nor with any I know that could be constructed due to the small amplitude of the force. This effect is better known as "frame dragging" in GR. The reason it should be there is because the acceleration changes the energy density with time, and that reduction in QVF above the wing with time will be similar to the Casimir exclusion of energy inside the cavity. The difference is that once you stop the acceleration, the QVF will equalize to the new super conductive condition and you will loose the frame dragging force. Check out Unruh effect for discussion about the change in observed radiation due to accelerations. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 15:11:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA22506; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 14:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 14:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960722115620_439297426@emout15.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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross says: " I really feel it is intrinsically important to come to understand that there is no such thing as an attractive force in a fluid dynamic universe. To take the concept further would entail tying strings from Andromeda galaxy to earth in order to "pull" earth toward Andromeda via gravitation. Shielding makes more sense at every level and one can obtain logical mechanisms for the wave mechanical compressions that will result." I agree. In our ZPE model of gravity (H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force,", Phys. Rev. A vol.39, pp. 2333-2342, March 1 1989) the interaction between masses and the surrounding ZPE result in mass *zitterbewegung* motions becoming correlated so as in essence to reduce field energy between the particles, hence resulting in excess pressure on their distal sides - a push instead of a suck, as in the Casimir effect. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 15:24:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA24023; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 14:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 14:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607221631.JAA27852@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A >*** Reply to note of 07/22/96 05:09 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: On Government Suppression of O/U >I'm glad Mike C. doesn't want to add fuel to the silly fire of the "governement >" suppressing O/U. These claims are nonsense. The goverment isn't that >intelligent, the left hand does NOT know what the right is doing...MDH I 100 percent concur for such devices. It is like the 200 MPG carbereteurs operating on a Cadillac that 100 percent chemical energy conversion could not push that far using a gallon of gas. To suppress such a thing is nonsense and to think that the oil companies could succeed is likewise nonsense. Think about the tremendously powerful and growing vacuum tube industry when IC's were developed or the steam cylinder mfg's when the internal combustion engine came into being. Unless you might make a bomb or some stealthy radar out of the thing ***AND*** the govt found that out (which would imply you went to them for funding), the odds are zip of suppression. The simple fact of the matter is that just like the devices we discuss here, and just like my concepts are received by a few, *no one will believe that you are right even if you are*. So, the majority of devices that are suppressed (if that is the proper word) are suppressed due to the lack of ability of the inventor to find funding, and or due to the lack of reality of the concepts which even after finding funding are shown not to work. I have found that most inventors "steal" their own concepts from themselves. The reason is they are so afraid of discussing the concepts with that horrible outside that they keep it secret and piddle around from time to time without any source of funding whatever. The result is (at least for the 5 percent who really did have a good practical idea, and the 0.01 percent who discovered some really novel new technology like lasers or IC's...) that they kick back in the rocking chair at age 65 lamenting over how they invented that one first and then couldn't get it going and that other guy figured it out too. There is a fine line between novelty, practicality, and functionality. The more novel, the less likely it is to be functional. This is just a fact of life that must be dealt with. It is also why it is so hard to find bonified funding for extremely novel concepts. When you hold a meeting with potential investors (normally) they do not understand the physics involved in a new technology. So off they go investing in real estate. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 15:27:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA24843; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607221631.JAA27854@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: (fwd) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This post sounded very interesting. Does anyone know what frequency the "pulses" of the pulsed discharge were at or the separation distances or shapes of the electrodes? It sounds sort of like a time variant Biefield Brown type device. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 15:30:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA28650; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:20:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:20:56 -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: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In Bill Beaty's question, > >I'm confused about the reasons mainstream physics has for rejecting the >longitudinal magnetic force. How does the following description differ >from the mainstream view? > ________________________________________________ >| | >| | >| (-) | >| | >| (-) | >| | >| | >| 1. Two electrons repel each other | >|________________________________________________| he sees the time dilation as having an equal effect when the separation vector is perpindicular or parallel to the velocity. While this is true, the momentum transformation in the parallel case cancels the time dilation effect. The momentum transformation is: Pmx = G(V) ( Prx + V Er) where the transformation velocity V is in the x direction, Pmx is the x component of the momentum in the moving frame, Prx is the x component of the momentum in the rest frame, G(V) is 1/sqrt(1-(V/c)^2), and Er is the energy in the rest coordinate system. Now the time transformation is dtm = G(V) dtr (1 + V dot vr) where dtm is the time differential in the moving system, dtr is the time differential in the rest system, and vr is the particle velocity in the rest system. The momentum differential is dPmx = G(V) ( dPrx + V dEr) since the force is dP/dt we have Fmx = dPmx/dtm = (Frx + V dEr/dtr)/(1 + V dot vr) Since dEr/dtr = Fr dot vr we have Fmx = Frx + V Fry vry /(1+V dot vr) where Fry is the force perpindicular to x and vry is the particle velocity perpindicular to x. Thus we see that Fmx = Frx when the force is parallel to the velocity vr or when vr is zero (the case in Bill's argument) and there is no change in the force. For the y direction we have Pmy = Pry and the only effect is from the time dilation and Bill's argument is valid. The bottom line is that the Special theory of relativity works perfect in predicting the Lorentz force and if we are to change the Lorentz force the special theory of relativity will be violated. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 15:30:25 1996 Received: from mail (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA27229; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960722184916_76216.2421_HHB67-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin - > Yes. Unfortunately, your setup was flawed from the beginning. The > air "under" the foil, was supplied by the inlet tube, at the same > time as the air "above" the foil. In fact the leading edge of the foil > separated the incoming air stream, with part going over and part > going under, just as with the real thing. I don't think so. If you actually saw it I don't think you'd be expecting the airflow from the tube to be split. I may not have described the setup accurately enough, though I am not going to discard the possibility you raise without checking it, either. It did not appear likely that the air was going to be split by the foil, as the tube was not aimed at the leading edge, but was offset to a line even with the top of the foil. Even after the foil moved in, the tube is still on that side, and not centered over the leading edge. It's a thick, squat little foil, not a thin model airlpane type foil of realistic aerodynamic proportions. More like a large spoon, really. But to check the point you've raised, I'll try again with the tube further down to a point along the topside of the foil so there's no chance whatsoever of splitting. Also, I'll try some smoke in the stream to see how fast the stream diverges after entering the vacuum, something I've wondered about anyway. Perhaps some goosedown tufts here and there for telltales are a good idea too. If the stream is kept on the topside of the foil by the proximity of the tube, that tendency to spread is only going to work against the foil and try to push it away, not draw it in - at least intuitively. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try this and post the results. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 15:31:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA27845; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F3D14C.7218@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings-does gas flow suck? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > the quintessential internet discussion; whether in fact something does, or does > not, suck. > > - Rick Monteverde Hey Rick! I have a tendency to write much about electromagnetics without knowing much about it. So, I have no problem about the same thing going on with gas dynamics (I don't know much about that either!). Gas dynamics is a VERY complex subject - studied out the kazoo for about a century. It gets really complicated when the mean-free-path of the gas gets close to the dimensions of your test devices. This region is called (I think) the Knudsen flow region, and is very important in high altitude flight and in detailed problems in space vehicles. For example, many space vehicles use small rockets and/or gas jets for attitude control. In the design of these systems, one is very worried about the impingement of the jets on other parts of the spacecraft. I mention this because of your interest in gas jets near surfaces in a near vacuum! If on the vacuum side of Knudsen flow, you treat the gas molecules more like particles. On the pressure side (high) of K-flow, the regular gas dynamic equations work well. Another problem with your test models is their transient nature. Pressure conditions in your small chambers are changing so fast, It may be difficult to get good results with visual (eyeball) observations. In jets of gas from a few-atmospheres source into a near-vacuum, somewhere in the nozzle the flow will "choke" - i.e., reach sonic velocity. After that, the flow rate is not effected by lowering the external pressure. You may be getting near sonic velocity over some of your test surfaces! I don't have a good reference for all this detailed stuff, but you might get some insight from any good undergraduate-level (that's where I would have to look!) introduction-to-gas-dymamics type textbook. Hey! This subject is worse than electrodynamics! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 15:31:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA26119; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:07:40 -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: Stumbles and more stumbles X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I am surprized there have been no responses to the "Stumbles and more stumbles" post. Is my error that difficult to find? I realise that the electron distribution changes as atoms approach, so the force equations I have shown are not accurate. However, if there is a non-liner non-square law energy barrier of approximately the magnitude indicated in the force formulas I derived, then there is a source of free energy in the sub-angstrom fringe around atoms. This free energy would be especially available in liquids. This is because the repulsive force is due to *neutral atoms* in proximity. Protons, though, being of a single charge and thus oblivious to this barrier, are readily (exothermically) attracted to an electron shell of say an atom of X. However, once there, the proton can wrap itself in an electron cloak borrowed from X. This leaves a positive H-X ion which can then attract an electron from the vicinity. The electron can also readily (exothermically) approch the H-X ion and neutralize it. Now there remains the H-X bond. If this bond is weak or thermally broken, the H X pair then will be forceably (exothermally) separated by the subject force. Notice that the force equation involved the totality of charge of the atoms involved. This indicates that the bigger X is the more observable the effect. Also, the larger the X atom the weaker the H-X bond. So, if there is any such force, the way to gain energy is to simply jiggle or free H+ ions in the vicinity of large weakly H-bonding X atoms. This might be done through either electrolysis current, especially A/C, induced currents in a solution of X, or via strong mechanical stimulation. Ring any bells? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 22:47:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA14109; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:37:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:37:01 -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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I agree. In our ZPE model of gravity (H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a >zero-point-fluctuation force,", Phys. Rev. A vol.39, pp. 2333-2342, March 1 >1989) the interaction between masses and the surrounding ZPE result in mass >*zitterbewegung* motions becoming correlated so as in essence to reduce field >energy between the particles, hence resulting in excess pressure on their >distal sides - a push instead of a suck, as in the Casimir effect. > >Hal Puthoff What is G at the edge of the universe? If there is no edge, how is this so? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 22:44:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA14277; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:38:24 -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: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >and the only effect is from the time dilation and Bill's argument is valid. > The bottom line is that the Special theory of relativity works perfect >in predicting the Lorentz force and if we are to change the Lorentz force >the special theory of relativity will be violated. > >Lawrence E. Wharton This just goes to further prove that the pinch I suggested is due to the simple relative motion of the electrons to the unbalanced positive charges in the metal lattice (or plasma as the case may be). This is becase the two provide reference frames for each other. As I mentioned, the magnitude of the force could appear different from a third reference frame though, due to time dilation, true? However, none of that seems germane to the question of where the observed longitudinal force comes from. It seems to me that if there is a pinch then the force to sustain the pinch must come from the lateral direction (x direction) and it must be provided by lateral electrostatic pressure or EMF, and must be counterbalanced by magnetic force on the lattice charges (this all from the reference frame if the lattice). This must be the longitudinal force that is observed separating rod segments and making ribbons from railgun rails. Believe me yet? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 22:44:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA14336; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607230008.RAA01387@shell.skylink.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Robert Stirniman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: ZPE spectrum not Lorentz-invariant X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Quoting David Jonsson: > I am reading Puthoffs et als "Inertia as a ZPF Lorentz force". In this > publication they mention deductions made by Marshall, Boyer and Santos > saying that the cubical electromagnetic spectum of vacuum (rho(w) dw = k w^3 > dw) is Lorentz-invariant which is the same as saying that the spectrum of > vacuum is the same for all moving observers. > I can not see how see how this can be the case. Assume two observers one > stationary v=0 and moving with v'=c/2. The frequency f of the stationary > observer is transformed to f'=f*(1+v'/c)/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5=k*f=~1.732 f in the > direction of movement. Both experience the same intensity I(f)=I(f')=I(3f/2) > but this is contradicting to ZPE theory wich requires I(3f/2)=(3/2)^3 I(f). Hi David. Sorry, I can't follow your math. I also don't have a handy copy of the articles by Boyer and others, which demonstrate the Lorentz invariance of a cubic frequency spectrum. I don't think they are wrong. Offhand it seems to me in your above formula, you are describing a frequency, rather than a frequency-spectrum. It has been shown that in the case of a cubic spectrum that the doppler effects exactly cancel other relativistic effects, so that under a velocity boost the spectrum continues to be cubic. It seems to me that the more important question is whether the energy density spectrum of ZPF is indeed cubical. There are arguments from Stochastic Electro-Dynamics (SED), as well as arguments from QED, which support the idea of a cubic spectrum. But, it is for sure a convenient presumption by Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff, et al, that the energy density increases proportionally to the cube of the frequency -- up to the Planck cut-off frequency. A cubic rate of increase with frequency, is the only possible spectrum, that has the unusual feature of an exact cancellation of doppler effects with other relativistic effects under a Lorentz transformation. Hence, no detectable changes due to constant velocity in different inertial frames. But there is a detectable effect (inertia) which results from acceleration. Fundamentally what it is, is an educated guess -- a mathematical model which gives a convenient and somewhat consistent result. Who knows how well it reflects nature. It is an interesting, first of it's kind, treatment of inertia as an electromagnetic phenomena. And also a nice bone to chew on for those who believe that the inability to directly measure an aether wind, somehow prooves the non-existence of the aether. > There is a lot of both theoretical and experimental results indicating > an absolute room. Especially in the field of vacuum/ether. I don't think the above idea is inconsistent with the existence of a cubic (Lorentz invariant) frequency spectrum. How did you find St. Petersburg? Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 22:44:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA14437; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:39:32 -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: Stumbles and more stumbles X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The "neutral atom" force barrier may provide some explanation of ball lightning and some other effects involving ionizd water. In the case of ball lightning, the angular momentum generating forces that create such a ball will generate relative motion between the H+ and O+ ions, because they should have similar momentum but differ in mass. Also, the barrier effect of the O+ ion electron cloud should be additive with the excess + charge in the nucleus, so the nonlinear barrier effect should still be there. Such a plasma should generate many H+ collisions with O+ ions and O atoms. If such a barrier exists, it offers help in engineering ou devices. For example, all you need to do is pick a good heavy neutral atom x that weakly bonds with H at best, and set up relative motion of H+ with it. For example, a mixture of xenon and H2, or possibly even radon and H2, stimlated by high frequency sould produce ou. This approach could possibly be made more efficient by placing the mixture in a magnetic field and stimulating it with the cyclotron frequency of the H+. Another possibilty is to use the thermal expansion of a magnetically pinched arc, a kind of non-thermodynamic cycle engine, to derive power directly in the form of electricity. The important thing, though, is there is an actual basis for engineering the concept. The big question, unfortunately, is: "is such a barrier real"? Since it violates conservation of energy, proably not. Since my caluclations show internal inconsistanceis, probably not. It would possibly be an idea to take a look with MAPLE, but that has probably already been done, indirectly. Another route is to simply try calorimety on a xenon/hydogen arc. Just some more ideas. Funny how a few assumptions, wrong or right, can lead to ideas for doing really strange things. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 22:47:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA14517; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:40:08 -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: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Ross Tessien wrote: > >*** Reply to note of 07/22/96 05:09 > >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > >Subject: On Government Suppression of O/U > >I'm glad Mike C. doesn't want to add fuel to the silly fire of the "governement > >" suppressing O/U. These claims are nonsense. The goverment isn't that > >intelligent, the left hand does NOT know what the right is doing...MDH > > I 100 percent concur for such devices. It is like the 200 MPG carbereteurs > operating on a Cadillac that 100 percent chemical energy conversion could > not push that far using a gallon of gas. To suppress such a thing is > nonsense and to think that the oil companies could succeed is likewise > nonsense. Think about the tremendously powerful and growing vacuum tube > industry when IC's were developed or the steam cylinder mfg's when the > internal combustion engine came into being. > > Unless you might make a bomb or some stealthy radar out of the thing > ***AND*** the govt found that out (which would imply you went to them for > funding), the odds are zip of suppression. I agree that the majority of "suppression" stories are bogus. However, the military reviews all patents, and can put a secrecy order on anything which would damage the national interest. I've only heard of two instances of this, and both of these second hand, so I don't know how accurate they are. One was Pat Flanagan's "digital neurophone," the other was a liquid metal brush design for a homopolar generator. The neurophone had mind-control possibilities. The "n-machine" brushes were for an o/u device, by Kromney I think, but since the military was hot on rail guns, and homopolar generators are one type of railgun power supply, the taking of the liquid metal brush patent probably had little to do with suppression of o/u. As a suppression force, I vote for the inventors' disease. Secrecy and financial dealings figure in the "suppression" of Floyd Sweet's VTA device, the Hubbard coil, the Moray device, and others. It's like a prospector discovering gold, then being unable to benefit from the discovery lest others follow the trail back to the mine. Better to spread the secret to the four winds and share in the results, rather than chance taking it to your grave as others have repeatedly done. ....................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 Mon Jul 22 22:46:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA14662; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607230147.AA15488@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: Re: New Beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott requested: > Kirk, why don't you explain to the folks what is different about these > beads? Certainly. The "Batch #1" beads are, as the name implies, the first batch of beads I was able to produce that had the Ni on Pd on DVBPS structure. Originally I felt their quality was too low for use in a PPC, because the Ni overlayer was so thin as to be incomplete. Under the microscope, I can still see the Pd underlayer through large holes in the Ni. Batch #2 was my second success, but the Ni overlayer came out very thick. In my opinion, the primary differences between the batches are that Batch #2 has more Pd (I estimate about 2X) and much more Ni than Batch #1. So why did I send the Batch 1 beads to Scott? I originally used Batch #1 in my H2 gas absorbtion manifold, and that is where I originally noticed the behavior that led me to believe that 'other' chemicals besides H2 were coming off the beads. I have now confirmed that with some Batch #2 beads (see below). In working here with Batch #2, I noticed they were "slower" than Batch #1, meaning they took even longer to pump down. The immediate assumption is that this is due to the thicker Ni overlayer hindering permeation of the trapped chemicals. So, given that Batch #1 has a very thin Ni layer, I decided to try them out in a PPC, with Scott's help. The Batch #1 beads have seen 3 H2 absorbtion/desorbtion cycles (if my memory is correct while I write this...). They were still showing evidence of the 'other' chemicals after the last exposure, so I hope that they will eventually show an 'excess heat' effect. Time will tell... Using the Batch #2 beads, I have confirmed that NH3 and H2O are coming off the beads. Both of these molecules are very 'sticky' in vacuum systems, meaning that they pump poorly. That is consistent with the long pumpout times I have observed with both bead batches. I confirmed the presence of ammonia and water by adding a sample vessel to my manifold, desorbing gas from some hydrogenated Batch #2 beads, and condensing that gas into the sample vessel by cooling it with liquid nitrogen. The sample was valved off, allowed to warm, removed, and submitted for mass spectrometer analysis. The gas sample analyzed as 84.4 mole percent H2, 8.5% NH3, and 6.9% H2O, with less than 0.1% of HD, HDO, N2, O2, and CO2 detected. I interpret these results to mean that either plating solution solvent or chemicals are trapped under the metal layers, possibly catalytically hydrogenated in the case of the latter, and then proceed to slowly come out. I am unable to determine at this point if one, the other, or both sources are relevant. I have also run across a patent that makes it clear that this generic chemistry was know as far back as 1971. The patent is US#3607350, issued Sept, 21 1971, to Richard J. Rathsack, and assigned to the Dow Chemical Co. It describes how to sulfonate a wide variety of plastics with SO3 in chlorinated solvents (such as methylene chloride or chloroform). The process described produces an acidic sulfonated substrate, which the author then neutralizes with essentially any alkali metal salt or base. Examples are sodium hydroxide, sodium bicarbonate, sodium citrate, and equivalent ammonium salts. The key point is that this step allows the substrate to be removed from the bath and stored for a few days prior to electroless plating, and it improves the adhesion strength of the deposited metal films. Let me quote a bit here: " Still further, it has been discovered that the neutralization step provides a barrier coating in the form of alkali sulfonate groups which has the unique property of partially retaining some of the chlorinated solvent in the surface of the swelled and sulfonated substrate and protecting it against excessive detrimental oxidation for a period of time in the order of 3 days. This barrier coating is believed to inhibit the evaporation of the solvent swelled substrate and thus the subsequent plating steps can be delayed with no substantial loss in adhesion or plating uniformity. " In the case of my beads (and Patterson's by inference), the solvent is ammonium hydroxide instead of a chlorinated hydrocarbon. But, IMHO I feel the chemistry is relevant, and supported by my capture of NH3 and H2O as bead offgas. What I am proposing is that the ammonium ion is leached from the beads and travels to the Pt wire mesh counterelectrode where it reacts with the electrolytically generated O2. Literally, the NH4+ burns in solution. The initial oxidation products would be nitrogen oxides such as NO or NO2. NO2 is then capable of reacting with water to form nitric acid. This suggests that the electrolyte should be analyzed periodically for nitrates. Possibly, other oxidation products such as phosphates and carbonates should be searched for as well, as these would be final oxidation products of other plating chemicals. In general, all these reactions should produce a measureable heat. Placement of the outlet thermocouple near the Pt mesh would maximize detection efficiency of this effect. As with a gas phase flame, there might be a thermal gradient in the PPC, although obviously of a much smaller magnitude than a gas flame. Decreasing the bed diameter and increasing its length should allow for a higher leachate concentration arriving at the Pt electrode, which would also maximize the effect. It seems to me that "running beyond chemistry" may be important. Scott has tried to run the Batch 2 beads in a PPC with no effect noted. This may be due to the even slower permeation expected into solution as opposed to vacuum. Hopefully the Batch #1 beads will show something, but even if my beads don't, I still believe there is now enough literature and experimental evidence to at least raise the "chemistry" flag for the PPC. Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's} From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 22:48:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA14979; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:42:59 -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: wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Brainstorm! If the gas in Rick's experiment behaves as a jet, and does not simply fan outwards in all directions, then his results might be sensible after all. It depends on whether or not the Coanda effect operates in a vacuum. If a gas jet is directed tangentially across a convex surface, does the flow "attach" and follow the surface in the same way it does at 1atm? If so, then the massive flow will be directed one way and the surface will experience a reaction force in the other direction. I'm not all that clear on how the Coanda effect operates in air, so my speculation stops at this point. When a flow sticks to a surface, is this because it is being pushed against the surface by the surrounding high-pressure air? If so, then a flow wouldn't attach to surfaces in a vacuum. But a gas flow isn't a physical object. Can a flow be redirected by surrounding pressure differences? ....................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 Mon Jul 22 22:55:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA15282; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f440af.19371904@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: Stumbles and more stumbles X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 21 Jul 1996 09:21:14 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >What is the inconsistency of this logic? Is it that you can not simply use >center of charge for calculating forces? Is there really a repulsive force >as atoms approach? Isn't there a repulsive force that prevents one piece of matter from passing "through" another? (Why doesn't my hand go through the table?) > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > 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 Mon Jul 22 22:54:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA15567; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f44500.20476978@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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 21 Jul 1996 13:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Rick Monteverde wrote: [snip] >And is it van der Waals or Van der Waals? I have a small collection of physics [snip] Probably originally the former. 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 Mon Jul 22 22:51:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA15737; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607230454.VAA30375@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Wings.,,,,Puthoff ?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I agree. In our ZPE model of gravity (H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a >zero-point-fluctuation force,", Phys. Rev. A vol.39, pp. 2333-2342, March 1 >1989) the interaction between masses and the surrounding ZPE result in mass >*zitterbewegung* motions becoming correlated so as in essence to reduce field >energy between the particles, hence resulting in excess pressure on their >distal sides - a push instead of a suck, as in the Casimir effect. > >Hal Puthoff Thank you, thank you. Finally someone who comprehends what I am talking about. Do you by chance have that article in a form you could email to me or post? I would enjoy reading it. Also, Do you consider the medium of space to be condensible in your models? If so, do you consider a black hole to be a convergent flow that exceeds the condensation pressure of that medium due to a kinetic build up during inflow into a rarefaction region followed by a sharp pressure climb into the constant pressure condensation region? The rarefaction would be due to the initial convergent collapse of a large star where the medium's implosion velocity exceeded c, and consequently all of the convergent flow has sufficient implosion velocity to induce condensation of itself. This would then lead to a stable inflow of aether into the hole and the nodal structure along with it and at that radius, since space was flowing in at c, no matterial objects could escape without exceeding c, ergo light and all normal material things are doomed to condensation. Such a black hole would be highly pressurized, and eventually breach confinement, see AGN jets and the big bang itself as two fine examples. Also, does your model treat a nuclear (or any exothermic reaction) as an aether emission mechanism? Such would give rise to things like solar flares and solar coronal heating due to the expansion of space flowing out of the star as it escapes the higher pressure of the "fluidized bed of matter". How many or few of these concepts match what you are working on or considering? Thanks again, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 22:52:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA15999; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607230454.VAA30380@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Robin - > > > Yes. Unfortunately, your setup was flawed from the beginning. The > > air "under" the foil, was supplied by the inlet tube, at the same > > time as the air "above" the foil. In fact the leading edge of the foil > > separated the incoming air stream, with part going over and part > > going under, just as with the real thing. > >I don't think so. If you actually saw it I don't think you'd be expecting the >airflow from the tube to be split. Rick; I read your comments before and Robins here. I agree that you kept the airflow above the surface. But what you are missing here is that that did **not** keep the molecules of air above the surface. The sound speed of the air molecules is around 1,100 ft per second in still air, and your air is coming out at a higher velocity. If your box is two feet cubed, then in one tenth of a second, the individual air molecules have ricocheted back and forth and all around your box interior (including underneath the surface of any air foil or cardboard) around 50 times. In short, it takes just a millisecond or so for the air molecules to make the tour of your boxes interior. That means that the air is flowing across the top, and that high velocity flow is as usual keeping any of the molecules from slamming down normal to the surface as the air flow is sweeping those molecules away. And, the static pressure of the flowing stream of air may lag the pressure in the box by a few thousandths of a second, but this is not much and certainly not enough for you to measure. I know that it seems attractive, and I wish I could figure out something for you but the simple point is that what you are experimenting with has been done many thousands of times before. That is why we do have confidence in the mechanism here. In other words, we can with a super computer practically track the momentum of individual air molecules (if we really wanted to we could track the flow in very tiny bundles, though "individual molecules would be too time consuming unless we limited the numbers of molecules coming in). but the momentum falls out plainly in all of the derivations of the fluid dynamics of this. It is really not very complicated. I think that ZPE may well exist, indeed I expect it. But I'm afraid that despite your vigilance here it is going to be more of a good science lesson than an o/u discovery. You are posing good questions though so keep it up until you satisfy yourself. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 22:54:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA16195; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960723012540.5467c818@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: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:06 AM 7/22/96 -0700, Mark Hugo wrote: >*** Reply to note of 07/22/96 05:09 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: On Government Suppression of O/U >I'm glad Mike C. doesn't want to add fuel to the silly fire of the "governement >" suppressing O/U. These claims are nonsense. The goverment isn't that >intelligent, the left hand does NOT know what the right is doing...MDH > > There may be elements of truth in what Mike said. The US Consitution promises inventors a right to their inventions. Some in the US Patent Office are presently obstructing justice and deny Consitutional protected rights by failing to tell the truth in some of their "boiler-plate" responses to some US Patent Applications. The survey which I conducted recently showed dissatisfaction, consistent with what Mike said, and with what others have said here and in s.p.f. previous. The following is copied from the Internet. do not know its accuracy, or exact origin, but it may be relevant to this discussion, or some of the issues that led to it. ============================================== C O N S E R V A T I V E C O N S E N S U S (tm) ***************************************************************** Events * Analysis * Forecasts * Commentary * Readers' Opinions ***************************************************************** N E W S F L A S H ::: World, National, Regional Distribution: World Editor's Desk COPYRIGHT 1996 by Conservative Consensus, ISSN 1074-245X. Excerpted from our Journal; email subscription below. QUOTATION and redistribution are encouraged, for private, non-commercial use, provided nothing is changed and our headers and trailers remain intact. V2XC42 DID RON BROWN DIE A TRAITOR? by John Trudel At its core, high technology business needs legal protection. From the days of Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison, innovators have depended on the US patent system to protect the unique value they created. It has protected us since about 1790. Today, this protection has become absolutely essential. "...knowledge has become the key economic resource and the dominant, if not the only, source of competitive advantage." (Peter Drucker, Atlantic Monthly, Nov. 1994). Firms like Microsoft, Intel, and Motorola derive most of their market value from intellectual property. Without patent protection, Silicon Valley and the Venture Capital community could not exist. I recently learned something astonishing. The Clinton administration has made promises to Japan that will end life-as-we-know-it for knowledge based business in the US. While visiting a client to give workshops, I met an official from the US patent office. He told me some startling things. The administration promised the Japanese that we will make the US patent filings public information after 18 months. If that sticks, effective January 1, 1996 all your competitors can get them. The worst news is hidden. Embedded in the middle of the official's talk was a phrase, "reexamination rights." Alarm bells went off in my mind, though he brushed by that topic. Did that mean that any US firm unfortunate enough to have patents will be subject to endlessly defending them against reexamination by the Japanese keiretsus? Guarded in public, the official admitted that my worst fears were valid when we spoke privately. The public servant likened the event to Japan's World War II surrender on the USS Missouri. Some were gleefully calling Tokyo on their cellular phones to report, "The US has given us its patent system." How could I find proof that this happened? Why hasn't someone blown the whistle? Why didn't the press report this? It took months and many details are still unclear, but I got most of the squalid tale. The proof is contained in one paragraph (on page 26) of the voluminous 1994 Commissioner's Report to Congress, "Working for our Customers." Free copies can be obtained by calling the patent office at (703)305-8600. The sell out occurred in letters of agreement between Secretary of Commerce Ron H. Brown and Japanese Ambassador Takahazu Kuriyama dated August 16, 1994. Brown's Patent Commissioner, Bruce A. Lehman, is politically correct and well-connected. Like Brown a former lobbyist, Lehman is Brown's tool to use patent law for policy. NY Times (May 29, 1994) reports his personal heroes are Bill Clinton and Martin Luther King. With a "trademark temper," Lehman's status as Clinton's highest placed open gay makes him sacrosanct. He chortles, "[conservative Republicans] all know me... and they don't want to make a martyr of me." Crossing Lehman is career limiting in Washington. Brown's sell out was superbly managed. The press said little, and nothing at all that I can find about broadened reexamination. A few inventor groups voiced shock that "a treaty of this nature should be signed without any warning" (NY Times, August 17, 1994). Lehman hammered them. They "had an ax to grind," and were "misled, unsophisticated and don't have access to the right information." The slam dunk that closed press interest came when Harold C. Wegner, a professor of law at George Washington University and an authority on international patent law, defended Lehman saying, "He got something for nothing. It's a brilliant trade." Major effort is being devoted to position this as accomplished fact. Lehman is giving road shows to convince patent lawyers that this is only a minor technical accommodation to "harmonize" US law with international practice. The unholy combination of NAFTA, GATT, first-to- invent, opening files after 18 months, and the new meaning of reexamination is poisonous. Experts are confused, so check the business implications carefully. If blunder, I fear this is major. If perfidy, Brown's acts are monumental. Ron Brown, President Clinton's Secretary of Commerce, is systematically presiding over the dismantlement of our patent system. Whether he succeeds or not is largely up to people like you. If citizens, including corporate citizens, don't take prompt and effective action the unique patent system that has protected us since 1790 will be gone forever. Effective last June, Congress reduced the term of patents from 17 years after issue to 20 years after being filed. This single act cuts the dollar value of your patent protection by up to half. One lone bill, HR 359 attempts to fix this. Support HR 359. Several bills now in Congress -- HR 1732, HR 1733, and HR 2235 -- will complete Brown's patent sell out. For a finale, HR 1659 quite literally sells off the US patent office. For more information, see my columns in Upside and Electronic Design. Also, a small group of inventors has been opposing Brown's steam roller. Contact Alliance for American Innovation, 1100 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 1200, Washington DC 20036-4104 (202)293-1414. Low-budget Web sites are under construction: try www.best.com/~ipc. Do institutions matter? In researching our next book, Engines of Prosperity, my co-author, Dr. Gerardo Ungson found Americans don't think so. We prefer to complain, ineffectively, about "unfair" trade practices. Others build and use institutions for competitive advantage. Our trading partners are not a bit shy about exploiting their institutions (keiretsu, chaebol, etc.) for advantage, but our patent system is the best in the world. It works superbly. Patents are our institutional advantage. Why do we want to change? Why harmonize? What is wrong with daring to be different? [Copyright 1995 by John D. Trudel, CMC, CPC. Used with permission. Mr. Trudel is a management consultant. This article originally appeared in his newsletter, Business Innovation Update, 4th quarter 1995, where it was titled The Great Patent Sell Out. Mr. Trudel may be reached at 33470 Chinook Place, Scappoose, OR 97056. Telephone (503)640-5599. Email JohnTrudel@aol.com or Website at http://members/aol.com/johntrudel/index.htm.] ________________________ Editor's Update: Effective 3 July 1996, HR 359 (the inventor- friendly bill) had not been voted out of the Patents and Trademark Committee. HR 3460, the great patent sellout, is on the House floor and could be voted on anytime after the 4th of July holiday recess. Efforts will be made to amend HR 3460 with the text of HR 359, so you can see the fight may be difficult to follow. HR 3460, the patent sellout, now incorporates several bills: * HR 1659 privatizes the patent office; * HR 1733 requires pre-grant publication of patent applications; * HR 2235 gives companies prior user rights to use what they keep secret but others later invent and patent; * HR 1732 allows third parties to participate in the reexamination process allowing them to delay the process; * HR 2419 would stop patent scams. This is desirable as it outlaws invention marketing scam organizations, but it was put in HR 3460 to sugar coat a poison pill. [Source: Intellectual Property Creators www.best.com/~ipc] A more detailed summary appeared in Conservative Consensus 18 June 1996 issue: SEVERAL BILLS DAMAGING to the US Patent system and inventors are pending before Congress. HR 3460 is essentially an adoption of the Japanese system, which favors multinational companies over individual inventors. HR 1732, the "Patent Reexamination Reform Act of 1995," allows foreign companies to bring their full legal resources to bear against any individual inventor. This challenge to an issued patent circumvents the Federal court system. The company behind the reexamination hires an attorney who is named as the examination Requester. After an examination is completed, another, and another, and another, request can be filed. A Requester is allowed to participate in the reexamination. A patent cannot be realistically enforced while a reexamination is in progress. HR 1733, the "Patent Application Publication Act of 1995", is the 18 months pre-grant publication of patent information. It will prematurely disclose an American invention to foreign countries so they can begin production of the invention before its inventor has any protection. The 18 months pre- grant publication violates the original intent of our founding fathers to grant an applicant a patent in exchange for full disclosure. HR 2235, prior user rights, will will lead to a first-to-file system which means first to the patent office -- not first to invent -- and is contrary to the Constitutional protection for inventors. HR 1659 privatizes the Patent office. The company will have a CEO with no substantive review of his actions. [Source: The Alliance for Innovation at 800-308-6933] From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 22 22:55:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA16346; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:50:41 -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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace wants to know about the Hering experiment, so I'll try. You know >those clips which can be used to secure broom handles and suchlike? >Their jaws meet and then open out so you can push the handle in: > > > * X * > * * > * * > ** > ** > * * > * Y * > * * > * * > * * > *--M---* > >'M' is a meter. Now, instead of a broom handle, you have - in the outer >jaws at 'X' - a very large magnetised iron hoop with a circular >cross-section which keeps the circuit closed as you push the hoop (or >endless bar, I suppose) through the jaws and into the clip proper (Y). > >"During this motion, the voltmeter circuit is completed through the iron >of the magnet; when [at X] the flux of the magnet does not link the >circuit, while [at Y] it does. Consequently there has been a change in >the amount of flux linking the circuit. Would you expect this to result >in an induced emf?" > >There. Make yourselves miserable with that one, I'll post what Cullwick >says about it later... > >Chris The answer is the meter shows current as if the wire loop were passing through a vey thin gap cut through the magnet. In fact, there is a wire there - its just the magnet itself - very counter-intuitive. The electrons must extend themselves into the conduction bands of the wire upon contact and thereby anchor themselves - long wisps of "wire" being cut by the flux. Once a potential forms new electrons are driven into the magnet replacing those driven out. and they are replaced at the "new location of the wire connection due to the relative magnet/wire motion. That's my guess. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 03:14:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA14690; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960723061814_76216.2421_HHB31-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross - > I agree. Do this, launch air across the top of a > flexible membrane with a vacuum underneath and I > will find a hat and eat it if it rises up into the > stream. Yup I've come to the conclusion too that Dean's idea would be the best way to make certain about this alleged effect one way or the other. > You will need to evacuate the air from below and > from above at the same time but be careful not to be > tricked by air flowing into the lower chamber > backwards through that evacuation tube as the > pressure rises in the upper chamber. A check > valve might help there. I thought I might use a 'Y' back a ways on the main line and a checkvalve on the branch leading to the lower chamber. The pump does 5 cfm, and seems to keep up pretty well with the air coming in through a very small inlet tube, so the top chamber should work well. I cast plastics and urethane, so rubber sheet and other materials - I've got plenty. I have to jam on work here until the weekend when I'll be on the Big Island for the Kilauea Crater 10mi. run. If I don't trip and fall into a steam vent and get poached, I'll try to work this project in next week. I have an aerodynamic gizmo or two on the back burners, and I'd really like to see some solid clarification on this myself. It's always bothered me somehow, like something was missing from the standard descriptions. >>> "...you would also get a ZPE lift." I'd like some of that if I could find some. Do you think bismuth would help any? I'm also interested in trying some Biefeld-Brown experiments. Almost everyone says there's not much chance of that being real either, but sometimes you never know 'till you try. Oh by the way, if you're out anytime soon looking for a tenderizing marinade? Get the one with the papaya extract in it. Works great on Hawaii grown beef (aka shoeleather), jellyfish and sea urchin stings, and hat. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 03:01:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA14861; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960723061817_76216.2421_HHB31-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings-does gas flow suck? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank - > Pressure conditions in your small chambers are > changing so fast, It may be difficult to get good > results with visual (eyeball) observations. In jets > of gas from a few-atmospheres source into a > near-vacuum, somewhere in the nozzle the flow > will "choke" - i.e., reach sonic velocity. After that, > the flow rate is not effected by lowering the > external pressure. You may be getting near sonic > velocity over some of your test surfaces! It's a pretty small inlet tube, 1 atm is the pressure behind it, and I have my finger over it to control the flow. Think of a narrow straw 1 ft. long. With the tube so narrow and my finger halfway covering the intake, viscous forces won't let the air go very fast. The results I saw were very distinct though, and didn't seem to be ambiguous or turbulent at all. I can't convey what I saw well enough with words for it to be likewise as convincing to others, which is actually as it should be in this case. Healthy skepticism will only help refine this to a believable conclusion. The experiment was very quick and dirty, and was really for my own use only just to get an idea of what might happen. For others, and even the very informal "publishing" we do here, we need something more. The suggestions for a two-chamber test with the foil on a membrane make good sense, and I'll try that next week. BTW, I know squat about electromagnetics, but I love watching you guys hash it out. I just can't get enough of that longitudinal force stuff, you know? Thanks Frank, - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 04:29:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA24315; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f459d8.25814055@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: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 04:56:01 -0700 (PDT), RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: [snip] >It's just that in war, a fundamental tactic is to lay seige by cutting off >access to fuel and food. If you enemy has working o/u technology, it upsets >all the calculations in which government budgets have been invested. > >I'm happy for the Internet and the wide dispersal of the knowledge that o/u >is possible; the rest are details, details, details.... > >Mike Carrell > Mmmm... seems to me that if they were to release the technology generally, there would be no resource shortages anywhere on earth, and consequently no reason to go to war in the first place. 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 Tue Jul 23 04:28:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAB24354; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f485b7.37046802@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: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 14:57:48 -0700 (PDT), Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >>" suppressing O/U. These claims are nonsense. The goverment isn't that >>intelligent, the left hand does NOT know what the right is doing...MDH > >I 100 percent concur for such devices. It is like the 200 MPG carbereteurs >operating on a Cadillac that 100 percent chemical energy conversion could >not push that far using a gallon of gas. To suppress such a thing is Ross, I respectfully suggest that you actually sit down and work out the mileage that a vehicle would get, travelling at 55 mph on a flat road with no wind, assuming for the sake of comparison, an efficiency of 100%. Even though this is unrealistic, I think you will be surprised anyway. >nonsense and to think that the oil companies could succeed is likewise >nonsense. Think about the tremendously powerful and growing vacuum tube >industry when IC's were developed or the steam cylinder mfg's when the >internal combustion engine came into being. [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 Tue Jul 23 04:33:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA24395; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f4875e.37470043@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) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:02:18 -0700 (PDT), Ross Tessien wrote: >This post sounded very interesting. Does anyone know what frequency the >"pulses" of the pulsed discharge were at or the separation distances or >shapes of the electrodes? > >It sounds sort of like a time variant Biefield Brown type device. > >Ross Tessien > > You are obviously not a subscriber to Infinite Energy. I recommend you become one. Which reminds me, a question for Jed. In table 8 on page 38 of #7, the title of columns 8 & 10 refer resp. to delta kWh, and abs. kWh/h. I presume that in both cases this should be Wh, not kWh. Is this a printing error, or is it also wrong in the original patent? 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 Tue Jul 23 16:13:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA08624; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 15:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 15:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960723105719_368277326@emout09.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: Wings by Ross, Puthoff's SETI Paper X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross, I'm quite sympathetic to many of your concepts, which I have read lurking here. I do consider a turbulent "ether flow" to underlie the vacuum fluctuations (or zero-point energy) on which my developments are based. (See, e.g., papers by Kelly showing that Maxwell's equations can be seen as deriving from an underlying turbulent fluid flow; Amer. Jour. Phys. 31, 785, 1963; 32, 657, 1964; Il Nuovo Cimento 32B, 117 1976). I am not in a position to answer your questions in detail because, although thinking along similar lines, I have not worked out details. Nonetheless, the variability of the vacuum fluctuations/ether density is a part of what I have published, as in the attached paper that just came out in Physics Essays. It shows that the velocity of light is variable, and in my background ether concepts this is because the density of the ether is variable due to condensation and rarefaction effects., of which the Casimir "zero-point energy rarefaction" between the plates is but one example. (Note: In following paper the vacuum constants epsilon-sub-zero and mu-sub-zero come out as e and m due to email limitations.) SETI, the Velocity-of-Light Limitation, and the Alcubierre Warp Drive: an Integrating Overview H. E. Puthoff Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin 4030 Braker Lane W., #300 Austin, Texas 78759-5329 Abstract In SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) conventional wisdom has it that the probability of direct contact by interstellar travel is vanishingly small due to the enormous distances involved, coupled with the velocity-of-light limitation. Alcubierre's recent "warp-drive" analysis(1) within the context of general relativistic dynamics, however, indicates the naivete of this assumption. We show here that Alcubierre's result is a particular case of a broad, general approach that might loosely be called "metric engineering," the details of which provide yet further support for the concept that reduced-time interstellar travel, either by advanced extraterrestrial civilizations at present, or ourselves in the future, is not, as naive consideration might hold, fundamentally constrained by physical principles. Key words: SETI, velocity of light, general relativistic dynamics, spacetime metric, interstellar travel, vacuum energy, Casimir Effect, vacuum engineering, warp drive, superluminal travel SETI researchers routinely subscribe to the view that interstellar travel between civilizations is exceedingly improbable due to the velocity-of-light limitation, with but few dissenting views offered.(2,3) Hence there has evolved, on the one hand, the emphasis on searches of the electromagnetic spectrum for information-bearing signals, and, on the other, the reasoned dismissal by the scientific community of any evidence purported to be a signature of extraterrestrial visitation.(4) As shown recently by Alcubierre, however, rejection of the concept of hyper-fast (superluminal) travel is not justified when one takes into account the possibility of engineered dynamical spacetimes within the context of general relativity.(1) Specifically, Alcubierre showed by example that by distorting the local spacetime metric in the region of a spaceship in a certain prescribed way it would be possible to achieve motion faster than the speed of light as seen by observers outside the disturbed region, without violating the local velocity-of-light constraint within the region. Furthermore, the Alcubierre solution shows that the proper acceleration along the spaceship's path would be zero and the spaceship would suffer no time dilation - features presumably attractive in interstellar travel. We present here a supporting viewpoint that further explicates the Alcubierre approach as a special case of an overarching concept of metric engineering that can be stated in an especially compact form, fully incorporating general relativistic dynamics. To elaborate the metric engineering perspective we begin with the apparent velocity-of-light limitation. As a physical concept this limitation is based on the fact that mass and energy find mathematical expression in a form proportional to 1/x1 - (v/c)2, which implies that an infinite amount of energy would be required just to accelerate a mass to the velocity of light v = c. A hidden assumption in the argument that this constitutes a practical limitation with regard to interstellar travel, however, is the idea that the value c is a fixed, immutable constant of nature, understood in a straightforward natural way. It is this crucial assumption that is called into question and redefined, however, by the metric engineering approach. In engineering terms the velocity of light in free space c is given by the expression c = 1/xuoeo , where in MKS units uo = 4x x 10-7 H/m and eo = 8.854 x 10-12 F/m, respectively, the magnetic permeability and dielectric permittivity of the vacuum. Therefore, the argument that c is fixed is, at base, an argument that uo and eo are fixed, and not subject to manipulation by technological means. If, on the other hand, these vacuum constants were subject to change such that within a localized region the value c could be made to assume a new value, say c' = 10c, then, without violating the governing equations of physics, travel at speeds greater than the conventional velocity of light would be possible; it's just that a new restriction would apply involving the (elevated) local velocity of light, and travel inside the local light-cone would still obtain, a point demonstrated in detail in the Alcubierre example. Although perhaps surprising to the nonspecialist, within the context of general-relativity and vacuum-energy physics such variability of the free-space velocity of light c (as seen from a distant frame) under certain conditions has long been part of the literature. For the case of propagation near a massive body, for example, we have a reduction in the velocity of light by an amount proportional to the gravitational potential, a result first noted by Einstein himself.(5) For the case of propagation between closely-spaced conducting boundaries as in discussions of the Casimir effect, we have an increase in the velocity of light which is associated with the reduction of vacuum fluctuation energy between the plates.(6) In short, as emphasized by Wesson, the speed of light c is context-dependent and not as fundamental as widely believed.(7) Such variations in c, considered in terms of its subcomponents u and e, are routinely treated in a compact form that recommends itself for simplicity of concept, the so-called "THeu" formalism used in comparative studies of gravitational theories.(8) This approach has its foundation in the recognition that the covariant Maxwell equations in a Riemannian space with arbitrary metric are identical in form with the usual vector Maxwell equations for a material medium with variable e and m, where these parameters are themselves now a function of the metric.(9) This concept can be extended to nonmetric theories as well, and in the THem context goes under the name "gravitationally modified Maxwell (GMM) equations."(8) The formalism is then completed by casting the Lagrangian for particle motion under the influence of electromagnetic and gravitational fields into a canonical form involving two additional metric-dependent functions T and H.(10) Such a formalism leads naturally to the concept of metric engineering in which one's familiarity with variable e-u media can act as an intuitive guide.(9,11) Although under ordinary conditions effects involving variations in vacuum values of u, e, and hence c typically are vanishingly small, they nonetheless indicate the possibility under extraordinary conditions of "vacuum engineering," as Nobel Laureate T. D. Lee put it.(12) The Alcubierre warp drive example, which can be reframed within the THeu context, is an especially pithy example of such, and additional spacetimes with desired properties can be derived at will within this context.(13) Therefore, the proper conclusion to be drawn by consideration of engineered metric/vacuum-energy effects is that, with sufficient technological means as to appear "magic" at present (to use Arthur C. Clarke's phrase characterizing a highly-advanced, technological civilization), travel at speeds exceeding the conventional velocity of light could occur without the violation of fundamental physical laws. And, we might add, this could in principle be done without recourse to concepts as extreme as wormhole traversal.(14) (However, clearly, exotic matter/field states - e.g., macroscopic Casimir-like negative-energy-density vacuum states - would be required.) As a result, the possibility of reduced-time interstellar travel, either by advanced extraterrestrial civilizations at present, or ourselves in the future, is not fundamentally constrained by physical principles. ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to acknowledge the Fetzer Institute, Kalamazoo, MI, for partial support of this work. REFERENCES 1. M. Alcubierre, Class. and Quantum Grav. 11, L73 ( 1994). See also I. A. Crawford, Q. J. R. Astr. Soc. 36, 205 (1995). 2. T. B. H. Kuiper and M. Morris, Science 196, 616 ( 1977). 3. J. W. Deardorff, Q. J. R. Astr. Soc. 27, 94 ( 1986). 4. See, for example, F. Drake and D. Sobel, Is Anyone Out There? The Scientific Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (Delacorte, New York, 1992). 5. A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 35, 898 (1911). 6. K. Scharnhorst, Phys. Lett. B 236, 354 (1990). 7. P. Wesson, Space Sci. Rev. 59, 365 (1992). 8. A. P. Lightman and D. L. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 8, 364 (1973). See also C. M. Will, Phys. Rep. 113, 345 (1984) for a later overview perspective. Extensions of the Lightman and Lee approach (point charges interacting classically with electromagnetic and gravitational fields) to include quantum mechanical analysis of atomic clocks and the standard model of fundamental (electroweak and strong) interactions are given in, respectively, C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2330 (1974), and J. E. Horvath, E. A. Logiudice, C. Riveros, and H. Vucetich, Phys. Rev. D 38, 1754 (1988). 9. A. M. Volkov, A. A. Izmest'ev, and G. V. Skrotskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 32, 686 (1971). 10. In the THem approach the functions T and H are introduced by requiring that the Lagrangian for the motion of charged particles under the joint action of gravity and the electromagnetic field Ai be expressed in the canonical form L = xLdt = x[-mo(T - Hv2)1/2 + eAivi]dt, where T and H, as well as e and m, are functions of the metric, that is, of a gravitational potential U. For standard theory of interest in this note (a metric theory), the four functions THem are related by e = m = (H/T)1/2. Although for ease of application in comparing a broad range of gravitational theories (e.g., scalar, vector, tensor, scalar-tensor, etc., metric and nonmetric) the required Lagrangian form is typically met by restricting consideration to static, spherically symmetric gravitational fields, Lightman and Lee emphasize that the THem approach is sufficiently general that all of the results obtained can be shown to hold "even if U is an arbitrary but time-independent function of position."(8) Thus, for a well-behaved standard metric type of theory of interest here, generalization to nonsymmetric conditions can be carried out on a case-by-case basis without undue difficulty. 11. For a detailed and explicit discussion of the isomorphisms between variable e-m media and general relativistic (metric) theories, see R. H. Dicke, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363 (1957). See also as modified and corrected in R. H. Dicke, "Mach's Principle and Equivalence," Proc. of the Intern'l School of Physics "Enrico Fermi" Course XX, Evidence for Gravitational Theories, ed. C. Moller (Academic Press, New York, 1961), p. 1. 12. T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory (Harwood Academic Publ., London, 1988), p. 826. 13. A detailed examination of the Alcubierre warp drive example within the THem-type framework is in preparation (to be published). 14. M. Morris, K. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1446 (1988). From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 16:35:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA11935; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: 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 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross and all VORS I tend very quickly to forget the anticedents of acronyms and initials, and I suspect others have the same problem. How about when using things like QVF, QED, etc. that the first time in each transmission you use initials you write out in full in parenthesis the full meaning, ie. QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) etc(etcetera). Hank ---------- From: tessien@oro.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: More UN-SPACE... Date: Sunday, July 21, 1996 11:54PM the nodal structure fo the QVF. The interaction of each of the concentric waves distorts, or curves, their propogation direction. This is like a graduated index optical fiber in a sense that the refraction occurs without any "hard" surface. So, the expanding waves refract the QVF into convergence from their more rectilinear nodal structure and the converse is true as well (action reaction). Thus, space is distorted into spherical convergence, and the expanding waves headed out of the particles are distorted, ie curved, into rectilinear match with the structure of space. One leads to the other. With that, you will get a stable standing wave so long as there is wave energy in the QVF that match the resonant frequency of the standing waves. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 16:47:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA12995; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F4EFAD.64A1@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Energy = gravity, UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Brian + Ross clarification: Energy exhibits gravity regardless of form (matter, photons, fields), right? A "bundle" of energy has gravity the same as a bundle of matter, right? m = E/c^2 = gravity, right? Just checking - Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 16:48:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA14460; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960723113740_368304488@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: Wings - Casimir and van der Waals relationship X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: RWW quoted: >And my understanding of van der Waals forces is that they *are* >'Casimir' forces. and then RWW said: >Naah. They are electrostatic in nature. Due to charge dipole >as exhibited by certain molecules such as H2O and CO2. >Without them water (snip) In fact, they are the same. Casimir calculated the van der Waals attraction between two plates, atom pair by atom pair, and when he summed it all up he obtained the simple expression we know and love as the inverse-4th law Casimir effect. He remarked on this to Bohr, who suggested that maybe it could be recalculated as a vacuum energy effect involving boundary conditions. Casimir went back to the drawing board and then confirmed that this was indeed the case. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 16:57:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA16181; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607231546.IAA08178@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin; >>I 100 percent concur for such devices. It is like the 200 MPG carbereteurs >>operating on a Cadillac that 100 percent chemical energy conversion could >>not push that far using a gallon of gas. To suppress such a thing is > >Ross, I respectfully suggest that you actually sit down and work out >the mileage that a vehicle would get, travelling at 55 mph on a flat >road with no wind, assuming for the sake of comparison, an efficiency >of 100%. Even though this is unrealistic, I think you will be >surprised anyway. I have performed this calc in college years ago in my course work in ME. Thermodynamic and chemical efficiencies both come into play. Perhaps my statement was a bit misleading, or perhaps you are referring to something that I am not thinking of. But there is a thermodynamic efficiency which has to do with the temperature into which you are dumping the heat energy. In other words, the ratio of the highest temperature in your conversion unit to the lowest temperature of your sink, the outdoors. But you must use absolute temperatures, at which point this effeciency ratio falls to about 50 percent as I recall at levels at which most motors begin to melt their metal components. In other words, the best one could do according to a Carnot effeciency would be to get 100 percent of that 50 percent that is available. Now, that is thermodynamics, but are you referring to something else? Or has it been so long since I have worked the equations that I missed something way back when and am not properly calibrated? Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 16:57:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA17932; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607231546.IAA08176@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rick; Another source of error may be your pressure determination in the lower chamber. No vacuum pump gets all the molecules out. And as high vacuum equipment is extremely expensive I will make a guess that you do not have this sort of stuff. So, be careful to measure the "absolute" pressure below as best you can. ie, an inverted 32 foot column of water, (more accurate than a mercury column but I have not worked with this so there may be some other gotchas I haven't thought of). There should be electronic versions of absolute pressure determination too but you need to calibrate with the ambient gage pressure of the day from some absolute reference. Weather bureau may help there if you don't have such a barometer. In any case, the best that you should be able to do would be to *not* push the membrane down by arranging the flow of air such that it fought off all of the little guys trying to do just that. Unfortunately they are not so cooperative. Another way to make more certain that you did not suffer any back flow would be to simply use two vacuum pumps. One above, and one below. Of course this requires more vacuum equipment??????? No, you could do it! Get a tank, like an air compressor tank and evacuate that along with the bottom and the top of the vessel chambers. Then, disconnect the bottom from the vacuum pump leaving it sealed. Then do the experiment. Actually, you could make this even less complex. Instead of the check valve, just put in a shut off valve. Once you have the air pumped down, it is empty and you don't need it connected to the vacuum pump any more so get it out of the system so no air can leak down there. And be certain that the membrane is well sealed to air leakage. It ought to blow up like a balloon. you will, however, still see a distortion to the shape of the membrane that will show the region under the air jet getting "sucked" up. This is because the air pressure there will be ****lower**** than in the balance of the upper chamber where the jet stream *is not*. So, what you are going to need to look for is that region heading down from the start, but less rapidly than the balance of the membrane. Shoot, another effect yet less obvious and you are going to ask me to eat my hat but I don't think I will deserve to! There should be a mechanical wave introduced to the outer region of the sheet as the molecules drive it down (as I assume you are going to *hit the open valve rapidly*). That action will send a wave through the membrane with a convergent location of guess where???? You guessed it, under the jet!! So, now we are going to be fighting a whole new mechanical effect due to the membrane. OK, to combat this, instead of the strong membrane I mentioned earlier (large mass per unit volume and the ability to send a greater energy amplitude reaction wave into the stream), use a very light weight one like a rubber balloon. Seems to me you are going to need some high speed photography since all the interesting stuff is going to happen in the first few thousandths of a second. Got any buddies into photographing high speed shark attacks? Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 17:04:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA18720; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stumbles and more stumbles X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote... >Consider two proximal atoms A and B. For simplicity....... > >QA1 QB1 > } distance x >QA2 <-- distance d --> QB2 > } distance x >QA3 QB3 >>....... >To make calculation simpler let's express F in terms where D is unity and k >is removed so we get the following table of individual forces between >centers of charge: > > F B1 B2 B3 >A1 1 -2/(1+x^2) 1/(1+4x^2) >A2 -2/(1+x^2) 4 -2/(1+x^2) >A3 1/(1+4x^2) -2/(1+x^2) 1 > >........... >If we now break out the longitudinal force vectors only, we multiply by >cos1 = 1/(1+x^2)^0.5 and cos2 = 1/(1+4x^2)^0.5, i.e. for triangles with far >sides of x and 2x, so we get: > >F = 6 + (2/(1+4x^2))1/((1+4x^2)^0.5) - (8/(1+x^2))(1/(1+x^2)^0.5) > >However, evaluating at .5 we get F = 6 + (1)(0.7071) - 6.4(.8944) = 0.9829, >a net repulsion. No matter where we calculate in the range x = 0 to .5 we >get a positive value betweeen 0 and 0.9829. Thus, as neutral atoms >approach we should see a repulsion. The Casimir force has a weak >competitor? The original assumption of action everywhere equivalent to >center of charge (F = 0) seems invalidated. Where have I stumbled? Your math is OK. You stumbled in interpretation. You have set up a system of two quadrupole charges, QA and QB, and calculated the force between them. ("Quadrupole" because QA can be constructed out of two dipoles, eg. QA1 plus 1/2 QA2 is one dipole, and QA3 plus 1/2 QA2 is the other; and similarly for QB. Actually, your case is a special case of quadrupole; any arrangement of two dipoles is a guadrupole in general terms. As you might suspect, there higher and higher order multipole charge distributions.) In this orientation the quadrupole is slightly repulsive. This is just classical electrostatics, the sum of individual point charge fields and potential energies. The Coulomb field conserves energy, either by general proof or by detailed calculation for your configuration. The higher the multipole order, the more rapidly the corresponding force decays with distance. Real atoms and molecules have electron clouds that deform to some degree in the presence of another charge. Distorted electron clouds plus a nucleus look like multipoles. Depending on the nature and degree of the deformation, we get two atoms or molecules repelling one another (bounce off one another in a collision), attracting weakly (van der Waals force) or strongly (covalent chemical bond). These forces are all significant only at short range, like multipoles. Of course, this is all very simplistic, since atomic electrons move, and the uncertainty principle puts strong constraints on hoe the electrons can distribute themselves. >.......... >Now, lets look at the atom sliced another way, laterally, with all the >centers lying longitudinally. This gives a picture like this: > > >|<--X-->|<--X-->| |<--X-->|<--X-->| >QA1 QA2 QA3 QB1 QB2 QB3 > |<------------------ d ------------------>| > > >Calculating the individual forces in a manner similar to the above: >........... >Summing up all the forces we get: > >F = 6 + 1/(1-2x)^2 + 1/(1+2x)^2 - 4/(1-x)^2 -4/(1+x)^2 > >Which is different from the force equation for slicing the atom >longitudinally (stumbled again!), but is also monotonically increasing in >the range 0 Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Come on guys! Imagine a rocket in a vacuum, or just watch the next shuttle flight. (Actually the V-2 which used graphite steering vanes in the rocket exhaust is a much better example.) Now what keeps the nozzle from melting? All together now, cold gas is released into the engine, especially near the throat, and attaches to the nozzle skin cooling it. Without the Coanda effect, rocket engines would rapidly melt. For those of you who want to say but, but, but... I've worked with rockets with steering vanes, and for that matter jet engines. You can create a force away from the vacuum side. The effect that makes all this happen is the adsorption of the gases on the wetted surface. This van der Walls attraction is very strong near the surface, and the net effect is to deflect molecules to follow the surface, assuming that the flow is along the surface to begin with--the Coanda effect. If you have a non-wettable surface it doesn't work... Another way to demonstrate this, requiring much less fancy equipment, is to hold your finger, a string, a wire or a piece of unoiled wood at the edge of the flow of water from a faucet. You will see that the flow attaches. As long as you keep the flow fast enough, you can direct it in quite complex directions, even tying it in knots. Now try a surface such as teflon, and you will get much less deflection. If you want repeat the experiment in a vacuum using mercury... Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 17:04:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA19679; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960723120226_368321891@emout15.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: ZPE spectrum not Lorentz-invariant X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Best proof of Lorentz-invariance of ZPE spectrum is offerred by Boyer, Phys Rev 182, 1374 (1969) wherein he used Lorentz transformations of electric and magnetic fields to show that only the cubic frequency spectrum is Lorentz-invariant. See also discussion p60, p291 in Milonni's book "The Quantum Vacuum." Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 17:04:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA20062; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607231713.KAA00491@shell.skylink.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Robert Stirniman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > The bottom line is that the Special theory of relativity works perfect > in predicting the Lorentz force and if we are to change the Lorentz force > the special theory of relativity will be violated. > Lawrence E. Wharton > NASA/GSFC code 913 > Greenbelt MD 20771 > (301) 286-3486 True. It is the bottom line. The Lorentz force and SR can be viewed as alternative ways of expressing the same fundamental thing. If one is incomplete, both are incomplete. And since they are essentially the same thing, neither one should be used as a logical argument to support the reality of the other. It seems to me there is a general lack of recognition that Maxwell's equations are a separate thing from the axioms that have been added to make up our modern theory. And there is little or no acknowledgement of the important presumptions behind the axioms. The added axioms are: the Lorentz force, the Lorentz 4-vector transformation, the Lorentz gauge, charge conservation, and the Claudius postulate. The three Lorentz axioms are not independent of each other, and hang on the reality of SR, or conversely SR hangs on the reality and completeness of the Lorentz force equation. The axiom of charge conservation seems a basic truth, although occasionally questioned. The important Claudius postulate (that a current carrying conductor is electrically neutral) receives almost no attention, and has in fact been demonstrated to be wrong. Discussion below. A common belief is that the Maxwell's equations are naturally relativistic and that SR can somehow be directly derived from Maxwell. It is no so. While, it is true that Maxwell's theory is naturally relativistic -- the Lorentz transformation and the related 4-vector representation of Maxwell's equations is a separate and independent axiom. The validity of Maxwell's equations does not at all hinge on the validity of SR. Here are some articles that provide an interesting look at alternative ways to relativistically treat Maxwell's equations: U. Bartocci and M. Capria, "Symmetries and Asymmetries in Classical Electrodynamics", Foundations of Physics, Vol 21 No 7 Page 787, 1991. U. Bartocci and M. Capria, "Some Remarks on Classical Electro- magnetism and the Principle of Relativity", American Journal of Physics, Vol 59 No 11 Page 1030, November 1991. Oleg Jefimenko, "Force Exerted on a Stationary Charge by a Moving Electric Current or by a Moving Magnet", American Journal of Physics, Vol 63 No3 Page 218, March 1993. Similarly to some of the questions posed by Bill Beaty and others in this forum during the last week -- each of the above three papers takes simple configurations of moving charges and currents or magnets, and attempts solutions for the forces which result in different states of relative motion. In the first two of the above papers, Bartocci shows that a consistent invariant solution to simple problems is not provided either by SR or by a Galilean or classical approach. In the second paper, he touches on the issue of the validity of the Clausius postulate, and also provides an example of a simple charge-current experiment (courtesy of Stefan Marinov) that is not explainable via SR. In the third paper, Jefimenko resolves the conflict, through recognition that the Clausius postulate is not correct. Jefimenko shows that the classical Maxwell equations, under Galilean relativity, provide consistent solutions for simple charge-current problems under different states of motion -- when the correction factor for the electric field which results from a current is incorporated in the solution. He also points out that SR does not in any case provide exact solutions, when effects beyond the second order are included. Since the early 1970s, about half a dozen experimenters have found that an electric field results from a stationary current. Experimentally, the field is found to be proportional to the square of the current, with a polarity dependent on the charge of the carrier (negative). Jefimenko has demonstrated, by using retarded potentials, that a moving charge exhibits a greater electric field than a stationary charge -- by a second order factor (v/c)^2. This result can also be derived from the Lienard-Wiechart equation for the potential of a moving charge. There are some other interesting things about the electric field which results from a stationary current. It is not shieldable, and it is exhibited by all mass (electrons in motion). One of the first experimenters to find this field, William Hooper, speculated that it is not easily distinguishable from gravitation, and may in fact be gravitation. I don't know if it is. But I like the old saying about things that look like a duck. Occam might even agree. For the best "proof" and most well founded experiments which demonstrate that this electric field does exists, see: W. Farrel Edwards, "Measurement of an Electric Field Due to Conduction Currents", Utah State University Press, 1974 W.F. Edwards, "Continuing Investigation into Possible Electric Fields Arising from Steady Conduction Currents", Physical Review D, Vol 14 No 4 Page 922, August 1974. Another curious thing, about five years ago NASA conducted an experiment and publicized the result that Hooper's electric field from a stationary current does not exist. Well, it's clear to me that NASA is mistaken. Others have shown fairly conclusively that it must exist and it does exist. Could it be the gravitation thing? Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 17:15:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA20380; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960723180905_100433.1541_BHG102-2@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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In case anyone is interested, here's Cullwick's version of the flux-linkage and flux-cutting: 5. Summary. The essential facts discovered by Oersted and Faraday. It would naturally be very satisfying if the two methods of inducing an e.m.f. could be shown to be particular cases of one general law, but attempts to do this make use of philosophical speculations which are outside the realm of what is physically definable. We must not endow hypothetical concepts, such as the electric and magnetic fields, with physical properties over and above those inherent in their definitions. For instance, when we say that a conductor "cuts lines of force", we mean only that the conductor moves relatively to the system of currents which gives rise to the "lines of force", and when we say that a magnetic flux *changes* we mean only that the system of currents, to which it is due, is changing. A school of thought seems to exist which takes the *cutting of lines of force* as fundamental to the induction of every e.m.f., but to account for case (A) (the iron-cored transformer) by this method entails an extremely artificial conception of the lines of force moving from the iron, out into the surrounding space, and so cutting the conductors of the coil as they move, whenever the field in the iron changes. Again, some writers hold that the *change of linking flux* is the fundamental condition, and indeed in many cases this law in its *quantitative* form is of great value, but case (C) (the rotating [Faraday] disc) cannot be satisfactorily explained by this method. The fallacy in all such arguments lies in the acceptance of the *physical reality* of a magnetic field, and a failure to realize that it is merely a postulated intermediary between moving electric charges. It is best, then, to accept two distinct methods whereby an e.m.f. may be induced by magnetic fields: (A) A stationary circuit is linked by a stationary magnetic field whose magnitude is changing. It is immaterial whether the wires of the circuit are actually situated in this magnetic field or not. This is equivalent to saying that when a magnetic field changes in magnitude, an electric field exists around any closed path which surrounds any part of the field. The e.m.f. around the closed path is equal to the line-integral of this induced electric held. The phenomenon may be called "transformer" or "flux-linking" induction. (B) A conductor, which may or may not be part of a rigid coil, is situated in a magnetic field, and moves through it (i.e. there is relative motion between the conductor and the current circuit or magnet causing the field) in such a way as to cut across the lines of force. This is equivalent to saying that, if there is relative motion between an observer and a current-oircuit or magnet such that the direction of motion is across the lines of force of the magnetic field of the currents, then for that observer an electric field exists which is perpendicular both to the motion and to the magnetic field. The phenomenon may be called "motional" or "flux-cutting" induction. The essential facts discovered by Oersted and Faraday If we choose to think directly in terms of the action of charge upon charge, dispensing with the services of those useful concepts, the electric and magnetic fields, we arrive at the following assessment of the two great discoveries discussed in this chapter. (A) OERSTED'S discovery of the magnetic field of the electric current may be interpreted as the discovery that the force between two electric charges depends on their velocities as well as on their positions. In his original experiment, charges were moving in the conductor and in the atoms of his compass needle. The force on the compass needle was the resultant of the forces between all the charges in the atomic structure of the needle and the wire. (B) FARADAY, when he discovered that a changing magnetic field could produce an electric current, really discovered that a force is experienced by a stationary charge when a charge in its vicinity changes its velocity (i.e. accelerates or decelerates). The electrons in the secondary coil of his iron ring had no directed motion until the electrons in the primary coil accelerated or decelerated: they were then set in motion showing that they were acted upon by a force. Now the fascinating conclusion, in the light of modern knowledge, is that the flux-cutting method of electro-magnetic induction is a logical deduction from Oersted's discovery, as will be seen from the following reasoning, and the quantitative development of Sections 6, 7, and 8, in Part IV of this chapter. (1) Magnets attract or repel one another. (2) Electric currents are attended by magnetic fields. Therefore they are equivalent to magnets and attract or repel one another. (3) The force on one conductor, carrying current, is considered to be due to the motion of electrons, in its structure, in the magnetic field of the other. (4) If we move a conductor across a, magnetic field, we impose a motion upon all the electric charges in its structure. They will therefore experience aforce, showing that they are situated in an electric field. In other words, an e.m.f. exists in the wire, and those electrons which are free to move will constitute a, cllrrent. At the time of Oersted's discovery, however, it was by no means certain that an electric current *did* consist of a motion of electric charges, so that such reasoning was highly im probable (Rowland's experiment, Inentioned on p. 42, was performedin 1876). To these early experimenters the magnetic field must have seemed a very fundamental concept, and as such enabled Faraday to discover, by deductive reasoning, the flux-cutting method of induction *after* his discovery of "transformer action". The flux-linking or "transformer" induction of an e.m.f. appears to be a phenomenon totally different from the fluxcutting case; in Chapter V the facts of electro-magnetism are summarized in terms of the following three components of the forces between electric charges: (a) A force in virtue of their positions, (b) A force in virtue of their velocities, and (c) A force in virtue of their accelerations. The first component (a) is the electro-static force, the second component (b) accounts for the flux-cutting induction of an e.m.f., while (c) is the basis of the flux-linking or transformer case. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 17:23:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA21105; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: InterGraph Caution, InterGraph Demo Caution... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: InterGraph Caution, InterGraph Demo Caution... - Although I believe the InterGraph Demo is probably dynamite, I have just received my copy and found that they make no bones about the system requirements: - 1. Pentium or Pentium Pro Processor 2. 32 MB RAM 3. 100 MB on hard drive for program 4. 250 MB on hard drive for "virtual" memory... - It will be about a week before I have that available to me... - I guess if you are going to dance..... MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 17:37:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAB21702; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960723203506_76216.2421_HHB70-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill - > When a flow sticks to a surface, is this because it is > being pushed against the surface by the surrounding > high-pressure air? If the pressure from the surrounding gas was responsible for pushing the stream down against the falling-off curve of a solid surface, then wouldn't the reaction force from altering the stream's momentum operate on the molecules of the gas volume doing the pressing from above, and not the solid surface? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 17:47:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA22541; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:10:49 -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: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/23/96 04:28 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: On Government Suppression of O/U For a Dodge Omni, at 60MPH, no wind---assuming a 20% effecient thermal conversion (good for Otto Cycle engine) it works out to about 75 MPG. - Similarily sized Honda Civic, under ideal conditions has acheived about 58 MPG. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 06:27:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA24071; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960723215959_75110.3417_CHK42-1@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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Rick, >> I have to jam on work here until the weekend when I'll be on the Big Island for the Kilauea Crater 10mi. run. << Watch those quakes on the big island. There were 10+ today over 4.0. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 18:31:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA02846; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 18:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 18:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960723200344_583238776@emout13.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: Re: Energy = gravity, UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Almost right Frank Stenger...except that Gravity has negative energy.... Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 18:50:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA04152; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 18:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 18:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960723204020_583264389@emout08.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: Business group meets Yuri Potapov X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A team of business leaders pulled together by Frank Znidarsic traveled to Troy Michigan on July 15, 1996 to meet with Yuri Potapov and Peter Glueck. The meeting lasted six hours. Yuri told us about the development of the Yasmar and the quantum generator technologies. We saw many pictures. Peter Glueck translated. Later we went for supper at a nice restaurant. Peter and Yuri had pork chops. I had pasta. Yuri told us his Yusmar technology that produces 200% OU. This device consumes electrical energy and produces thermal energy. Yuri let us inspect the YASMIR that he brought with him. He expects to produce a 600% OU with heavy water. Yuri also told us of his new quantum generator systems. Once started, these systems run on the power they produce. The largest quantum generator runs itself and produces 6 megawatts of excess electrical power. It uses a small amout of water in the process. The device is now being developed in Russian space and military programs. Yuri also showed us pictures of his egg device that produces 45 KW of electrical power. He elected only to bring the Yusmar device to the US because it is light and easily transportable. Later we met Vald, Yuri's son. If was a pleasure meeting Yuri, Peter, and Vlad. Yuri got a rag and went outside a cleaned the windshield of my car. Imagine that, my windshield was cleaned by Yuri Potapov himself. I saw and lot and got overloaded with information. I'm not sure what to make of it all. Peter told me, "Do you think we would travel halfway around the world on our own money to LanL if the technology didn't work?" I'm anxiously waiting for the Lanl test results. If the result are sound Yuri agreed to travel to Pittsburgh to discuss the commercial development of his technology in the United Stated. Yuri stated, "Anything is possible!" I am hopefull. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 20:58:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA25278; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607240208.TAA07630@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings - Casimir and van der Waals relationship X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 6/23/96 You wrote: snip >In fact, they are the same. Casimir calculated the van der Waals >attraction between two plates, atom pair by atom pair, and when he >summed it all up he obtained the simple expression we know and love as >the inverse-4th law Casimir effect. He remarked on this to Bohr, who >suggested that maybe it could be recalculated as a vacuum energy >effect involving boundary conditions. Casimir went back to the drawing board and then confirmed that this was indeed the case. > >Hal Puthoff > Please provide the paper in which Casimir calculated the attraction between two plates, atom pair by atom pair using the term "van der Waal attraction". Next, please provide the paper of Casimir's unequivicocal and reproducible experimental proof that all "van der Waals attractions" are due to the effect that bears his name. RWW From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 20:57:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA25670; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: New Beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/22/96 22:46 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: New Beads Kirk: I am very impressed by your work. Detailed, involved, etc. I am, however, somewhat confused by the elementary difficulty of confusing the incredibly small amounts of chemical energy available in the system as being the potential source of the "excess". If we give any credibility to the CETI numbers, we typically have their 1 cc cells producing 5 to 10 watts continuous, for a small power input. That's 17 to 34 BTU per hour. (Sorry, I'm an old engineering type.) The total mass of the materials is about 5 grams max, or 5/453 or about 1/100th a pound mass. This would give you 22,000BTU/lbm (generic max chemical energy number based on gasoline) * 1/100 or 220 BTU. Thus if the units run for 220/17 or about 15 hours continuous, they have exhausted any possible chemical energy. (I beleive the one alledged Motorola run was about 14 hours at 15 watts out---or about 800 BTU's, far beyond 220 BTU's.) - Again, I get put in this poor position of "defending" CETI, when I am mad as hell at them for being so CLUMSY, SECRETIVE, manipulative, etc. - I have heard, however, recently that they are thinking of putting out an "inventors kit" for anyone to buy (probably for some outrageous price, such as $2000 a cell). This IS, however, in my opinion, a good manuever. Then there is no "guesswork" on duplicating their beads.... - Do we have enough people to contribute to buying one of these cells? (I might chip in.) MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 21:02:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA26122; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:52:01 -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: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >and the only effect is from the time dilation and Bill's argument is valid. > The bottom line is that the Special theory of relativity works perfect >in predicting the Lorentz force and if we are to change the Lorentz force >the special theory of relativity will be violated. > >Lawrence E. Wharton This just goes to further prove that the pinch I suggested is due to the simple relative motion of the electrons to the unbalanced positive charges in the metal lattice (or plasma as the case may be). This is becase the two provide reference frames for each other. As I mentioned, the magnitude of the force could appear different from a third reference frame though, due to time dilation, true? However, none of that seems germane to the question of where the observed longitudinal force comes from. It seems to me that if there is a pinch then the force to sustain the pinch must come from the lateral direction (x direction) and it must be provided by lateral electrostatic pressure or EMF, and must be counterbalanced by magnetic force on the lattice charges (this all from the reference frame if the lattice). This must be the longitudinal force that is observed separating rod segments and making ribbons from railgun rails. Believe me yet? No body seems to understand what I have said. Let me rephrase what I am saying in the most direct possible terms: (1) The pinch in the wire is due to simple relative motion of positive (lattice locked nuclei) and negative (conduction band electrons) charges. Relativity has nothing to do with it. There is no light speed activity involved. It is simple relative motion resulting in a velocity v, and circular magnetic fields that pinch the electrons and nuclie together in the wire laterally. (2) The pinch in the wire results in what appears to be a longitudinal force and *is a longitudinal force* produced by the electric field E from the emf driving the current in the first place, pressing the electrons against the pinching magnetic field at points of current restriction. (3) This longitudinal force I am discussing, which is real, has absolutely nothing to do with the discounting the Lorentz force law. It is simply masquerading as a longitudinal component and confusing the experimental interpretation. (4) This explanation, if correct, discounts two of the strongest bits of evidence for a longitudinal force I have seen posted, railgun rail deformations and the rod separation experiments Chris posted. Maybe if applied to other experiments which supposedly show a longitudinal force the "necessary" longitudinal force explanation would evaporate for them as well. Applying the idea takes data and analysis though. (7) What I am saying is there seems to be no requirement to invoke a "longitudinal force" as long as other effects can and should generate the described results. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 21:03:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA26436; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724025951_76216.2421_HHB72-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross - I don't have high-vac equipment, but I do happen to have two pumps. One is fast, and the other much smaller but adequate to keep the 'bottom' chamber at a good low pressure. I would expect the chamber above to end up at a pressure not too different from the lower one during the tests. You sound convinced that the pressure in the upper chamber is going to rise fast. I can make this chamber larger, say 36" of 5+" PVC conduit. With the larger pump running, and an even smaller inlet tube, like 2.5mm or so, keeping the pressure fairly low in the upper chamber shouldn't be too much of a problem, at least for a few seconds. IOW, I shouldn't have to base my observations on the first few milliseconds of the experiment. I'm hoping for those few seconds at least. > There should be a mechanical wave introduced to the > outer region of the sheet as the molecules drive it > down (as I assume you are going to *hit the open > valve rapidly*). That action will send a wave > through the membrane with a convergent location of > guess where???? You guessed it, under the jet!! My plan is for the test airfoil to have a roughly square planform maybe 2.5" to 3" on a side glued to 1/16" neoprene rubber sheet. The 'free' section of the membrane would form an approximately 1/2" to 3/4" border around this rectangle. The air jet should be centered over the foil, with only the downwash aft of the trailing edge impinging on the free part of the membrane. I had also thought to arrange for a sliding guide system with travel stops for the wing section so as to counteract any pitch or roll movements that might tend to confuse the results, as well as for limiting travel of the apparatus and possible damage to it in case of any "decompression accidents". If free oscillations become a problem, mechanical damping or springing can be added to the sliding elements. BTW, I did a divergence test with the 2.5mm tube today. With the chamber pulled down to vacuum, I let my finger off the end of the tube and held a pinch of talc near the end. This painted a white cone on an oil-coated aluminum plate mounted vertically close alongside the tube. The cone had a 29 deg. divergence. Some flatening and spreading of the flow against the plate would have occured, but it gives a good idea of the angle of divergence from the tube when I use this in the future. At least I know it probably isn't more than 29 degrees, and can use that when aiming the jet at a test object. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 21:02:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA26675; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724025952_76216.2421_HHB72-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Robert - >>> "You can create a force away from the vacuum side." Shhhh! :) This seems obvious with the liquid stream experiments, but it's so counterintuitive with gasses. When they're static and under pressure in confinement, you don't really notice the 'attractive' van der Waals forces on the sides of your chamber, just the outward pressure. But when the gas flows, there they are. So as to the Bernoulli effect, would it be safe to say that the force in psi that a flowing gas (or fluid generally) exerts on the solid walls of a confining channel or tube is not necessarily the same psi that the fluid exerts on itself? IOW, a manometer moving with the flow might register a higher pressure than a manometer fixed to the wall at that point in a narrowed venturi section? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 21:04:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA26961; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960723230831.68bf188a@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: Business group meets Yuri Potapov X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:35 PM 7/23/96 -0700, Frank Znidarsic wrote: > Yuri told us his Yusmar technology that >produces 200% OU. This device consumes electrical energy and produces thermal >energy. Frank: What sort of data supports this? anything you can fax or post here? what sort of calibration do they use. Yuri let us inspect the YASMIR that he brought with him. He expects >to produce a 600% OU with heavy water. Yuri also told us of his new quantum >generator systems. Once started, these systems run on the power they >produce. The largest quantum generator runs itself and produces 6 megawatts >of excess electrical power. It uses a small amout of water in the process. > The device is now being developed in Russian space and military programs. > Yuri also showed us pictures of his egg device that produces 45 KW of >electrical power. impressive purported power level. you are saying that is on nothing in? what is this putative device. could you please describe its differentiation from the water-flow system? configuration, mechanism size? any specific description or data on this one? thanks Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 21:11:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA27228; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607240313.UAA23394@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 6/23/96 In reference to repulsive forces between like charged particles and attractive forces between oppositely charged particles you wrote: snip >Thus, within that structure you have just two phase angles that >particles can couple to in any given location. call them arbitrarily >0 and 180 degrees. If you have two particles that have their >resonance coupled to the nodes at 180 degree phase angle, then they >are collapsing, expanding, collapsing.... And at zero degrees, you >have the opposite motion of expanding, collapsing, expanding.... > snip >In any case, a simple rendition just notes that if two particles are >expanding at the same time, their waves tend to push on one another >and it is easier for them to have that motion if they are further >apart. The converse is true if the particles are 180 degrees out of >phase. The expansion of one particle can move into the compression >effect of the other. This leads to it being more difficult to expand >in the direction away from the region between the two differently >charge particles. So, on each cycle of expansion and contraction the >oppositely charged particles will sort of ratchet toward each other. snip Charge attraction and repulsion are inherent elementary characteristics that particles may possess, rather than a phenomena of phase or antiphase relationships. Consider the following simple experiments. Its easy to produce antiphased (180 deg) electrons. You can do this with a simple signal generator producing a signal and by inverting the same signal. Let these antiphased electrons meet and measure what happens. Not much. Now consider what happens when a positron and an electron anihilate each other. The second scenario correctly describes positive and negative charges of an elementary particle and how they interact. It has nothing at all to do with different phases between these particles. The first experiment is described in your explaination above. The electrons, although placed out of phase, are still both negativly charged. Do you really claim that by placing two 180 degree out of phase charged particles together that somehow they exhibit opposite charges? Or, is this whole charge business a myth in your estimation? RWW From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 21:08:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA27650; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:03:15 -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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris quotes: > >The flux-linking or "transformer" induction of an e.m.f. appears to be >a phenomenon totally different from the fluxcutting case; in Chapter V >the facts of electro-magnetism are summarized in terms of the following >three components of the forces between electric charges: > > (a) A force in virtue of their positions, > > (b) A force in virtue of their velocities, and > > (c) A force in virtue of their accelerations. > >The first component (a) is the electro-static force, the second >component (b) accounts for the flux-cutting induction of an e.m.f., >while (c) is the basis of the flux-linking or transformer case. Since there is no flux cutting under these definitions (no wire motion relative to the magnetic field) in the Hering experiment, the flux linking definition, or (c) applies. If (c) is the explanation for the results of the Hering experiment then where is the acceleration? This implies that if the magnetic ring moves through the clip with constant velocity v then there will be no current induced in the wire. This sounds nonsensical. Since there is no relative charge motion at all in the initial conditions an equally good explantion is that when the moving ring contacts the brushes that no current will flow since there is no component accelerating. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 21:09:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA27941; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607240330.UAA23441@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings by Ross, Puthoff's SETI Paper X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hal; Thanks for the post. I do not have access to a university library, so it is not possible to look these things up. Any other articles you may have I would appreciate reading if you don't mind. Either here or via tessien@oro.net if the bandwidth here is a problem. Regarding the concepts outlined, they sound very interesting and very sililar to a concept I posted a few months back in new theories. I approached it a bit differently than stated, but many things rang a bell as very similar. My method was to accelerate a craft up close to c (but in my construction space begins to slip past itself as you do this, so this is where the concepts in your article sound familiar. The slipping decouples the craft from every beat of time that space outside undergoes (this is essentially SR up to this point). Once you build up the shock front, then I considered firing a beam of accelerated gammas, electrons, or protons into the building front ahead of the craft. In doing so, my goal was to condense the aether into virtual particles ahead of the craft. These would then be free to expand away from the craft and the pressure front ahead would be chopped while at the same time forming a vortice within which the craft would reside (actually the vortex would already have formed and that is how time begins to decouple and give rise to SR effects.) So what one would be doing is really to drop the pressure ahead of the craft in the eye of the vortex (a smoke ring sort of a vortex with the craft forcing the vortex forward). By condensing the high pressure in the center of that vortex, one should be then have access to fire the same energy ahead into undisturbed space (as one is now traveling superluminally). This will not occur until one gets all the way past the initial wake that launched out in front of the craft during acceleration up to the point at which the condensation could be successful. Once the virtual particles are formed, they will follow the vortex around the craft and back in from behind. At which point a tunnel will need to guide them back through the accelerator and out into the leading shock to condense more space. The space inside of that vortex would be very much like a bubble and in a sense, like a worm hole with the exception that this is not some rip across space. Rather, it is a locally, and intentionally induced effect. The key is getting up to the point at which condensation will be manifest. Another odd thing is that if you fire more energy forward, you will accelerate in that direction, rather than recoil backwards. At least that is how it seems to me because however much energy you fire will result in an even greater amount of condensation. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 21:11:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28219; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:06:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:06:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607240330.UAA23444@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Energy = gravity, UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Brian + Ross clarification: > >Energy exhibits gravity regardless of form (matter, photons, fields), >right? Yes > >A "bundle" of energy has gravity the same as a bundle of matter, right? "has" is probably a poor choice of words. How about "gives rise to the effect known as gravitation". > > m = E/c^2 = gravity, right? Yes the equation is correct, but it does not equal gravity. It does, if multiplied by a very small number, G, another mass field and divided by the square of the radius of separation, then represent a gravitational force; ie, F = GMm/R^2 and yes you can put in your m based on photon energy. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 21:52:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28536; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607240330.UAA23446@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings - Casimir and van der Waals relationship X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >In fact, they are the same. Casimir calculated the van der Waals attraction >between two plates, atom pair by atom pair, and when he summed it all up he >obtained the simple expression we know and love as the inverse-4th law >Casimir effect. He remarked on this to Bohr, who suggested that maybe it >could be recalculated as a vacuum energy effect involving boundary >conditions. Casimir went back to the drawing board and then confirmed that >this was indeed the case. Hal; I haven't read that derivation, but could you say what factor(s) in the geometry gives rise to the fourth power? Also, I have been working on something similar to this. I am trying to show how if you model those little atoms as individual phased array radar emitters, and then allow a volume of those emitters to slide their planes across one another (sort of like all of the layers of Baklava filo sliding past each other). the goal is to model the acoustic nodal structure that would result from such a phased array field of constructive and destructive energy sort of like the 3D effect of the nodes in a hologram (the plate being just a 2D slice of that 3D pattern of nodes. The reason is because one could then use this derivation to model the communciation between adjacent layers. There should be a velocity, or rate of shearing, at which light speed is no longer sufficient to maintain contact and the doppler and length variances should give rise to vortices spinning off of the layers. This would be a direct, first principle derivation of the onset of turbulence in a fluid system and we have excellent numbers for the state transitions of fluid flow. Is that paper available, and do you think that the lay out would be compatible with this new application? Somehow I don't think the derivation should be particularly difficult. I started sketching out the path lengths assuming a cubic crystal structure today. This would be a start and once accomplished, other slightly more complex space nodal structures including helices could be considered. the acoustic freqeuncy of the energy is about E45 Hz and the wavelength is about E-35 m, ie these are the properties of light at the Planck scale. but I was told by Paul Stowe and Barry Mingst (who derived some aether concepts using vortices and other such) that there is a square root of 3 that is the actual velocity of light at the Planck scale. Our light is more of a combination of the phased array wave fronts according to such a model. the sqrt 3 just comes from the diagonal of a cube. At least I think that is where they got it. Any ideas or do you have the reference paper that I might try to locate? Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 07:07:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28536; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607240330.UAA23446@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings - Casimir and van der Waals relationship X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >In fact, they are the same. Casimir calculated the van der Waals attraction >between two plates, atom pair by atom pair, and when he summed it all up he >obtained the simple expression we know and love as the inverse-4th law >Casimir effect. He remarked on this to Bohr, who suggested that maybe it >could be recalculated as a vacuum energy effect involving boundary >conditions. Casimir went back to the drawing board and then confirmed that >this was indeed the case. Hal; I haven't read that derivation, but could you say what factor(s) in the geometry gives rise to the fourth power? Also, I have been working on something similar to this. I am trying to show how if you model those little atoms as individual phased array radar emitters, and then allow a volume of those emitters to slide their planes across one another (sort of like all of the layers of Baklava filo sliding past each other). the goal is to model the acoustic nodal structure that would result from such a phased array field of constructive and destructive energy sort of like the 3D effect of the nodes in a hologram (the plate being just a 2D slice of that 3D pattern of nodes. The reason is because one could then use this derivation to model the communciation between adjacent layers. There should be a velocity, or rate of shearing, at which light speed is no longer sufficient to maintain contact and the doppler and length variances should give rise to vortices spinning off of the layers. This would be a direct, first principle derivation of the onset of turbulence in a fluid system and we have excellent numbers for the state transitions of fluid flow. Is that paper available, and do you think that the lay out would be compatible with this new application? Somehow I don't think the derivation should be particularly difficult. I started sketching out the path lengths assuming a cubic crystal structure today. This would be a start and once accomplished, other slightly more complex space nodal structures including helices could be considered. the acoustic freqeuncy of the energy is about E45 Hz and the wavelength is about E-35 m, ie these are the properties of light at the Planck scale. but I was told by Paul Stowe and Barry Mingst (who derived some aether concepts using vortices and other such) that there is a square root of 3 that is the actual velocity of light at the Planck scale. Our light is more of a combination of the phased array wave fronts according to such a model. the sqrt 3 just comes from the diagonal of a cube. At least I think that is where they got it. Any ideas or do you have the reference paper that I might try to locate? Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 22:31:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA04153; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607240402.OAA08533@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: New Beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Mark Hugo wrote: > - > I have heard, however, recently that they are thinking of putting out > an "inventors kit" for anyone to buy (probably for some outrageous price, > such as $2000 a cell). This IS, however, in my opinion, a good manuever. > Then there is no "guesswork" on duplicating their beads.... > - > Do we have enough people to contribute to buying one of these cells? (I > might chip in.) MDH > This is great news and about the only way CETI will make money in the immediate future (5 years). I'd chip in! I'd love to get to the bottom of the CETI mystery. Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 06:16:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA05482; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F5A23F.285D@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: New Beads-chip in X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: MHUGO@EPRI wrote: > Do we have enough people to contribute to buying one of these cells? (I > might chip in.) MDH I'm game - as long as it goes into Scott's calorimeter! Should we hold our breath till one is available? Turning blue already, Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 23 23:25:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01082; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 23:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 23:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f59d43.8032673@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: High-conducting State X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: In alt.sci.physics.new-theories, "Ludmila M. Svirskaya" wrote: > In 1946 R.Ogg [1] found a sharp decreasing of metal-ammonia solution's >electrical conductivity (more than on 17 orders) at fast freezing in a liquid >nitrogen and the induced current circulation in a freezed metal-ammonia solu- >tion's circlet. These experiments apparantly put a begining of a High-conduc- >ting state (HCS) investigations in a low-dimensional systems. > P. Arendt [2] found that one-dimensional capillaries in freezing >metal-ammonia solutions at 240 K have a conductivity which exceeds in 3000 >time the copper conductivity at room temperature. A tranzition to HCS was >followed by increesing of the effective mass of the electrons on 4 orders. > A sharp increasing of local conductivity in thin polimeric pellicles >(more than on 10 orders) after oxidation and ultraviolet exposition at 300 K >was also treated as HCS [3]. >***************************************************************************** >* A HCS difers from normal conductivity by extremely low, but nonzero, * >* electrical resistance, and from superconductivity by absence of energy * >* gap and Meissner effect. I wonder if this means that the effect won't collapse at high magnetic field strengths? 3000 times better conductivity than copper would still make a pretty terrific electromagnet, even if not superconducting. * >***************************************************************************** > > REFERENCES >1.Ogg R.A. Phys.Rev.,1946, v. 69, p.243-244; v.70, p.93 >2.Arendt P. J.Phys. Chem. Sol., 1988, v.49, N5, p. 511-517; Solid State Comm., >1988, v. 67, N 12, p. 1161-1164; p. 1167-1170 >3.Archangorodskii V.M., Ionov A.N., Tuchkevitch V.M., Shlimac I.S. >Pis'ma v JETP, 1990, 51, 1, p. 56-61 > > I would be very grateful for any informations on this question >(references, a new experiments, a possible theoretical approaches,). > Many thanks for any help. > Ludmila M. Svirskaya, Dep. of Theoretical Physics, > Chelyabinsk State Pedagogical University >E-mail: svirsk@cspi.urc.ac.ru > > 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 Thu Jul 25 06:32:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA02015; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 23:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 23:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724001949_368940388@emout09.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: Energy = gravity, UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Stenger says: >A "bundle" of energy has gravity the same as a bundle of >matter, right? > m = E/c^2 = gravity, right? Right. A cavity full of photons weighs more than an empty cavity. See Bohm's book on relativity for discussion. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 10:59:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA11867; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607240822.BAA32407@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: New Beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I'll chip in some. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:06:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12510; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:49:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:49:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607240822.BAA32411@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Richard wrote; >Charge attraction and repulsion are inherent elementary characteristics >that particles may possess, rather than a phenomena of phase or >antiphase relationships. > >Consider the following simple experiments. > >Its easy to produce antiphased (180 deg) electrons. You can do this >with a simple signal generator producing a signal and by inverting the >same signal. Let these antiphased electrons meet and measure what >happens. Not much. Incorrect. The two anti phase EM waves of electrons annihilate each other and produce a standing EM wave of zero amplitude, plus the heat to generate the wave forms which is expended trying to pump into that standing wave by the drivers. > >Now consider what happens when a positron and an electron anihilate >each other. The same thing. annihilation of the standing waves, and emission of heat energy in the form this time of a soliton like vortex in the aether. that is the kinetic motion imposed on the aether, where kinetic motions are "energy", "temperature", or the conductors of "heat". > >The second scenario correctly describes positive and negative charges >of an elementary particle and how they interact. It has nothing at all >to do with different phases between these particles. This is an opinion, but this opinion does not preclude the alternate opinion I proposed. Further, this opinion cannot give any explanation to why gravitation arises. In other words, this is essentially the opinion held by QM (quantum mechanics) and this theory performs marvelous mathematical calculations on deterministic predictions, but utterly fails to give rise to our universe from the world of the sub atomic in its failure to predict gravitation. If you consider the concept of phased arrays of emitters where the emitters are sub atomic matter, then you will come to learn that gravitation is a necessary component of such a theory due to the interfereces that will be manifest from Doppler shifted energy arriving from deep space. So, you can have charge with no pulsation and no gravitation at the sub atomic level in your theory. Or, you can have charge via phase opposition and you can have gravitation be a part of your universe direct from your theory of the sub atomic. Which would you prefer? > >The first experiment is described in your explaination above. The >electrons, although placed out of phase, are still both negativly >charged. Do you really claim that by placing two 180 degree out of >phase charged particles together that somehow they exhibit opposite >charges? Or, is this whole charge business a myth in your estimation? Oh, I think charge is a very real phenomena. I just happen to think that it is the result of Planck scale oscillations in cadence with the quantum vacuum. this leads to some simple concepts for time and for space where the former is the rate of pulsation of the nodal structure and the latter is the average local spacing of the nodes in the quantum vacuum. Your first experiment would result in the summation of the following two signals; V1 = A sin(wt) V2 = A sin(wt + 180) But sine of any angle plus 180 degrees is the negative of the value of sine at that angle. Thus, sin (x + 180) = - sin(x), so; V1 + V2 = A[ sin(wt) - sin(wt)] = 0 So, in your experiment above you annihilated your signals just as do electrons and positrons. So yes, I still say they are phased arrays of emissions of acoustic energy into the aether filling the quantum vacuum. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:03:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA13165; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607240822.BAA32409@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >I don't have high-vac equipment, but I do happen to have two pumps. One is >fast, and the other much smaller but adequate to keep the 'bottom' chamber at a >good low pressure. I would expect the chamber above to end up at a pressure not >too different from the lower one during the tests. You will easily know due to the deformation of the membrane if there is a pressure differential. You sound convinced that the >pressure in the upper chamber is going to rise fast. I can make this chamber >larger, say 36" of 5+" PVC conduit. With the larger pump running, and an even >smaller inlet tube, like 2.5mm or so, keeping the pressure fairly low in the >upper chamber shouldn't be too much of a problem, at least for a few seconds. >IOW, I shouldn't have to base my observations on the first few milliseconds of >the experiment. I'm hoping for those few seconds at least. The trick will be in determining the sum of the motion of the membrane during the initial moments. There may be a region above the wing that receives a reflection mechanical wave. thinner neoprene or even better, rubber balloon material would reduce the mass of the membrane and minimize any waves in it. Try to get or borrow several video cameras so you can film it from multiple angles. That way you may be able to view any waves in the overall motions. Also, that way you will be more quantitative on whether the initial motions are up or down in the region of the airfoil as well as the surrounding regions. >BTW, I did a divergence test with the 2.5mm tube today. With the chamber pulled >down to vacuum, I let my finger off the end of the tube and held a pinch of >talc near the end. This painted a white cone on an oil-coated aluminum plate >mounted vertically close alongside the tube. The cone had a 29 deg. divergence. >Some flatening and spreading of the flow against the plate would have occured, >but it gives a good idea of the angle of divergence from the tube when I use >this in the future. At least I know it probably isn't more than 29 degrees, and >can use that when aiming the jet at a test object. That is a good test. And the fact that there was any divergence at all should tell you something important and intrinsic. Keep in mind when trying to determine the "piling" up of action that the vacuum is not sucking the air into the chamber, but instead the air pressure on the outside is pushing it in. that will help keep straight what is going on on the way in and why there was divergence. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:11:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14394; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724082818_100433.1541_BHG72-4@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: Re: Business group meets Yuri Potapov X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank, Give my regards to Peter Glueck, who is a nice guy. But you should appreciate that whilst I wish you all good fortune with the Yusmar at LANL, Potapov took 'our' (Jed Rothwell's and Athur C Clarke's) good money for several of the devices and then *failed even to acknowledge* all our requests for assistance when they didn't work. And no help was forthcoming for the St Petersburg tests either. It is no good Peter telling you that we didn't do as we were supposed to do. Scott Little and Gene Mallove are not stupid people, they did their best with what information they received. Please explain to Peter and to Potapov that we are distinctly *unhappy* about the whole affair, since we acted in good faith which was not reciprocated. You should appreciate that we regard the present activities in the US with very mixed feelings. I suggest also that you communicate these matters to your business associates. I look forward to hearing the responses of those to whom you communicate these views. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:21:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA15880; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724082812_100433.1541_BHG72-2@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: Re: Business group meets Yuri Potapov X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell, This 'Quantum Generator' thing of Potapov's is pretty silly. Nobody ever sees a real one, just this dummy he has in his office. Yes, I got exactly the same story there last year. No, I'm not impressed. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:19:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA16588; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724082815_100433.1541_BHG72-3@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: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, > Since there is no flux cutting under these definitions (no wire > motion relative to the magnetic field) in the Hering experiment, > the flux linking definition, or (c) applies. If (c) is the > explanation for the results of the Hering experiment then where is > the acceleration? This implies that if the magnetic ring moves > through the clip with constant velocity v then there will be no > current induced in the wire. This sounds nonsensical. Since there > is no relative charge motion at all in the initial conditions an > equally good explantion is that when the moving ring contacts the > brushes that no current will flow since there is no component > accelerating. Don't ask me! I'm like Zaphod Beeblebrox in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - 'just this guy, you know?' I just get more and more confused - and I do NOT think it is entirely my own fault. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:18:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA16955; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f5b162.13184299@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: Wings by Ross, Puthoff's SETI Paper X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 15:52:57 -0700 (PDT), Puthoff@aol.com wrote: [snip] >fundamental physical laws. And, we might add, this could in principle be >done without recourse to concepts as extreme as wormhole traversal.(14) >(However, clearly, exotic matter/field states - e.g., macroscopic >Casimir-like negative-energy-density vacuum states - would be required.) As This makes me wonder if introduction of a very high amplitude wave at a single frequency, that tends to "entrain" all other oscillations of the aether, wouln't also result in a negative energy density condition? This might especially be true if the induced wave had a very low frequency, or even zero frequency, as in a DC field. What I am really trying to suggest is that the superposition principle may not be universally valid for very high amplitude waves. Just as the motion of a pendulum can be nicely described by a sine function for low amplitudes, but starts to deviate for larger amplitudes. This might even be the long sought link that explains the "Biefeld Brown" effect. [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 Wed Jul 24 11:22:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA17368; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f5b5ff.14366213@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: Energy = gravity, UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:15:04 -0700 (PDT), Francis J. Stenger wrote: >Brian + Ross clarification: > >Energy exhibits gravity regardless of form (matter, photons, fields), >right? > >A "bundle" of energy has gravity the same as a bundle of matter, right? > > m = E/c^2 = gravity, right? I remember recently seeing a post on sci.physics, to the effect that the gravitational action on a photon varies depending on the angle between the gravitational field and the direction of travel of the photon. > >Just checking - Frank Stenger > 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 Jul 24 11:25:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA17789; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31f5b74c.14698549@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: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >I have performed this calc in college years ago in my course work in ME. And what did you come up with? >Thermodynamic and chemical efficiencies both come into play. Perhaps my >statement was a bit misleading, or perhaps you are referring to something >that I am not thinking of. But there is a thermodynamic efficiency which >has to do with the temperature into which you are dumping the heat energy. >In other words, the ratio of the highest temperature in your conversion unit >to the lowest temperature of your sink, the outdoors. This I won't deny, but consider the following for a moment. The highest temperature in the motor is _not_ the temperature that the metal can withstand without melting. It is the combustion temperature of the fuel air mixture (as high as 2000C under ideal circumstances). The metal doesn't have to "withstand" this temperature, because there is a strong temperature gradient within the gas in the cylinder, most of which occurs close to the wall, where the relatively thin gas is rapidly cooled by contact with the dense cold metal of the motor. This means that the theoretical maximum Carnot efficiency is 100*(2273-300)/2273=87%. [snip] >In other words, the best one could do according to a Carnot effeciency would >be to get 100 percent of that 50 percent that is available. > >Now, that is thermodynamics, but are you referring to something else? Or >has it been so long since I have worked the equations that I missed >something way back when and am not properly calibrated? [snip] Actually I was referring to the fact (as I understand it) that only about 10-20 HP is required to keep a vehicle moving under the conditions stated above. This means, that the actual efficiency achieved in most IC engines today under those conditions, is about 10-20% (assuming 25% transmission loss of the developed power, and 28 mpg). A far cry from 87%, or even the 50% that you quoted. This is why I give those "super-carb" stories a hearing. Check out the web site in my sig. 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 Jul 24 11:33:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18126; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724110848_100060.173_JHB40-3@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: Wings by Ross, Puthoff's SETI Paper X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross: >> Another odd thing is that if you fire more energy forward, you will accelerate in that direction, rather than recoil backwards. At least that is how it seems to me because however much energy you fire will result in an even greater amount of condensation. << Yup - you've reversed time - don't look too hard or you might just see your - you know what coming towards you at v-c. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:32:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18609; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724110846_100060.173_JHB40-2@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: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I'm in flame-resistant gear so be gentle! The pinch effect is in general use industrially for crimping or swageing cylindrical components on to inner forms. So that there is no doubt as to the forces available given enough current. Looking at the Graneau experiments where the conductor is "cut" into several lengths when the caps are discharged and the very high and oscillating current flows, surely if the pinch effect is concentrated at nodal points caused by standing waves created by reflections from the ends of the conductor, then the fractures will show tensile characteristics if the local pinching is such as to neck the wire differentially from the nodal point in both directions at once, rather like using a wedge shaped wire cutter blade, and the pieces will be forced apart as if mechanically cut. This argument will still apply if the conductor is initially in several segments and the pinching effect is forced to occur with differential force at each end of the loose piece by the wavelength of the oscillating current and the position of the induced standing waves. So I'm not a fartical pissicist! Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:36:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA19105; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:24:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:24:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724110844_100060.173_JHB40-1@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: New Beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark: >> I have heard, however, recently that they are thinking of putting out an "inventors kit" for anyone to buy (probably for some outrageous price, such as $2000 a cell). This IS, however, in my opinion, a good manuever. Then there is no "guesswork" on duplicating their beads.... - Do we have enough people to contribute to buying one of these cells? (I might chip in.) MDH << Yes, as far as I am concerned - as long as the kit includes full instructions and is fully assembled (within reason!) None of the half-baked Yusmar stuff which Jed and others spent good money on a year ago. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:48:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA19634; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:26:59 -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: From Volodya-St.Pete X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: As you remember, I described the process of annihilation of the electron and the positron in which the relativistic relations are broken. Larry Wharton wrote to the vortex group that if one correctly calculates the process all will be OK. I couldn't give these calculations, however, I can do it now. The idea of the calculations is simple. Let's calculate the energies and the momenta of the electric and magnetic fields at a time just after annihilation and compare these magnitudes calculated in moving and at rest frames. We don't obtain relativistic relation: E1^2 - c^2* P1^2 = E2^2 - c^2*P2^2 ; (1) Firstly, let's consider the frame in which the particles move one to another with identical velocities V with respect to the frame. At the time of annihilation only the magnetic fields of the electron B(V,el) and the positron B(V,pos) must exist so E1 = (eps0*c^2/2)Int[B(V,el)+B(V,pos)]^2dv ; (2) where eps0 is the dielectric constant of the vacuum, Int is the integral over all the space v. Due to symmetry the electric field of the electron is completely compensated by the corresponding field of the positron, therefore, the Pointing vector will be equal to zero. Now let's consider the frame in which the positron is at rest and the electron moves to the positron with the velocity U = 2V/[1+(V/c)^2] In this case, there exist the magnetic field B(U) of the electron, the Coulomb field E(0) of the positron (the letter 0 means that the field is calculated at U=0) and the electric field E(U) of the electron (this field is of Liennard-Wiekhert type). Therefore, the energy of the fields is E2 = En(elec) + En(magn) ; (3) where En(elec) is the energy of the electric field En(elec) = (eps0/2)Int[E(U)-E(0)]^2dv ; (4) and En(magn) is the energy of the magnetic field of the electron En(magn) = (eps0*c^2/2)Int[B(U,el)]^2dv ; (5) The Pionting vector S and, therefore, the momentum g is g = S/c^2 = eps0Int[(E(U)-E(0))xB(U,el)]dv ; (6) where [axb] means the vector product of the vectors a and b; Now we are able to calculate the relation (1). However, mathematically strict calculation is still impossible because all the integrals have singularities connected with point-like nature of the electron and the positron (the singularities remain in the quantum electrodynamics too). So we will perform the calculations in the following way: because the integrals contain two independent parameters, i.e. so called classical radius r0 of the electron and the velocity of the particles let's expand the integrals in series over the small parameter (V/c) (at V< 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: Re: New Beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark Hugo wrote asking about my results' implications to a CETI cell run, by estimating that the chemical effect would be done in about 15 hours: The shortest answer is to point out that I didn't claim the chemistry I postulated would explain the CETI cell. In fact, I was thinking exactly along the lines of your calculation, which shows it to be a short term effect. However, the next question one has to ask is "How long would it show up as excess heat?", and that is followed rapidly by "Have we credible data for a longer time than that showing excess heat?" Now the speculation starts to run rampant in most discussions. Mark's calculation assumed several things, both explicitly and implicitly. He explicitly assumed a weight and heat content, they could be different. A higher heat coupled with a slower "burn rate" would give a longer time to the point of chemical exhaustion. The relevant chemistry with NH3 in water solution would be oxidation of ammonium ion to some kind of nitrogen oxide and water. If the right nitrogen oxide is produced, that can further go on to form nitric acid in a separate reaction with water (thus my suggestion to look for nitrates in the electrolyte) which produces more heat. So I don't think it unreasonable to wonder if there could be more than the estimated 220 BTU being produced. How much? No idea. One implicit assumption is that nothing else is going on. That may not be so either. I have a couple of wild ideas I was trying to work on by making the beads, but this NH3 stuff masks whether I am on the right track or not. I may need to go to a "cleaner" synthesis, a la Miley, to continue my investigations. {{Here it comes...}} I am not really at liberty to discuss these yet, as I *think* there is a patent possibilty I want to keep alive. But even so, there are other chemicals that should have been trapped with those that formed the NH3 and H2O I detected. A good case in pont is a hypophosphite species (PO2(3-)). That ion can (and does in the plating bath) oxidize to phosphite (PO3(3-)) and even to phosphate (PO4(3-)), giving another chemical source of heat. All of these concerns make it difficult to decide what numbers to use in estimating the limit of the chemistry. Par for the course... "Nothing else going on" also implicitly assumes no other errors are present. In my mind, this means reproducibility, preferably by a totally independent pathway. I haven't concluded yet that the CETI results are "rock solid". Maybe that's just my bias, but I still don't write off other problems being present. What would make me more willing to do that? A full (or maybe even just a high quality "partial") scientific publication, where more than just the details necessary to interest investors are given. CETI however has chosen to not do this, as Mark lamented, which leaves the rest of us hanging in the wind. One specific instance of this is my concern that the thermocouple placement in the PPC may be perfectly placed to pick up the hottest point of the "oxidation zone" I postulate with my analogy to the Science article on alkane oxidation. That's why I liked Scott's setup, it has a redundant, separate method of detecting heat. If the normal PPC design measures a hot spot, then Scott's redundant measure should show up a difference. Finally, Scott tells me my Batch 1 beads haven't done anything. So this may all be moot anyway... It is almost impossible to *exactly* replicate someone's work, and understanding the differences and how significant they are is the crux of the matter. My beads could be considered to be vastly different from CETI's, so *all* my results can eaaily be explained away based on that. Again, par for the course... Kirk Shanahan From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:44:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA20409; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:30:38 -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: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Robert - > > >>> "You can create a force away from the vacuum side." > > Shhhh! :) > > This seems obvious with the liquid stream experiments, but it's so > counterintuitive with gasses. When they're static and under pressure in > confinement, you don't really notice the 'attractive' van der Waals forces on > the sides of your chamber, just the outward pressure. But when the gas flows, > there they are. By my mental model for gasses and liquids, I don't understand how a gas can exert a NET attraction force on a surface, so I don't understand how the Coanda effect can occur in a vacuum. I see solids and liquids as similar, with molecules in "contact," and directly adhereing to each other. This is quite different than the wide separation between the molecules of a gas. If gas molecules adhere to a solid surface, they are no longer in a gas state, they have been adsorbed onto the surface, they have sublimated into a solid (or perhaps a 2-dimensional liquid.) Put a solid or a liquid in a hard vacuum and then pull on it, and you'll develop *negative* pressure within the material. The Vanderwall's force "contact adhesion" between molecules allows this. But if the molecules of a gas are separated by far more than the molecule diameters, and if the molecules are transferring momentum to a surface by colliding with it., I don't understand how they can exert a NET negative pressure. There might be a small VanderWall's attraction between molecules. But won't this simply subtract from the large repulsion caused by the collisions, and still result in a large NET repulsion force? In order that a gas be able to adhere to a surface, the VanderWall's forces must be larger than the gas pressure. Also, these forces must operate over at least the separation distance between gas molecules, which is huge, much larger than the molecule's diameter. Also, these forces must obey some strange laws which operate only near solid surfaces, otherwise gases would *always* cohere together, would not expand linearly with decreasing pressure, and would act more like aerogel than like ideal gasses. If Coanda effect in a vacuum operates by Vanderwall's forces, then the gas is no longer a gas, it is in a new state of matter somewhere between solid and liquid. If VanderWall's force is important for gases, it should apply to many other parts of the physics of gases, and not just to Coanda effect. Perhaps Boundry Layer phenomena are misunderstood, and the gas in a Boundry Layer is a new state of matter? ....................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 Wed Jul 24 11:50:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA21203; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724103038_440813632@emout10.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: Wings - Casimir and van der Waals relationship X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Richard, You asked: >Please provide the paper in which Casimir calculated the >attraction between two plates, atom pair by atom pair using >the term "van der Waal attraction". The reference is H. B. G. Casimir, Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet., vol. 51, p. 793 (1948). You then said: >Next, please provide the paper of Casimir's unequivicocal and >reproducible experimental proof that all "van der Waals >attractions" are due to the effect that bears his name. This is not the case. The Casimir effect is a special case of van der Waals, but not the reverse. Van der Waals effects are a broader category, known since the 1800's. The Casimir effect, published by Casimir in 1948, came out of a special-case analysis of van der Waals attraction between the atoms in two parallel plates. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:56:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22136; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724103858_440819838@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: Wings - Casimir and van der Waals relationship X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross asked (re the Casimir effect): >I haven't read that derivation, but could you say what >factor(s) in the geometry gives rise to the fourth power? An easy-to-follow derivation is given in "A Pedestrian Approach to Quantum Field Theory, by E. G. Harris, Chapter 10 (Wiley Interscience, 1972). In a word, counting up of the modes that fit between the two plates. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:58:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22816; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:43:05 -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: Stumbles and more stumbles - chem. questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >Your math is OK. You stumbled in interpretation. You have set up a system >of two quadrupole charges, QA and QB, and calculated the force between >them. ("Quadrupole" because QA can be constructed out of two dipoles, eg. >QA1 plus 1/2 QA2 is one dipole, and QA3 plus 1/2 QA2 is the other; and >similarly for QB. Actually, your case is a special case of quadrupole; any >arrangement of two dipoles is a guadrupole in general terms. As you might >suspect, there higher and higher order multipole charge distributions.) >In this orientation the quadrupole is slightly repulsive. This is just >classical electrostatics, the sum of individual point charge fields and >potential energies. The Coulomb field conserves energy, either by general >proof or by detailed calculation for your configuration. The higher the >multipole order, the more rapidly the corresponding force decays with >distance. > >Michael J. Schaffer Thanks for the informative reply. I appreciate your spending that time. There are still some things I can't make sense of, or at least maybe I am just having difficulty shaking long held (but apparently erroneous) beliefs. From what you are saying it appears that it *is* true that you can not simplify a system to "center of charge" for determining a force between that system and an external point. I suppose the calulations I provided, assuming there is no calculation error, demonstrate that. This is just hard for me to accept I guess. I hope to do the Xe-H (or at least Ar-H) experiments anyway. To be safe, I do have some qustions about the chemistry of Ar-H and Xe-H that maybe Dieter or any chemists could answer easily. If you mix Xe (or Ar) and H do you get a reaction? Do you get XeH in some proportion? Is there any danger mixing such and then putting such into a discharge tube at low pressure and stimulating? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:58:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23611; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:45:57 -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: Rationalistic Commentary on Yusmars--- X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Rationalistic Commentary on Yusmars--- - I see now that Yuri is claiming merely 200% for his devices. Is everyone familiar with the measurements made by Gene M. and Jed R. on the Griggs device? I'd say that the 200% claim is IN LINE with what Jed and Gene measured on Griggs device. Also of interest is an asside comment by Yuri that he thinks with heavy water he'll get 600%. This begins to tie George/Stringham/Griggs and Patopov together in a fairly consistant package. - The EXCITING claim here is probably the "self sustaining" claim. As I under- stand it, the self sustaining device works on the basis that if you electricall y "stand off" the internals from the shell of the P. device you can acheive a 15KV potential---which will sustain a "sizeable" current. (I.e., in the 100's of mA range.) A few SCR inverters and a feed back to a pump, and you are in business. - DO keep us informed, Peter G. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 11:58:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA24338; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 11:49:00 -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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > >Strong magnets just allow us to make a SMALLER high-efficiency electric >motor. Nothing about STRONG magnets leads to over-unity energy performance. > >Takahashi is either (1) scamming folks...or (2) hiding his real discovery. Maybe this thought is worth some considering. If you are building a motor you are looking at F=ilB. If you can increase the force without using energy, you increase the energy extractable from the motor. This takes either reducing resistance to increase i or l, or increasing B. If you can increase B without limit without taking energy to do so, then you can increase the force from a given current and thus increase the enegy extracted in motion. Consider an oscillating armature consistying of long parallel wires in a loop, each long leg in a magnetic field opposite the other wire: ------------------------------ | | | | | | | | | ------------ | | | | | | | | | | N | | S | ---------- ---------- X------------------o <------------- oscillating armature ---------- ---------- | S | | N | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------ | | | | | | | ------------------------------ If the length of the wire above can be increased without resistance then there is no limit to the amount of flux that can be cut for a given strength magnet which is elongated with the wire, so there is no limit to the amount of force that can be generated or the amount of energy that can be extracted per oscillation. Alternatively, if the field strength of the magnet can be increased without limit, the wire can in the armature can stay short and have resistance because the energy will be without limit except for practical mechanical considerations. True Lenz' law limits the enrgy, but there must be motion for Lenz' law to take effect. If there is finite motion with an infinite force there is infinite energy. In fact, it seems to me that the very definintion of flux seems to indicate this. If we consider B=Wb/m^2 and B=N/Am (woa! my computer just started shaking, we're having a minor earthquake here in Alaska) then Wb/m^2 = N/Am, Wb= Nm^2/Am=Nm/A=J/A, so the very definition of weber, Wb=J/A, says something about energy, namely: J=Wb*A. The energy drived is proportional to lines cut and amperes, period. It seems to me that, using superconductors, or using sufficiently powerful permanent magnets, or both, an ou motor should be possible. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 21:18:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA24132; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 20:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 20:58:14 -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: New Beads-chip in X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I'm game - as long as it goes into Scott's calorimeter! Should we >hold our breath till one is available? > >Turning blue already, Frank Stenger Ditto for me. However I am flat broke and my disk is having problems due to my using a beta version of Netscape. I need to buy a zip drive for backup so this month's cash is gone before even arriving. I can pay up in September, but it'll surprise the heck out of me if we get CETI beads by then anyway. When it's all over I would like to have a few of the beads to add to my memorabelia. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 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 VAA24477; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:00:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:00:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607241808.OAA09674@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde (76216.2421@CompuServe.COM) said: > Shhhh! :) > This seems obvious with the liquid stream experiments, but it's so > counterintuitive with gasses. When they're static and under > pressure in confinement, you don't really notice the 'attractive' > van der Waals forces on the sides of your chamber, just the > outward pressure. But when the gas flows, there they are. ...and rockets with transsonic flows make intuition a very feeble thing. I guess the reason I mentioned the SSMEs on the shuttle is that any mechanical engineer looking at the nozzles should be able to see that the bells are reinforced against collapse. Beyond the throat, the gas pressure is always in and up, independent of the external pressure, but the inward force is strongest in a vacuum. I've been thinking of a cute experiment that should convince any doubters. Make a small airfoil out of thin (polished) aluminum--a couple thicknesses of ordinary kitchen foil will do. Put it inside a clear vaccuum container leaning against the wall just under the inlet nozzle: _____________________________________ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________ <---- Inlet jet | / foil | | / | |_______________/___________________| Of course your foil will have a more gracious curve than I can manage in ASCII. Now let a short pulse of air in through the inlet and see how far the foil jumps. (If you put little lips to hold the foil in place it will deform enough to jump out. But you will probably have to open the chamber to repeat the process.) Once you have learned how to make the foil do a 2-1/2 gainer, you can videotape it for doubters. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 21:26:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA25380; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724143146_163236239@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: Wings by Ross, Puthoff's SETI Paper X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin, It is true that a very high charge density of the magnitude that generates the so-called Reissner-Nordstrom metric, results in such negative-energy states because of the nonlinearity. It does sound like the Biefield-Brown effect, except that in General Relativity (GR) calculations the charge density needed is sort of the equivalent of a charged black hole, and Brown's experiments never reached anything like that density. Maybe it just means that there is a resonant denominator missing in the GR equations, and that one can in fact distort the metric with relatively low charge densities?! Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 21:49:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA27484; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:19:28 -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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I just wrote: "If you are building a motor you are looking at F=ilB. If you can increase the force without using energy, you increase the energy extractable from the motor. This takes either reducing resistance to increase i or l, or increasing B. If you can increase B without limit without taking energy to do so, then you can increase the force from a given current and thus increase the enegy extracted in motion." Maybe it is possible to build a working demonstration model. Suppose you have a piston consisting of a single superconducting loop of length l with a current i1, and a supporting structure that moves up and down with the loop. Driving the piston is a driving loop, a parallel loop of length l directly below the piston a distance d, which initially has no current. However, the driving loop has an extension on it (adding to l) of another small loop into which a permanent magnet is inserted producing current i2 in such a manner that the loops attract. Now, for l long, F = K*(l)*(i1)*(i2)/d. There is no limit to the length l so there is no limit to the force between the two loops. Suppose the piston framework is electo-mechanically connected to the permanent magnet in the center of the small loop in such a way as to suddenly invert the permanent magnet as the loops approach. This reverses the current in the driver coil and thus reverses the current i2, and the force F. However, there remains the question of the counter EMF. The question is whether the counter EMF generated will cause the piston coil current to exactly follow the driver coil current so as to produce no change in force with which to continue driving the piston? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 21:54:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA29262; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:30:10 -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: Stumbles and more stumbles - chem. questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/24/96 11:58 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Stumbles and more stumbles - chem. questions Horace: No reactions between the NOBLE gasses and H...If you do form XeH, let us know. Can you make some D2 with D2O, zinc and acid? If so, try some XeD in your glow discharge. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 21:58:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00155; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607241912.PAA10104@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty (billb@eskimo.com) said: > If VanderWall's force is important for gases, it should apply to many > other parts of the physics of gases, and not just to Coanda effect. > Perhaps Boundry Layer phenomena are misunderstood, and the gas in a > Boundry Layer is a new state of matter? I've never thought about adsorbed (notice NOT ABsorbed) gases as a new state of matter, but they are very well studied and very important to anyone working with vacuums, and for that matter, to anyone working with welding of metals. Yes, transport in the boundary layer is "anomalous." In particular, it can be faster than the speed of sound in the gas. So, yes, gas molecules can get trapped in this boundary layer. In fact, with some materials, you need special treatments to remove the layer, even in a vacuum. (My favorite prescription is the one I use for cleaning the O2 off copper. Fill with 100 proof Gin or Vodka, boil out. Do not add lime.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 21:55:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00531; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:34:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:34:56 -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: From Volodya-St.Pete X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/24/96 11:47 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: From Volodya-St.Pete Try integrating around a Bromwitch contour on the poles (singularities) in the complex plane to solve the integrals with singularities. (See Churchills classic " Complex Variable Analysis" MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 22:07:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA02317; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607241928.OAA03595@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: New Beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 20:48 7/23/96 -0700, Mark Hugo wrote: >Subject: Re: New Beads >Kirk: I am very impressed by your work..... >If we give any credibility to the CETI numbers.... ..maybe that's the problem we've been having. >I have heard, however, recently that they are thinking of putting out >an "inventors kit" for anyone to buy (probably for some outrageous price, >such as $2000 a cell). Uh...I think you missed a decimal point, Mark. They are planning to ask $20,000 for a turn-key kit complete with power supplies and instrumentation! >From what I hear, they won't sell just a cell by itself. This info comes from a friend of mine who's a close friend of Cravens. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 22:16:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA03528; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607241956.OAA05813@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: Stumbles and more stumbles - chem. questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:43 7/24/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >I hope to do the Xe-H (or at least Ar-H) experiments anyway. To be safe, I >do have some qustions about the chemistry of Ar-H and Xe-H that maybe >Dieter or any chemists could answer easily. If you mix Xe (or Ar) and H do >you get a reaction? Do you get XeH in some proportion? Is there any >danger mixing such and then putting such into a discharge tube at low >pressure and stimulating? Ar and Xe are noble gases and thus nominally do not react with anything. Folks have forced noble gases to enter into compounds with a few highly reactive elements (e.g. F, Cl) but I think they had to really coax them into doing so. You will not observe any noticeable reaction in a mixture of H and Ar/Xe, even in an electrical discharge. BTW, I've done lot's of experiments with electrical discharges in a pure H atmosphere...no problem. Large electrical generators are sometimes run in an atmosphere of pure H in order to reduce windage losses. What you want to avoid, of course, is an atmosphere that is anywhere close to two parts H to one part O by volume....BANG! Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 22:17:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA03757; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:56:49 -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: Business group meets Yuri Potapov X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/24/96 11:21 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Business group meets Yuri Potapov Thanks for a little bit of reality here Chris....Although I think there is a possibility that the heat generation is real, and particularily (see my previous post) a 200% excess number "fits" with the Gene and Jed/Griggs measurements....We may be dealing with a "quasi fraud" with regard the "quantum generator". What I mean by that is that the high voltage I have alluded to may have been found by Yuri, and even current/load curve measurements made. However, I suspect that a 15KV, quasi-static charge system might present difficulties in: A. Accurate assessment of the power potential, and B. Actual translation to functional power. Yuri's claims might be sincere in one respect, but they may also be akin to what the software industry calls: Vaporware. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 22:29:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA05485; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:09:18 -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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris, >Don't ask me! I'm like Zaphod Beeblebrox in the Hitchhikers Guide to the >Galaxy >- 'just this guy, you know?' I just get more and more confused - and I do NOT >think it is entirely my own fault. > >Chris Thanks much for presenting the information. I'm just learning this stuff so I don't mind being totally confused so much. It's to be expected I guess, and in fact, it's kind of fun. It's gasoline for the creative engine. Confusion -> action -> unexpected result -> confusion, etc. The creativity comes in keeping the action part cheap. It's a lot better than rocking away watching the grass grow. I just want to sift through all the sense and nonsense and help find something that works to make energy. Just a dreamer. Got any other dillies around like that one? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 22:44:12 1996 Received: from mail (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA06098; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607242006.QAA10412@ns1.ptd.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net (Jeff Fink) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>" suppressing O/U. These claims are nonsense. The goverment isn't that >>intelligent, the left hand does NOT know what the right is doing...MDH > I would really like to hear comments from doubters concerning the Dennis Lee story at http://lablinks.com/sumeria/free/lee.html> > > >Jeff Fink > > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 22:43:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA06449; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F68F15.7217@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Energy = gravity, UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > I remember recently seeing a post on sci.physics, to the effect that > the gravitational action on a photon varies depending on the angle > between the gravitational field and the direction of travel of the > photon. That could well be, Robin. A photon is an amazing little beast! It always moves at light speed. I wonder what the universe looks like to a photon? Does a photon think it's everywhere in the universe at once? Will all photons please respond! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 22:53:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA07774; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F69C32.2812@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: (A discussion of OU from motors using strong permanent magnets.) Horace: I think you are neglecting the issue of counter-EMF in motors. If you increase B in a given motor, and hold RPM constant, the CEMF will also increase and you will need a higher input voltage to drive the same current through the motor. Since the input power is i x V, you will pay for the increase in output power with an increased input voltage. You may well see efficiency increase because the loss torques may now be a smaller percentage of the output torque! There will, however, be no OU here! With that many quakes in Alaska, Horace, hook up a field of pendulums to piezoelectric-diode units and start making geodynamic electricity! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 22:53:24 1996 Received: from mail (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08158; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960724200355_76216.2421_HHB36-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill - > But if the molecules of a gas are separated by far more than the > molecule diameters, and if the molecules are transferring > momentum to a surface by colliding with it., I don't understand > how they can exert a NET negative pressure. There might be a > small VanderWall's attraction between molecules. But won't this > simply subtract from the large repulsion caused by the > collisions, and still result in a large NET repulsion force? That's what confuses me too. Sticky collisions? The rebound tries to pull the surface along with it? Nah. My only clue here has to do with the description of Bernoulli's principle itself. Gasses *moving relative* to an object exert less pressure on it than the some of the same gas which isn't moving, perhaps even going negative at some point, like it can with liquids. This gives me the notion that the distribution of momentum of the particles in a moving fluid, due to it's velocity relative to some fixed point, is skewed along the direction of motion. Think of what that means thermodynamically: the fluid is 'colder' in the directions normal to its direction of flow. Is this coldness real? Or is the coldness we observe in fluids undergoing the venturi effect due entirely to rarefaction? Anyway, while keeping that in mind: > Perhaps Boundry Layer phenomena are misunderstood, and the > gas in a Boundry Layer is a new state of matter? And that's probably the other clue, but I can't put it together yet either. I guess I'll have to see it myself in the vacuum-membrane experiment first, just have certainty that this is really the way it works. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 22:54:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09270; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607242315.SAA11567@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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:49 7/24/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >Maybe this thought is worth some considering. If you are building a motor >you are looking at F=ilB. If you can increase the force without using >energy, you increase the energy extractable from the motor.... Horace, you are forgetting that, to get i to flow thru the wire while the motor is running, your power supply must buck the "back" emf generated by the motor. Make the B stronger and you make the back emf stronger in proportion. Even if you could make the wire's resistance zero, and raise the B to 10^10 tesla (or any number you choose) the motor's efficiency would only be 100%. You can work this out easily for yourself. The back emf is given by Vemf=vlB where v is velocity, l is length (as in F=ilB), and B is flux density. The motor's output power is F*v. The input power is Vtotal*i where Vtotal is the sum of Vemf and Vresistance. Vresistance is the voltage (from Ohm's law) required to force i thru the wire's resistance. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 22:55:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09956; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607250311.UAA07635@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 6/25/96 Ross wrote and quoted: > >>Its easy to produce antiphased (180 deg) electrons. You can do this >>with a simple signal generator producing a signal and by inverting >>the same signal. Let these antiphased electrons meet and measure >>what happens. Not much. > >Incorrect. The two anti phase EM waves of electrons annihilate each >other and produce a standing EM wave of zero amplitude, plus the heat >to generate the wave forms which is expended trying to pump into that >standing wave by the drivers. > >>Now consider what happens when a positron and an electron anihilate >>each other. > >The same thing. annihilation of the standing waves, and emission of >heat energy in the form this time of a soliton like vortex in the >aether. snip You're totally missing the juxtaposition of the two experiments. With antiphased electrons meeting, only the heat expended to generate the waveforms is released. You are correct on this point. But, the heat released is trivial in comparison to the vast energy released with annihilation of positrons and electrons. Positrons and electrons are the same basic particle, but with distinct positive and negative charges. Antiphasing is not an issue. With electrons, they still retain their negative charge whether they are placed in phase or antiphased. The charge on an electron cannot be changed just by changing it's phase. Do you have experimental evidence that charges on elementary particles can be changed by changing the phase of the particle? Perhaps you would also be interested in Concervation of Charge. Particurally in respect to fundamental particles. Feynman deals with this well in his lecture series. RWW From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 23:05:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA11605; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607250218.TAA08436@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings - Casimir and van der Waals relationship X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 6/54/96 Dr. Putholf quoted and wrote: >>And my understanding of van der Waals forces is that they *are* >>'Casimir' forces. snip >In fact, they are the same. snip >This is not the case. The Casimir effect is a special case of van der >Waals, but not the reverse. Van der Waals effects are a broader >category, known since the 1800's. The Casimir effect, published by >Casimir in 1948, came out of a special-case analysis of van der Waals >attraction between the atoms in two parallel plates. > >Hal Puthoff Thank you for informing the list that it is not the case that van der Waal forces and Casimir forces are in fact the same. RWW From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 23:09:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA12185; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 23:00:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 23:00:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F69D66.6132@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: New Beads-chip in X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > MHUGO@EPRI wrote: > > > Do we have enough people to contribute to buying one of these cells? (I > > might chip in.) MDH > > I'm game - as long as it goes into Scott's calorimeter! Should we > hold our breath till one is available? > > Turning blue already, Frank Stenger This post got lost in cyberspace! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 24 23:10:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA13121; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 23:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 23:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607242104.AA05279@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: Re: Stumbles and more stumbles - chem. questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace wrote: > I hope to do the Xe-H (or at least Ar-H) experiments anyway. To be safe > I do have some qustions about the chemistry of Ar-H and Xe-H that maybe > Dieter or any chemists could answer easily. If you mix Xe (or Ar) and H do > you get a reaction? Do you get XeH in some proportion? Is there any > danger mixing such and then putting such into a discharge tube at low > pressure and stimulating? Hmmm... "H" doesn't usually exist without considerable prompting, like is obtained in a plasma. What you can get in a bottle is H2, the molecular form of "H". Also, Ar and Xe are "noble" gases, meaning they are very difficult to react. The guy who first made a Xe compound (XeF2 or XeF6, Neil Bartlett, Berkeley??) got a Nobel prize for it. You won't get Ar-H or Xe-H in a bottle, you'll have to make it on the fly if you can, and it won't hang around long, and you probably won't be able to pump it anywhere because of that. Which means you'll have to do your experiments in the same spot as where you make the hydrides, like in the inlet port of a Xe or Ar inductively coupled plasma. Or you might get a little if you inject Ar or Xe into a plasma like Claytor uses to make tritium. I'm not too optimistic for you Horace. BTW, mixing Xe or Ar and H2 gives you no reaction (except maybe a weak van der Waals one... ;-) ). Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 02:17:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA21339; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725043256_76216.2421_HHB49-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill - > There might be a small VanderWall's attraction between > molecules. But won't this simply subtract from the large > repulsion caused by the collisions, and still result in a large NET > repulsion force? In order that a gas be able to adhere to a > surface, the VanderWall's forces must be larger than the gas > pressure. After giving this some further thought, I can see how it is that the attractive force of van der Waals can 'show through' the larger repulsion of rebounding gas molecules on a lifting wing. On the rear section of the wing as it begins to slope away, the surface would appear to molecules in the moving reference frame to be receding, or falling away from collisions and would-be collisions. A certain population of gas molecules would be heading down towards the wing at a speed not too different from the speed that the wing is 'falling away' at that point. So for those situations, the potential impact energy is far lower, and the tug of the subtle attractive forces might even overwhelm the rebound energy. Where the speed thus closely matches molecule velocity, I would think that is where molecules become firmly entrained and join the quasi-structured matter of a boundry layer and are largely responsible for causing a slab of gas pouring over a wing to be diverted downwards along the curve of a foil, even if in a surrounding vacuum. Perhaps to some degree this action, in causing a net reduction in impact energy across the entire speed distribution spectrum of molecules transfering downnward momentum to the wing from above, results in the decrease of downward momentum or "pressure". This is almost painfully obvious now that I think of it because the gas is rarified in that region by the action of the passing wing, which means that the gas above did not just expand and snap down suddenly all at once behind the passing bulge of the wing's high point. There is a lag, which reveals something important about the rate at which some molecules move relative to the wing's surface. What seems odd to me is why more gas doesn't rush in to the gap left by the passing wing. Has something to do with the molecular speed distribution and direction vectors, I guess. When I did that 1 atm-to-vacuum jet divergence test, the 29 degree angle tells me that the gas stream is moving out freely in the near-vacuum at a velocity that is jet velocity * tan(.5 * 29deg), or about 1/4 the speed of the jet. Some have said that this jet might have been supersonic, but I'm not sure. Someone please tell me I don't have a supersonic wind tunnel on my benchtop. But if we take what is probably the average, or most likely (not quite the same thing on a skewed distribution curve, but close enough) thermodynamic molecule velocity in my garage to be about 500ms and call that the speed of the jet, then the spread velocity from centerline, for whatever reason, is 125ms, or about 410fps. I'm not at all sure about the validity of those velocities, but I am about the ratio between them, and that's the important thing. The little wing I tested had a trailing edge taper angle somewhere in the 15 degree range, very close to the divergence the gas wants to take from its initial direction out of the nozzle. That means vertical collision velocity would be greatly reduced, and that's part of why I think it has a pretty good chance of lifting up against a vacuum underneath it. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 02:20:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA21766; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <19960724235330.AAA26338@LOCALNAME> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Edwin Strojny To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: New Beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >It seems to me that "running beyond chemistry" may be important. Scott has >tried to run the Batch 2 beads in a PPC with no effect noted. This may be >due to the even slower permeation expected into solution as opposed to >vacuum. Hopefully the Batch #1 beads will show something, but even if my >beads don't, I still believe there is now enough literature and experimental >evidence to at least raise the "chemistry" flag for the PPC. > > >Kirk Shanahan >{My opinions...noone else's} > Contamination of the electolysis by the presence of these chemicals may be of importance. Unless done quantitatively, absorption/desorption of hydrogen by the beads does not tell you if one of the elements, Pd or Ni, has any surface contamination by foreign chemicals. Ammonia and oxides of nitrogen adsorb on surfaces. We know that water, Li+, K+, CO3=, SO4=, OH-, Rb+ have been present in cells that produced excess heat. We know very little about chemicals that could prevent the phenomenon from occuring. Since the beads have organic polymers which have relatively low melting points, one cannot "bake" the beads to remove the chemicals. Placing the beads in an evacuated desiccator which contains a pan of phosphorus pentoxide over an extended period of time should remove the water and ammonia. The solvents should come off with the pumping down procedure. Ed Strojny From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 02:29:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA21979; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725050315_76216.2421_HHB55-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tuesday 7/24/96, Hal Puthoff wrote: > Robin, > > It is true that a very high charge density of the magnitude that > generates the so-called Reissner-Nordstrom metric, results in > such negative-energy states because of the nonlinearity. It does > sound like the Biefield-Brown effect, except that in General > Relativity (GR) calculations the charge density needed is sort of > the equivalent of a charged black hole, and Brown's experiments > never reached anything like that density. Maybe it just means > that there is a resonant denominator missing in the GR equations, > and that one can in fact distort the metric with relatively low > charge densities?! > > Hal Puthoff Hal - I seem to recall reading somewhere that you had tried some BB experiments and had null results. Is this true? I may have this confused with someone else. Regardless, do you think the BB force is real? Brown's later UK patents show uneven electrodes, and describe varying the K of the dielectric between electrodes along its length, and other things. If you did do some BB work, I would like to ask if you had applied any of those factors in your experiments. Most people I've heard of doing BB just charge up a big flat plate cap, and note that all motion seem to be related to ionic flows and/or electrostatic forces. Also Ross, you've mentioned BB a couple of times, and I was wondering what you have heard of in terms of experimental results, and whether or not you think the effect is real. This is a subject of major curiosity for me, and any comments either of you or anyone else has on this is welcome. Thanks, - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 02:28:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA22340; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:19:56 -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: On Government Suppression of O/U X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ""fire of the "governement " suppressing O/U. These claims are nonsense. The goverment isn't that intelligent, the left hand does NOT know what the right is doing...MDH"" Scary to think this not so intelligent government has the hardware to destroy the planet! I hope someone knows who's on first. Robert ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 7/25/96 Time: 1:17:09 AM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 02:30:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA22595; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:21:46 -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: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, Norman Horwood wrote: > The pinch effect is in general use industrially for crimping or swageing > cylindrical components on to inner forms. So that there is no doubt as to the > forces available given enough current. > > Looking at the Graneau experiments where the conductor is "cut" into several > lengths when the caps are discharged and the very high and oscillating current > flows, surely if the pinch effect is concentrated at nodal points caused by > standing waves created by reflections from the ends of the conductor, then the > fractures will show tensile characteristics if the local pinching is such as to > neck the wire differentially from the nodal point in both directions at once, > rather like using a wedge shaped wire cutter blade, and the pieces will be > forced apart as if mechanically cut. Maybe you should reread the Graneau^2 paper in Phys. Lett. A165 (1992) 1. It looks to me that there is no wire cutter effect, but the wire is torn clean without the pinch. This is explained as several kinds of instability. The paper also mentions some interesting old (1976) work on what amounts to cold fusion, by Lochte-Holtgreven. I think I had this paper as a peripheral but I think I might move it into the main biblio file, and chase up that 1976 paper. I thought that t = 0 was 1986, the Klyuev et al paper on fractofusion, now it's 1976. That is, apart from the 1926 fizzler of Paneth & Peters and the attempts by Tandberg in the '30's, all unsuccessful. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Thu Jul 25 02:28:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA23016; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:23:23 -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: Stumbles and more stumbles - chem. questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: [...] > Dieter or any chemists could answer easily. If you mix Xe (or Ar) and H do > you get a reaction? Do you get XeH in some proportion? Is there any > danger mixing such and then putting such into a discharge tube at low > pressure and stimulating? No; these are chemically inert elements.Under some very special conditions you can get them to form some strange and interesting compounds but none by just mixing them with hydrogen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Thu Jul 25 02:35:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA23260; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725080408_100060.173_JHB190-1@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: New Beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott, >> an "inventors kit" for anyone to buy (probably for some outrageous price, >such as $2000 a cell). Uh...I think you missed a decimal point, Mark. They are planning to ask $20,000 for a turn-key kit complete with power supplies and instrumentation! << That lets me out! Of all the stupid confidence-destroying policies this takes the biscuit IMHO. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 05:01:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA11228; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:57:39 -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: Stumbles and more stumbles - chem. questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thanks to all who responded to my Xe-H safety question. I feel much more secure in seeking a neon sign guy to make a tube for me now. Kirk Shanahan wrote: > >Hmmm... "H" doesn't usually exist without considerable prompting, like is >obtained in a plasma. What you can get in a bottle is H2, the molecular >form of "H". Also, Ar and Xe are "noble" gases, meaning they are very >difficult to react. The guy who first made a Xe compound (XeF2 or XeF6, >Neil Bartlett, Berkeley??) got a Nobel prize for it. You won't get Ar-H or >Xe-H in a bottle, you'll have to make it on the fly if you can, and it won't >hang around long, and you probably won't be able to pump it anywhere because >of that. Which means you'll have to do your experiments in the same spot as >where you make the hydrides, like in the inlet port of a Xe or Ar >inductively coupled plasma. Or you might get a little if you inject Ar or >Xe into a plasma like Claytor uses to make tritium. I'm not too optimistic >for you Horace. > >BTW, mixing Xe or Ar and H2 gives you no reaction (except maybe a weak >van der Waals one... ;-) ). > >Kirk Shanahan The above are exactly the reasons for choosing Xe and H. I thought all the above was the case, but did not want any unsafe surprizes. The goal is to create as large a proportion of H+ ions as possible interacting with Xe. Unfortunately, these are conflicting goals, having H+ but not Xe+. Maybe the way to go would be to make a kind of ion beam generator to shoot an ion beam created from the gas mixture into the neutral gas mixture. I am hoping that plain old electrical stimulation, as that for a neon lamp, will work though. It is my hope that the H+, on approach to the Xe will distort the electron cloud in its direction, resulting in a exothermic reaction, i.e. will strip an electron from the Xe and that any kind of subsequent van der Waals bond will be overcome with a comparatively small amount of energy, and that the subject repulsive force, if it exists, will cause the neutral H to repel, gaining net energy, the sum of the two energies greater than the cost of ionizing the H+. The energy for such? The energy that keeps atoms from collapsing, whatever that is. It is a matter of setting up conditions at negative cost where two proximal electron clouds are under (mutually repulsive) electrical pressure, and that pressure is resisted by the very force that keeps atoms from collapsing - uncertainty, ZPE, whatever. Its a very long shot, but at least there is a semi-logical basis for the experiment, and a quasi-logical source for the energy. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 05:28:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA16136; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 05:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 05:24:19 -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: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >I think you are neglecting the issue of counter-EMF in motors. If you >increase B in a given motor, and hold RPM constant, the CEMF will also >increase and you will need a higher input voltage to drive the same >current through the motor. Since the input power is i x V, you will >pay for the increase in output power with an increased input voltage. >You may well see efficiency increase because the loss torques may now >be a smaller percentage of the output torque! There will, however, be >no OU here! [snip] > >Frank Stenger I am aware of Lenz' law, and that F = ilB works both ways. Consider the following motor starting in a rest state, with the armature constrained. There is no counter-emf because there is no motion (if there were you would have already won the energy lottery). Now if there is any motion at all, the force is F=ilB. If l is infinite, or B is infinite, the force is infinite. Now, when the armature is released, there has to be some unit of motion to get a counter emf. An infinite amount of force over a finite distance is an infinite amount of work. (Not very practical eh?) So, if there is any possibility for an ou motor or EM device maybe it is getting the energy while the getting is good, i.e. utilizing the finite speed of light. If a "magic" armature can be built/found that oscilates at near the speed of light, maybe the energy could be extracted before the counter-emf can build? Just another wacky thought. ------------------------------ | | | | | | | | | ------------ | | | | | | | | | | N | | S | ---------- ---------- X------------------o <------------- oscillating armature ---------- ---------- | S | | N | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------ | | | | | | | ------------------------------ Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 05:41:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA18774; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 05:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 05:37:28 -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: New Beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >Uh...I think you missed a decimal point, Mark. They are planning to ask >$20,000 for a turn-key kit complete with power supplies and instrumentation! >>From what I hear, they won't sell just a cell by itself. > >This info comes from a friend of mine who's a close friend of Cravens. [snip] >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Count me out on taking 1/n (for n equal contributions) of *that* kind of price. I'm topped out at $400 max. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 08:28:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA17218; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607251353.JAA00760@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Xenon Chemistry X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: When Xenon forms compounds, it tends to act as a metal. But since oxygen is one of the most powerful oxidizers (I wonder why ;-) you can form xenates. We could get into unresolvable arguments about whether the xenon compounds I have had troubles with were WXeOx or XeWOx, but I digress. Dissolve in strong acid and you can form xenic acid, H2XeO4. I'm not sure if it has been seen outside of solution, but when it dries you get XeO3, which is the nastiest and most sensitive explosive I have ever had the misfortune to meet. (Why was I workinng with WXeOx? Take the xenon, oxygen from the quartz tube, and tungsten from the electrode, and you get a white buildup on the inside of a xenon tube which blocks light. We were looking for a catalyst that we could put in the tubes to break these compounds down. Turned out we could, but the result included tungsten oxide, which absorbed the light. Oh well.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 08:29:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA17706; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:14:21 -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: Bill Beaty's fuzz balls (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 09:26:01 -0800 From: "Michael J. Schaffer" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bill Beaty's fuzz balls Frank Stenger wrote... >As I look at the Biot-Savart law, assuming you can treat a moving >electron as a current element, it looks like your magnetic fuzz-ball >model should be correct! There should be B-lines in front of and >behind the electron. True. Also, they are affected by the finite speed of propagation of an EM wave, so the field is not symmetric ahead of and behind the charge. The asymmetry is small at low velocities, but it gets large at relativistic energies. >But wait! The field varies like the sine of the >angle between the electron-field-point line and the trajectory line. True (at low velocities---see above). >This would mean that each of two in-line-of-motion electrons would not >feel the magnetic field of the other! Also, one electron would not see >the other as a current unless there was RELATIVE motion between them! True. Motion is important. At high speeds you have to include all the messy relativistic distortion of length, too. >MICHAEL SCHAFFER, H E L P! I don't have time now to delve deeply into the E and B fields from a moving charge, but this problem has been worked on extensively in classical, relativistic and quantum versions. I THINK (but don't know) that this is why the Biot-Savart-Lorentz form of the magnetic force is preferred today (plus, it lets one define a magnetic field, which greatly helps us humble mortals who can visualize images much better than manipulate equations in our brains). I have never had to use much of it in any of my work, and I only got a superficial bit in my education. >If I ever sound like I understand electromagnetics, will somebody >HIT ME WITH A STICK UNTIL I STOP! Ditto for me, too! BTW, I finally found a book that discusses Ampere's force equations extensively: Mason & Weaver, "The Electromagnetic Field", originally published in 1929, when this was (I suspect) still a hot topic. My copy is a Dover reprint that I bought c. 1965, but never studied thoroughly. They state Ampere's Third Law as: There is no force parallel to the current of any current element from any other complete circuit. The current elements tested were isolated by small pools of Hg, and it is noteworthy that this law was the least accurately verified of Ampere's four laws, due to fluid-related artifacts. M&W point out that experiments necessarily are performed with only cloxed circuits, and therefore it is mathematically impossible to know experimentally the force acting between two isolated elements. Ampere's derivation of a force equation between two elements from his experiments made the ASSUMPTION that the force would act strictly along a line joining the two elements; this assumption was guided by his familiarity with mechanics and other forces known at the time. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 08:21:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA18047; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:16:20 -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: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 18:07:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Scott Little To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Chris's EM brain teaser OK, Chris. We (Puthoff & I) would like to enter an opinion in the matter of the flux-filled iron rod being pushed into the broom-clip circuit. We believe there will not be an emf induced in the broom-clip circuit because at no time is there ever a flux MOVED into a closed loop. A circuit is closed around some flux, but that does not create an emf in the circuit. We await judgement. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 08:27:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA18370; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:18:16 -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: (fwd) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 11:59:17 -0400 From: RMCarrell@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: (fwd) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge In a message dated 96-07-23 07:25:40 EDT, Robin wrote: << Which reminds me, a question for Jed. In table 8 on page 38 of #7, the title of columns 8 & 10 refer resp. to delta kWh, and abs. kWh/h. I presume that in both cases this should be Wh, not kWh. Is this a printing error, or is it also wrong in the original patent? >> I have the original patents, in which Col. *9* and 10 are given in kWh. The batteries are banks of 12 V, 6 Ah gel-cells, totalling about 500 V for the drive packs and 300+ volts for the charge packs. 500 V x 6 Ah = 3000 kWh. The *peak* power in the discharges is in the hundreds of kilowatts. The Correa reactor isn't any birthday-party sparkler. And yes, Ross, you should subscribe to Infinite Energy. I am preparting an article for the next issue on the Correa's reactor which will focus on the key issue so close to our hearts. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 08:29:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA18752; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:20:24 -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: Business group meets Yuri Potapov (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:13:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Randall To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Business group meets Yuri Potapov Hi Frank, > Yuri also showed us pictures of his egg device that produces 45 KW of >electrical power. This egg device sounds similar to the approach that Viktor Schauberger was working on in his water implosion research. Schauberger found that water flowing in special tubes or a vessel shaped like an indented egg caused the water to spiral inward that created an implosion or suction energy. This then was the means for his implosion turbines which was reported to achieve over-unity stand-alone operation once given the initial start-up. Did Yuri say if it is implosion/suction energy or centrifical/pressure energy that is being generated in his device? Regards, Michael Randall From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 08:32:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19115; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725142015_100433.1541_BHG83-1@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: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, On electric motors, there are all kinds of ways of looking at them. Try this one. The windings of an ac electric motor can be considered as a perfect inductor, so the input voltage and current are at 90deg; and when not moving the motor uses precisely zero power. That is of course ignoring the various losses inherent to the windings and so forth. When the motor is turned mechanically it will produce a current - because there is an emf produced in the windings. (To avoid any confusion here, I'm assuming a permanent magnet rotor, rather than an iron one in which the magnetism is induced by the stator field, and let's assume that the induced current is sinusoidal.) Now, if the motor is being driven by the input *current* it will show both of these effects simultaneously: the current from the source (at 90deg to the driving voltage) and the current induced by the rotation. These will sum together, and produce a net current which will NOT be at 90deg to the input voltage. Since the power consumption of the motor is V*I*cos(phi) where phi is the phase angle, the power will move from zero to a positive value. If the motor is being helped mechanically, this phase angle will drift toward 90deg (no power). If there is a real load on the rotor then the phase angle will move toward zero, and the power consumed will move toward V*I. That's the way I look at an ac electric motor, it is of course highly simplified from 'real' motors, but it does at least make the overall behaviour of a motor much more readily understandable. Even to me, who can only understand simple things (no Microsoft manuals, PLEASE.) What is of course intriguing about an electric motor is that it doesn't really use any power. But you can argue that line with any ac electric machine. Being one of those loonies who is satisfied he has seen such a motor giving anomalous performance (before I improved it back to normal) I do now think I see a way of fooling an ac motor. I may try it one day. As an aside, I agree completely with Dieter's comments on the wire explosions of Graneau. The photomicrographs in the paper show what appears to be a clean fracture break (admittedly with some tiny spots consistent with post-fracture arcing) and no trace of necking. Chris PS I have one observation which may be of interest to this group. How does one tell the difference between a computer hardware engineer and a software engineer? Easy. Give to each a computer with an unfamiliar program running and observe. If the engineer keeps trying different key combinations in an effort to get it to do something, he is a software man. If he keeps hitting the *same* key with increasing force, he is a hardware engineer. Lady engineers, by contrast, often *read the manual*. This is regarded by the two male groups as unsporting - rather like using a road map just because one is hopelessly lost. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 08:49:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19468; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F78604.1FEE@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: New beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: $20,000 takes me out too! Cancel my bead subscription! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 08:56:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19944; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607251456.KAA01151@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde (76216.2421@CompuServe.COM) said: > Some have said that this jet might have been supersonic, but I'm > not sure. Someone please tell me I don't have a supersonic wind > tunnel on my benchtop. 1) I mentioned the transsonic region as something that defied common sense. You can understand things in retrospect but it is impossible to guess derive system behavior from first principles. Classic example: the unstarts in the Blackbird. 2) You probably do have a supersonic environment at the start of your experiment. Remember that the speed of sound is a function of temperature and pressure, and you are starting with zero pressure and air cooled adiabaticly. Another way of looking at it is that the molecules in the leading edge of the jet cannot be reached by later molecules while in a collisionless regime. 3) With a properly shaped wing, and lots of luck you can deflect a molecule without collisions. But the main lift effects you are looking for involve collisions with the wing at shallow angles. Well, actually it is closer to a billiards shot. Often the incoming molecule will scatter one or more already adsorbed molecules which can then break free of the surface. (Some don't and they can produce "anomalous" flow along the surface which can be faster than the speed of sound in the gas--but slower than sound in the boundary.) In any case the scattered molecules were closer to the surface when the scattering occured, so the scattered molecules leave at a shallower angle. (And the net effect of the van der Walls attraction is to make it shallower still.) This causes both lift (toward the gas flow) and drag (downstream). All you need to do is to get the angle of attack shallow enough that the lift dominates the downward force from the gas pressure/collisions. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 10:39:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA01450; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:13:43 -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: (fwd) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/25/96 08:27 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: (fwd) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (fwd) Mike: The battery charging/discharging gambit is cute. It does have the potential (see my previous posts on "daisy chaining") of allowing a fairly "airtight" heuristic/observational/measurable proof of the obtaining of "extra" energy from the Correa "reactor". However, does Dr. Correa have a good rational as to why the reactor cannot be run with circuitry to allow a closed loop over unity device? (I would be happy with an explaination that the "equivalent circuit" response of the batteries cannot be duplicated with an electronic circuit just yet, and that the system dynamics of the batteries seems to be an important part of maintaining the PAGD regieme.) MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 10:40:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA01868; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:16:05 -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: New beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/25/96 08:49 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: New beads Now now boys, have a little courage. If we each put up a thousand, and we can find twenty friends.. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry to get emotionally involved here, but I really hope now that Potapov and Griggs are right, and they BURY CETI...! MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 10:29:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA02281; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725121413_441754944@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: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rick, We did try a Biefield-Brown Effect experiment here - your rumor is correct. And it didn't work. Similiar results by Talley on an AF contract. However.... Neither Talley nor we got beyond about 20KV, and Brown described experiments at over 100KV, so if a nonlinearity is involved, we might just have not made it. Also, in our experiment we did just use flat capacitor plates, so that may have not been optimum as well. We did isolate our caps-part of the experiment inside a closed chamber so as to eliminate ion wind effect. I did talk to Townsend a little before his death, and he discouraged me, saying that it was a very weak effect. Don't know if he was just discouraged himself, or if he had re-evaluated; certainly a different statement compared with earlier pronouncements. If anyone wants to repeat it, I wouldn't bother unless they were willing to bite the bullet and go up to ~200KV; and enclose the caps, each, on the end of a torque arm (rod) to rule out ion wind effect. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 10:50:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA02553; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:18:25 -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: Equipment Needed! Memory for Compac 386s Deskpro ('88 Vintag X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 386! Mark, do yourself a favor and dump it. You can buy a 486-100 machine for under $400.00. Unless you want to have a useable antique. 72 pin memory is now under $30.00 for a 4meg part, so in the long it is better to move up. Call me if you have time, I have a lot of computer parts I can give you. 540-635-4650 Robert ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 7/25/96 Time: 12:12:50 PM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 14:22:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA24296; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:06:20 -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: From Volodya X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Please, can you put to the vortex-l my reply on Mark Hugo's comment that there is no any mathematical procedure eliminating the signatures in the expressions for the energy of the field creating by the point-like particle. Poincare, Lorentz, Dirac, Feynman and many creators of modern physics attempted to do it - without any success. If it will not be sufficient I can yield some mathematical formulas. Your friend, Volodya ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 7/25/96 Time: 12:29:08 PM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 14:29:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA24434; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:06:58 -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: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >OK, Chris. > >We (Puthoff & I) would like to enter an opinion in the matter of the >flux-filled iron rod being pushed into the broom-clip circuit. > >We believe there will not be an emf induced in the broom-clip circuit >because at no time is there ever a flux MOVED into a closed loop. A circuit >is closed around some flux, but that does not create an emf in the circuit. > >We await judgement. > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Sounds like you fell into the trap of thinking electrons are little points. Their waveforms must be real, connected, and in conduction bands very large, distributions of themselves. The conduction bands complete the circuit. What is interresting to me, and why I proposed the nonsensical flux can not cut flux hypothesis to see where it might go (to the reluctant torus), is that there must be some kind of "force" holding that quantum waveform together, even though it can spread out in a conduction band. Maybe I should have tried the hypothesis flux *can* cut flux but a line of flux (by superposition rule,) is never broken, and is under its own tension, and see where that leads. It still has the direct consequence that the electrostatice field in the center of the torroidal coil is generated by flux crossing the center of the coil (deja vous) and that superconducting coils should generate slowly rotating flux and thus an E field. There must be *some* way to relate the quantum waveform to the EM fields in a real way. Any other possibility just doesn't suit my sense of aesthetics or little pea brain, which requires a visual model. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 14:24:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA24608; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:07:48 -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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >Being one of those loonies who is satisfied he has seen such a motor >giving anomalous performance (before I improved it back to normal) I do >now think I see a way of fooling an ac motor. I may try it one day. [snip] >Chris Good grief Chris! What are you waiting for? PS - have you heard the presumably American expression: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" PSS, if you put a capacitor in the primary maybe you could get V and I completely out of phase and get what Chernetski refers to as "negative energy". Somehow I have the feeling it might fool a KWHr meter but the electric company would still have to generate the power. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 14:28:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA24788; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725141657_441850049@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: Fwd: Re: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Re: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") Date: 96-07-25 12:12:44 EDT From: Puthoff To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Rick, We did try a Biefield-Brown Effect experiment here - your rumor is correct. And it didn't work. Similiar results by Talley on an AF contract. However.... Neither Talley nor we got beyond about 20KV, and Brown described experiments at over 100KV, so if a nonlinearity is involved, we might just have not made it. Also, in our experiment we did just use flat capacitor plates, so that may have not been optimum as well. We did isolate our caps-part of the experiment inside a closed chamber so as to eliminate ion wind effect. I did talk to Townsend a little before his death, and he discouraged me, saying that it was a very weak effect. Don't know if he was just discouraged himself, or if he had re-evaluated; certainly a different statement compared with earlier pronouncements. If anyone wants to repeat it, I wouldn't bother unless they were willing to bite the bullet and go up to ~200KV; and enclose the caps, each, on the end of a torque arm (rod) to rule out ion wind effect. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 14:28:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA25526; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:11:50 -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: What do I want? Information! Ala the Griggs Phone # X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: What do I want? Information! Ala the Griggs Phone # - Does anyone have the phone/address for Jim Griggs of the HydroSonic pump? - Thanks! MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 14:32:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA26339; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Chris's EM brain )Flux X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, William Beaty wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 18:07:58 -0500 (CDT) Chris, Bill, Hal, If the broom clip is conductive and metallic then AT LEAST the will be Foucault or eddy currents induced into the clip itself ... NOW: How fast do did we put it in? More on time and flux ..... The currents may still circulate in the metal and affect a total system determination.. How deep do you want to get into this non trivial field? JHS> From: Scott Little > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Chris's EM brain teaser > > OK, Chris. > > We (Puthoff & I) would like to enter an opinion in the matter of the > flux-filled iron rod being pushed into the broom-clip circuit. > > We believe there will not be an emf induced in the broom-clip circuit > because at no time is there ever a flux MOVED into a closed loop. A circuit > is closed around some flux, but that does not create an emf in the circuit. > > We await judgement. > > > Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. > Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA > 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) > > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 14:33:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA27055; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725203857_76216.2421_HHB74-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert - > 2) You probably do have a supersonic environment at the start of > your experiment. Remember that the speed of sound is a function > of temperature and pressure, and you are starting with zero > pressure and air cooled adiabaticly. Another way of looking at > it is that the molecules in the leading edge of the jet cannot > be reached by later molecules while in a collisionless regime. Jet speed is a little tangental to the reason for the experiment, but I am curious about it. I could do a volume vs. time measurement to get the speed of the gas in the small tube, but because it's so small, viscosity plays a big part in flow in the tube, so speed distribution would be skewed by that. Then, as it bursts out into near vacuum, I imagine some foreward molecules get one last thermo kick from behind before heading off in a regime that has far fewer collisions to accelerate (or deccelerate) them. I thought it might be tube velocity times average thermo speed, something like that. Basically, I think you 're right; until back pressure begins to build, in the first moments the jet is probably pretty darn fast. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 14:41:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA27908; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725203855_76216.2421_HHB74-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hal - > I did talk to Townsend a little before his death, and he discouraged > me, saying that it was a very weak effect. Don't know if he was > just discouraged himself, or if he had re-evaluated; certainly a > different statement compared with earlier pronouncements. There are quite a few flip flop accounts of this man and his work. Some are recorded in his own patents, as in the difference between the flat plate versions and the other hemispherical and odd electrode setups. The flat plate versions almost seem like dummy or diversionary things. Then there's the suppression claims, work being taken over by Lockheed, etc. I'm setting up a little generator that should get into the 100k+ voltage range, and appears to sink up to 3A into the oscillator and high voltage section, so it might have a little more current than a small VDG. Thought I'd give some of those odd electrode and shaped dielectric ideas a shot. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 16:05:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA15269; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 15:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 15:43:29 -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: From Volodya-St.Pete X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In Dacha's posting: >The idea of the calculations is simple. Let's calculate the energies >and the momentum of the electric and magnetic fields at a time >just after annihilation and compare these magnitudes calculated >in moving >and at rest frames. We don't obtain relativistic relation: E1^2 - c^2* P1^2 = E2^2 - c^2*P2^2 ; (1) he makes the point that the energy and momentum in two different coordinate systems moving with different velocities are not consistent with the well known relativistic result (1). This is as expected and there is no contradiction. It is only the total energy and momentum which satisfies (1). The problem may be simplified considerably if we take only the energy and momentum of a pair of charge elements at points r1 and r2 moving with velocities v1 and v2. The energy and momentum of any distribution of moving charges may be expressed as a sum over the pair values. If we set r=r1-r2 and v=.5*(v1+v2) then we have p = 1/r ( v + ( v dot r) r / r^2 ) e = 1/r (1 + .5*v^2 + ( v dot r)^2 / r^2 ) ; (2) where p is the momentum of the pair interaction and e is the energy. The charge elements and appropriate coefficients have been deleted for convenience. These results are correct up to second order in the velocity and they do not agree with (1). They can be obtained by integrating (E^2+B^2) and (E cross B) over the spatial volume and taking only the interaction terms between 1 and 2. Thus the interaction energy is 2*( E1 dot E2 + B1 dot B2) and the interaction momentum is (E1 cross B2 + E2 cross B1) Integrating over a spherical symmetric charge distribution gives the well known result p = 4/3 m * v and the not so well known (but does appear in a few places in the literature) result ke = 5/3 ( m * v^2 / 2) where m is the mass and ke is the kinetic energy. Most physicists would like to see 1 instead of 4/3 or 5/3 but they are wrong. The 4/3 and 5/3 are the proper factors. The problem here is that the Lorentz transformation changes the time of the two interacting particles and this time change must be taken into account. The time transformation is t = G(V) ( t' + V dot r' ) where G(V) = 1/sqrt( 1 -V^2), the ' quantities are in the coordinate system moving with velocity V, and the speed of light has been set equal to 1. This time shift must be undone to force the two particles to be at the same time in the coordinate system where we are to evaluate p and e. Thus we have to compensate for a time shift dt = G(V) V dot r' = V dot r where we are taking only the lowest power of V and can ignore the G(V) term and the r -> r' transformation. So the associated changes dp and de are dp = F dt = 1/r ( v dot r) r / r^2 de = F dot v dt =1/r ( v dot r)^2 / r^2 Where F is the force between the particle pair. These additional terms must be added to the Lorentz transformation of p and e themselves and are just what appear in the result (2) that seems to violate the usual transformation rules for p and e. Only a small percentage (less than 1%) of physicists know how to do a proper Lorentz transformation. I see this as a failure of the educational system. In my relativity class I had a professor who knew that the time change in the Lotentz transformation has an effect which must be taken into account and he taught this to his class. This is very rare. The issue here is not any conflict between E&M and relativity. The only possible thing of value that could come from Dacha's thought experiment and related tests is an incentive to correct a serious deficiency in physics education and that would indeed be of great value. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 15:56:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA15856; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 15:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 15:45:51 -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: Robert @dacha.com (Visor, etc.) Thanks for help on-- X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Robert @dacha.com (Visor, etc.) Thanks for help on-- The computer equipment end. It is appreciated. Your advice is well taken. - It took about 4 tries to get the IRMA paper on putting D into Pd to you Robert, but it should be there now. (21 pages). From ICCF 4. Very good work. Explains why P&F's work was so hard to duplicate for the neophytes. - Mark Hugo @ Mpls.MN From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 15:57:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA16292; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 15:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 15:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607252145.OAA18784@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: New Beads X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 20:48 7/23/96 -0700, Mark Hugo wrote: >Subject: Re: New Beads >Kirk: I am very impressed by your work..... >If we give any credibility to the CETI numbers.... .maybe that's the problem we've been having. >I have heard, however, recently that they are thinking of putting out >an "inventors kit" for anyone to buy (probably for some outrageous price, >such as $2000 a cell). Uh...I think you missed a decimal point, Mark. They are planning to ask $20,000 for a turn-key kit complete with power supplies and instrumentation! >From what I hear, they won't sell just a cell by itself. This info comes from a friend of mine who's a close friend of Cravens. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 15:56:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA16868; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 15:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 15:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607252200.PAA28553@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: What do I want? Information! Ala the Griggs Phone # X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark, you wrote: > >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: What do I want? Information! Ala the Griggs Phone # >- >Does anyone have the phone/address for Jim Griggs of the HydroSonic >pump? >- James L. Griggs Hydrodynamics Inc. 8 Redmond CT Rome, GA 30165 USA 706-234-4111 706-234-0702 (Fax) According to ICCF-5 List of Participants. Telephonme information lists both numbers to Hydrodyamics as unchanged. -AK- From herman@college.antioch.edu Thu Jul 25 16:46:01 1996 Received: from college.antioch.edu (college.antioch.edu [192.131.123.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA29239 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 16:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by college.antioch.edu (SMI-8.6/1.63) id TAA23859; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 19:43:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 19:43:49 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: "MHUGO@EPRI" cc: William Beaty , hal puthoff Subject: Cold Fusion Kit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Dear Mark and all, The idea that any given method is right or wrong .... or "best" ... is not where I am headed. The basic guidelines, and here is where I would like you to help fill in the blanks, is that some type of "cell", jar, beaker, container has ... in the electro chemical method ... to have/do ..... Can you fill in the lines? A) A place to put electrolyte and electrodes b) Q: maybe circulating pump?? c) power supply d) palladium ... and possibly some other metal[s] e) certain metal[s] for electrodes f) maybe a resevoir for fluid g) way to measure heat I/O h) way to measure voltage and current, and maybe cell resistance I am aiming for a USEFUL generic, non biased, easily reconfigured system, so the experimenter has it easy and not all of the hassles I read about. So: The simple work horse no BS is what I am after ... On 25 Jul 1996, MHUGO@EPRI wrote: > *** Reply to note of 07/25/96 11:57 > From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > Subject: Re: New beads > John: Are you talking about MY dual sided Pd cylinder D2O charing experiments > or the CETI multi-layered beads? You well might be able to make a good > apparatus for my experiment. (Which HAS been performed in '90-'91, and > I am planning on doing again, as I think I have a fairly reliable /reproducible > version of P&F's original work.) But the CETI work requires some careful > electrochemistry to plate an Ni then Pd then Ni layering on some > polysolfonated-poly styrene beads. If I wanted to do the CETI thing I can farm it out to a number of good houses .... but I probably would not. The materials' choices are not the best fit from a practical standpoint. > - > Let me know which you are refering too. > - > MDH > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 18:52:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA23612; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 18:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 18:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725225219_100433.1541_BHG53-1@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: Re: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On the matter of the Hering experiment, I am annoyed to find that Cullwick does not give the answer - he just says review the text I appended to the 'puzzle'. Which is why I appended it! I really ought to go to the U library and look up what Hering actually found. What is the real bastard of these experiments - and all the homopolar ones - is that it seems virtually impossible to find a simple way of predicting the outcome of any of them with any confidence! Actually, I really am thinking mostly of the homopolar ones, which seem quite immune to analysis. I mean ... I've been through several FAQ postings on homopolar systems, and I know from experiment that every single one of them is just plain wrong. I never got as far as a really nice 'fully enclosed flux' homopolar device, and heaven only knows what THEY do. How good are our models if they do not allow us make a prediction of the behaviour of a circuit which can be described in a few lines and one simple diagram??? Well? I mean, I am *seriously* unimpressed. When I last did any organic chemistry (well over thirty years ago) people used to laugh at molecular orbital theory because it gave a 50% chance of predicting which one of two ways a reaction would go. Pretty good theory by the standards of physics, I reckon (donning flameproof knickers). ------------------------------------------- Horace mentions the 'funny motor' stuff, and using a capacitor. That kind of motor (where the stator inductor becomes a parallel resonant circuit) is a pretty example of what I was saying. If the circuit is near perfect and the input voltage is a near-perfect sine wave, then the current taken by the stator will be almost zero; but the current in the stator will be very high and 90deg behind the voltage. So, when the rotor spins, the induced current will be seen in the supply line. This makes it a very clean system to study. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 18:51:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA23838; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 18:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 18:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725235210_100433.1541_BHG34-1@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: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, [o-u electric motors] > Good grief Chris! What are you waiting for? If I started playing with that idea now, I'd have no time for rebuilding this house - which I *need* to sell. > PS - have you heard the presumably American expression: "If it > ain't broke, don't fix it?" Yeah, I have. Don't rub it in. And don't *you* forget the one about "20-20 hindsight", either! Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 18:52:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA23972; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 18:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 18:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725212529_584991136@emout12.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: What do I want? Information! Ala the Griggs Phone # X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: MDH asks for Griggs phone #. It is 706-234-4111 (ph) 706-234-0702 (FAX) Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 18:59:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA24052; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 18:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 18:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960725212815_584993645@emout08.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: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rick says (re Biefield-Brown effect): >Thought I'd give some of >those odd electrode and shaped dielectric ideas a shot. Go for it! Good luck! Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 21:33:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA25442; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 21:23:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 21:23:59 -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: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 18:07:58 -0500 (CDT) >From: Scott Little >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Chris's EM brain teaser > >OK, Chris. > >We (Puthoff & I) would like to enter an opinion in the matter of the >flux-filled iron rod being pushed into the broom-clip circuit. > >We believe there will not be an emf induced in the broom-clip circuit >because at no time is there ever a flux MOVED into a closed loop. A circuit >is closed around some flux, but that does not create an emf in the circuit. > >We await judgement. > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. I just did an experiment. Why is nothing ever easy? I hacked up an inducive motor core, 5" square, with 3 1/4" aramture hole, about 1 1/8" thick, with deep grooves for the stator wiring cut into it. I cut it into two C's. At the break between the two C's I placed a 35 MGO 1" x 1" x 1/2" magnet to create a an O shaped magnet with a gap. I connected the probes together from a DMM and passed the wire through the gap. I set the scale on 200 uA, and got very small readings but (semi-)repeatable in sign and approximate magnitude as I passsed the wire through the gap. I tried the 200 mV scale and got similar results. The iron core was insulated, but the neodymium magnet conducted fine, so I tried passing the probes over it's surfaces to mimic Chris' experiment. The results were very similar to passing the wire through the gap, but seemed much less reliable. I tried using an oscilloscope probe to get a better picture of what was going on. The voltages involved were just at the very margins of detectability for the scope, but I could get a rise of about .3 centimeter on the trace moving the wire through the gap at a rate of bout 2 in-out's per second. I then put the probes on the sides of the magnet and repeated. I assume it makes no difference whether the contacts move or the magnet moves. Using the probes on the magnet sides was very difficult because the probes acting like brushes would tend to break contact with the magnet. When this happened spikes would occur due to ambient noise. The ambient noise was not visible provided contact was made with the magnet. Otherwise the probe acted like an antenna, picking up the noise. Afaraday cage is clearly called for to do this right. I tried using 2 alligator clibs for brushes and this worked much better, giving a clear 2 Hz sine wave just with the wire, but less amplitude, and with an occsional spike at random from where I lost contact. The voltage was about half that for the wire moving through the gap and the waveform was not as clean. Also, the amplitude seemed related to keeping the two "brushes" opposite each other. As I kept repeating the experiment the results got less clear and then I noticed that I was building up a layer of copper deposits on the edge of the magnet. Doing this experiment right requires some very good brushes, a Faraday cage, possibly a pre-amp circuit, and a mechanical linkage to slide the brushes at a constant repeatable rate. Mother nature is a pretty tough judge. Some more lawyers on this case would be helpful! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 21:34:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA25765; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 21:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 21:25:33 -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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace, > >[o-u electric motors] > > > Good grief Chris! What are you waiting for? > >If I started playing with that idea now, I'd have no time for rebuilding this >house - which I *need* to sell. > > > PS - have you heard the presumably American expression: "If it > > ain't broke, don't fix it?" > >Yeah, I have. Don't rub it in. And don't *you* forget the one about "20-20 >hindsight", either! > >Chris Hindsight, right you are! That reminds me, I've still got this leaky roof ... Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 22:39:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA05741; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 22:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 22:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607260523.PAA02827@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Chris writes: > > How good are our models if they do not allow us make a prediction of the > behaviour of a circuit which can be described in a few lines and one simple > diagram??? Well? I mean, I am *seriously* unimpressed. When I last did any > organic chemistry (well over thirty years ago) people used to laugh at molecular > orbital theory because it gave a 50% chance of predicting which one of two ways > a reaction would go. Pretty good theory by the standards of physics, I reckon > (donning flameproof knickers). > My profession is continuously maligned by this group. I can't resist responding to this one though. The theory of Quantum Electrodynamics which REQUIRES as input Special Relativity and is the generalization of the low energy, large scale Maxwell equations, makes predictions for the magnetic moment of the electron that have been verified to 12 decimal places. There has never been any other science with anything like the predicitive powers of Physics. If there was anything wrong with electromagnetism on the scales discussed here it would have revealed itself somewhere in the 4th or 5th decimal place. But no, it is 100 million times more precise than that. Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 23:41:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA13280; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607260614.BAA24551@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: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:23 PM 7/25/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >I just did an experiment.... >The iron core was insulated, but the neodymium magnet conducted fine, so I >tried passing the probes over it's surfaces... Uh! Oh! Even in the iron circuit you provided, a neo will have a SIGNIFICANT leakage flux that runs directly from the N pole to the S pole around the outside of the magnet, cutting your probes as you move them back and forth. You are correct, this is not an easy experiment to do rigorously. A little more explanation about our reasoning: Imagine a loop of wire that encircles some flux. There is a switch in the loop. With nothing moving, you can open and close the switch and no emf is induced in the wire. The continuous movement of the iron core into the broom-clip shaped circuit can be replaced with an infinite series of steps in which the circuit is opened with a certain amount of flux in it, then closed with a certain amount of flux in it. The fact that the amount of flux is increasing each time does not induce an emf in the circuit. Only leaving the circuit closed and moving the flux into the loop would do that. That having been said, I do wish Chris had the correct answer to this problem so we could KNOW if this explanation is right...or not. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 23:24:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA13313; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960726061520_100060.173_JHB50-1@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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Frank, Just an interesting news item in today's Financial Times - Normalaire-Garrett have announced their latest air-con system for high-speed trains which uses their own design of "Switched reluctance motors" for driving the compressor. The system uses air as the refrigerant. Can you enlighten me as to why they have gone for switched reluctance motor rather than any other type? The compressor seems to be very high speed - has this any bearing on the design? They did say that they discarded any form of perm magnet as being too heavy and expensive, and they hadn't heard of Takahashi magnets! Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 23:41:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA13347; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960726061522_100060.173_JHB50-2@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: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Dieter, >> Maybe you should reread the Graneau^2 paper in Phys. Lett. A165 (1992) 1. It looks to me that there is no wire cutter effect, but the wire is torn clean without the pinch. << Fair comment - but I kind of remember that the fractures were described as consistent with a tensile break, and this, at least with reasonably ductile materials, is usually "hour-glass" in profile. Thats what suggested the pinch effect to my simplistic brain. I admit that my analogy with the cutter was not entirely accurate, so I hereby withdraw that bit, but I still stay with the tensile fracture profile being consistent with the pinch effect, probably under shock conditions. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Jul 25 23:24:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA13375; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960726061524_100060.173_JHB50-3@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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Chris, >> As an aside, I agree completely with Dieter's comments on the wire explosions of Graneau. The photomicrographs in the paper show what appears to be a clean fracture break (admittedly with some tiny spots consistent with post-fracture arcing) and no trace of necking. Chris << Following my reply to Dieter re the above: If there's no necking and the wire is reasonably ductile how can the fracture be described as tensile in appearance ? It almost seems as if it is a very accelerated form of fatigue failure across some fault plane induced by the high frequency em field oscillation. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 01:13:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA24950; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 00:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 00:50:27 -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: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Norman Horwood wrote: > Dieter, > > >> Maybe you should reread the Graneau^2 paper in Phys. Lett. A165 (1992) 1. It > looks to me that there is no wire cutter effect, but the wire is torn clean > without the pinch. << > > Fair comment - but I kind of remember that the fractures were described as > consistent with a tensile break, and this, at least with reasonably ductile > materials, is usually "hour-glass" in profile. Thats what suggested the pinch > effect to my simplistic brain. I admit that my analogy with the cutter was not > entirely accurate, so I hereby withdraw that bit, but I still stay with the > tensile fracture profile being consistent with the pinch effect, probably under > shock conditions. You seem to be telling us what you think should happen, in view of the word "pinch". I was telling what actually did happen, as reported by the Graneaus. Btw, how about using shorter lines? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Jul 26 01:26:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA27451; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 01:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 01:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960726081449_100433.1541_BHG38-2@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: Re: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Martin, > There has never been any other science with anything like the > predicitive powers of Physics. If there was anything wrong with > electromagnetism on the scales discussed here it would have > revealed itself somewhere in the 4th or 5th decimal place. I agree. That wasn't my complaint. My problem is that if there is an interesting configuration nobody knows what it will do. When I first played with Faraday discs, I tried the various configurations including the one where the magnet spins with the disc. I asked what this meant on the Compuserve Science forum and on sci.physics. I was told by the various assembled physicists that I had made a mistake, and it was only much later that I found I had just copied what Farday had done in 1832. So I conclude that no matter how good our physics may be, it is either very bad for modelling *or* it is poorly understood by those who profess (often loudly) to understand it. That's not a flame against physics or physicists, it's more a grumble. As to the Hering experiment, it at the least seems from Horace's work that once again we find just how damned good these old experimenters were! It's not easy to do Faraday disc experiments with fancy modern magnets and meters - God alone knows how he did them with bits of string, and wire covered in cotton. And Norman asks about the fractures in the wire. I agree with what he says, it does look more like it has snapped in so many places so fast that it's almost like an explosion and not a tensile break. It occurs to me that it might be possible to do that experiment with something like this: --||-------------------------||--ground A B Where || is a capacitor. I'm not at all sure that one could charge a "A" up hugely and let it discharge down a wire into "B", but if it is then for once we have a system which is not a closed circuit. The more I look at that the less likely it seems to be workable. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 07:32:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA05421; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 07:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 07:29:51 -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: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > My profession is continuously maligned by this group. I can't resist >responding to this one though. The theory of Quantum Electrodynamics which >REQUIRES as input Special Relativity and is the generalization of the low >energy, large scale Maxwell equations, makes predictions for the magnetic >moment of the electron that have been verified to 12 decimal places. There >has never been any other science with anything like the predicitive powers >of Physics. If there was anything wrong with electromagnetism on the scales >discussed here it would have revealed itself somewhere in the 4th or 5th >decimal place. But no, it is 100 million times more precise than that. > >Martin Sevior True, but what does QED have to say quantitatively about Chris' brain teaser? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 07:41:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA06597; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 07:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 07:37:18 -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: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Dieter, > >>> Maybe you should reread the Graneau^2 paper in Phys. Lett. A165 (1992) 1. It >looks to me that there is no wire cutter effect, but the wire is torn clean >without the pinch. << > >Fair comment - but I kind of remember that the fractures were described as >consistent with a tensile break, and this, at least with reasonably ductile >materials, is usually "hour-glass" in profile. Thats what suggested the pinch >effect to my simplistic brain. I admit that my analogy with the cutter was not >entirely accurate, so I hereby withdraw that bit, but I still stay with the >tensile fracture profile being consistent with the pinch effect, probably under >shock conditions. > >Norman So what's wrong with he micro-pinch idea - the tensile force therefore being distributed throughout the length of the conductor? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 07:46:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA06644; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 07:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 07:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960726103428_370456343@emout19.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: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Martin, I agree with your assessment that QED is physics' finest with all the decimal places, but I think Chris' complaint is not about physics, but physics practioners. On the latter I tend to agree; see my post elsewhere on my difficulties getting an answer to what I thought was a simple question as to whether the London equation for superconductivity, J = -kA (J the current density, A the vector potential) holds when A is curl-free (No B), as around a solenoid or toroid. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 08:06:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA10083; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 07:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 07:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960726105437_246210818@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: (fwd) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I stand corrected on my arithmetic about the battery ampere-hours, but the headings in Table 8 are correct. Mark asked: >Does Dr. Correa have a good rational as to why the reactor cannot be >run with circuitry to allow a closed loop over unity device? (I would be happy with >an explaination that the "equivalent circuit" response of the batteries cannot be >duplicated with an electronic circuit just yet, and that the system dynamics of the >batteries seems to be an important part of maintaining the PAGD regieme.)< The batteries are a source of stable, ripple free voltage to initate the PAGD, and good collectors of energy from the bursts, which are extremely energetic. They are not magic. Patent '391 shows the reactor as an energy transducer running electric motors in various configurations, with motor performance curves shown. Fig. 3, p33, IE #7 shows a battery, mains power supply and DC generator as alternative sources of drive power. Operation of the reactor is somewhat sensitive to ripple in the drive voltage. In Fig. 9, p36, IE #7, 3,500 mfd filter capacitors are connected across the charge pack. These buffer the extremely peaked energy burst in the reactor. In my description of the continuing battery exchange, for a period of eight hours, I believe I conveyed that Correa said both batteries continued to gain energy. IMHO, this is a closed-loop test. As I stated before, I believe, the Correas are well aware of the possibility of error using batteries, including the voltage rise after charging, which is clearly shown in Figs 17 and 18, p37, IE #7. These figures show energy recovered by resistive discharge of the charge batteries after a test run, and represent real energy delivered to the batteries. The Correas follow a calibration routine which isn't fully detailed in the IE #7 article. I have discussed the procedure and the illustrations at length with Correa and plan to put them in more understandable form in the IE article I am preparing. I have also some voltage and current waveforms at the drive pack, reactor, and charge pack which clearly show o/u performance. The waveforms at hand are in an illustration from a European patent and on close examination and discussion with Correa they are unsatisfactory -- not that they are misleading, but they are illustrative and not derived from specific measurements in a specific test. Correa is sending me better data, not received as of this writing, which will appear in the article. The actual source of energy is a puzzle, and I will discuss the events which culminate in the appearence of the energy burst as best I can in the article. Correa refers to the work of Dr. Aspden as showing ways in which the PAGD is able to couple energy from the vacuum. As a footnote, remember that we are dealing with new phenomena for which the measurements we are most comfortable with may not be appropriate. In my study of these phenomena it appears that a century ago the physics and engineering community grabbed onto some aspects of electrodynamic phenomena for commercial development and left others, which may be of the greatest importance, behind. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 08:12:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA11965; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:06:27 -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: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >--||-------------------------||--ground > A B > > >Where || is a capacitor. I'm not at all sure that one could charge a >"A" up hugely and let it discharge down a wire into "B", but if it is >then for once we have a system which is not a closed circuit. The more >I look at that the less likely it seems to be workable. > >Chris Suppose A and B were inductors: >--/\/\/\---SW---------------------/\/\/\--ground > A B Where SW is a triggered vacuum gap (TVG) device which is triggered at the same instant or shortly after A's supply is cut. You could use a high voltage commutation vacuum interrupter circuit across A's supply (not shown) to chop the current in a few microseconds. The TVG (a great use for adsorbed hydrogen!) can then be used at the desired voltage to trigger the pulse from A to B in about 100 nanoseconds. So, it's just a matter of chosing a wire size for the link between A and B to show the effects. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 08:39:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA16217; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: 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: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace Somebody had a circuit for sale on the underground for a while that switched the Edison 3wire 220-110v AC circuit into the home, so that the unmetered neutral provided the power. He was caught fairly quickly because the power companies monitor the average usage, and investigate serious changes in it. Hank ---------- From: hheffner@anc.ak.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... Date: Thursday, July 25, 1996 2:08PM [snip] >Being one of those loonies who is satisfied he has seen such a motor >giving anomalous performance (before I improved it back to normal) I do >now think I see a way of fooling an ac motor. I may try it one day. [snip] >Chris Good grief Chris! What are you waiting for? PS - have you heard the presumably American expression: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" PSS, if you put a capacitor in the primary maybe you could get V and I completely out of phase and get what Chernetski refers to as "negative energy". Somehow I have the feeling it might fool a KWHr meter but the electric company would still have to generate the power. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 08:36:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA16390; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:31:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:31:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I looked at the Graneaus paper in Phys. Lett. A165 (1992) 1 again yesterday. The breaks in the Al wire, which was about 1 mm in diameter if one can believe the "10 X" note on the photograph literally, look brittle. As Norman pointed out, there is ABSOLUTELY NO necking of the kind characteristic of a ductile tensile break. Some Al alloys are quite brittle, but the paper gave no details of the material. A magnetic pinch due to self current in the wire would also produce necking. This is because the pinch is unstable. The pinch force is greater the smaller the diameter. In fact, the Graneau's Phys. Lett. paper gives a review of this process. If a bit if necking begins randomly, or if the wire is slightly narrower at one point than the other, the conductor pinches. This pinchoff is very fast once it starts. If the wire was not tightly stretched between rigid end supports, then the current could also drive the helical or kink instability. The Graneau's Phys. Lett. paper also gives a review of this process. If the wire is not absolutely straight, then there is a sideways force on the wire; as the wire responds by moving sideways, the force grows still stronger, etc. The photo of the many wire fragments shows many of them to be bent. This points to the kink. Although the pinch instability grows faster in a fluid, in a solid wire it is resisted by the compressional strength of the material, which is large. The slower growing kink is opposed only by the resistance of the wire to lateral displacement. A LARGE AMPLITUDE KINK WOULD LOAD THE WIRE IN TENSION if it were attached to end supports. The Graneaus conveniently do not describe their apparatus, so one can not know how their wire was supported, nor do they tell the duration of their electrical current pulse. My guess is that the wire kinked, that it was slightly ductile (enough to bend some during the kink), but brittle enough to snap when the load got large. Of course, since the experiment is not described, this is only my hypothesis. An undescribed experiment does not convince me that there is any unusual force at work. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 09:05:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA21751; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: (fwd) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: RMCarrel wrote... >The batteries are a source of stable, ripple free voltage to initate the >PAGD, and good collectors of energy from the bursts, which are extremely >energetic. .... > >In Fig. 9, p36, IE #7, 3,500 mfd filter capacitors are connected across the >charge pack. These buffer the extremely peaked energy burst in the reactor. If capacitors are NEEDED to buffer the battery, then the alone battery presumeably is NOT acting as a constant voltage source or sink. If capacitive buffering is acceptable, as appears to be the case, then is is easy to measure the input and output power by DC measurements alone. First, add enough LC filter to isolate the batteries from the AC components of the reactor. This is asways possible without perturbing the reactor by making the capacitance on the reactor sides of the filters sufficiently large. Now we have a system where the AC voltage and current components are small at both batteries, and the power as each is just VI as obtained by DC measurements. Why hasen't this been done? This would be ALMOST as good as a closed loop test. The only cost item is a pair of inductors; they could be gotten surplus from a couple of old vacuum tube-based power supplies, stereos or transmitters. Instead the Correas ask us to believe 1% differences in battery discharge curves that are themselves subject to substantial uncertainties. As I posted here on July 3: However, from Table 8 we see that the energy supplied by the driver battery is 1% OR LESS of the total batttery discharge energy. In other words, we have to believe OU on the basis of numbers calculated as small differences between two quite uncertain large numbers. Any experimentalist knows that this an unreliable technique. Therefore, until better data is presented, I will not believe the OU claim. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 11:46:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22242; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607261758.KAA11685@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Rick says (re Biefield-Brown effect): > >>Thought I'd give some of >>those odd electrode and shaped dielectric ideas a shot. >Hal says: >Go for it! Good luck! About six months ago I spoke with someone who had actually constructed a device to demonstrate this effect. He used two different sized squares, the larger one with the center cut out, and then positioned them with a common center point normal "axis" line with a separation gap. I think the squares were about 4" and 3" on a side, and the 4" square had a ~2.5" square cut out of it. I don't know if I still have the original post, but you could search it in the new theories group under my name and Biefield Brown back about 4 or 6 months. In any case, he hung the device with the squares planes in a vertical plane from a thin string from the ceiling. Then charged them to about 10KVA if I recall. And then the device moved forward away from vertical, very noticeably, ie about a half inch displacement?? or so. In any case, it was said to be an obvious displacement. Now, easily one can expect that ionized air molecules are the culprit and electrons flowing in this direction and positively charged (heavy) particles flowing in the other direction. But the fact that the displacement happened at all seems like an energy balance assymetry. But it probably could be worked out. Here is what I thought interesting though. He reversed the polarity, but the direction of displacement did not reverse. ie, I think the small square was in the lead, *and* it was leading the displacement in both the polarity conditions. He had been very careful with the set up so I think the effect was real. Any one know how you could get corona ions to transfer momentum in the same direction regardless of polarity and wind up with equal displacements from an assymetric geometry? In any case, some of the guys out there with tall tubes that are set up to be evacuated might tackle this. But of course even in a "vacuum" chamber, there are still ions, but if you show that the effect amplitude was proportional to the pressure in the chamber then you could project the effect to zero at zero atmosphere, ergo ions. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 11:34:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22710; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607261758.KAA11683@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RT? Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At what frequency is the ripple current "pulsations"? Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 11:38:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23077; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607261758.KAA11688@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Energy = gravity, UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >> I remember recently seeing a post on sci.physics, to the effect that >> the gravitational action on a photon varies depending on the angle >> between the gravitational field and the direction of travel of the >> photon. I have wondered about this one but have found no logic that could sort it out. The thing is, if you deal with the gravitational field of a star or a galaxy as the photon flies past, then it cuts a chord through the field. If you account for lensing, then it cuts a curved chord. > >That could well be, Robin. A photon is an amazing little beast! It >always moves at light speed. I wonder what the universe looks like >to a photon? Does a photon think it's everywhere in the universe at >once? A note here regarding pulsed space concept of nodal structure of space with pulsating particles in it. In this instance, to remain in one location in the structure, a particle must pulsate. Time is modeled as the period of a pulsation cycle, and you add up the number of periods from time A to time B. So, to "move" thorough time you must pulsate. If you freeze the motion of the structure of space so that all pulsation of space and of the particles in space cease, then you can discuss displacing a particle from *position* C to D in that frozen space. To translate with the nodal structure frozen (ie time stopped on a time distance GR type diagram so this would be moving across the horizontal axis on such a graph), the particle again needs to pulsate a certain number of times in order to move from C to D. However, if you are a photon, then something new happens. You are moving along through "space", and through "time" simultaneously. And the pulsation motions of space are coherent with the pulsation motions of time. If you assemble the structure and consider the propogations of the wave energies giving rise to the whole thing, it turns out that a photon is not pulsating as it moves through space. Rather, it is surfing and phase and frequency coupled to the nodal structure of space. So, from this point of view, a photon sees the universe sort of like a surfer sees a wave. Static, frozen, and unchanging. Time *and* space are frozen from the photons drivers seat. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 11:41:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23314; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960726180859_100433.1541_BHG80-1@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: Re: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, > Where SW is a triggered vacuum gap (TVG) device which is triggered > at the same instant or shortly after A's supply is cut. Well, not even all that shortly, I would suggest. A good cap will hold charge for a good while. Will a TVG stand many kV? What's wrong with a big old knife switch - flipped with a very long insulating string device haha. > So, it's just a matter of chosing a wire size for the link between > A and B to show the effects. And the right caps, too. We want kA through that wire. Are you telling me that this would work? We've been told that the *sole* argument with the Graneau experiments is that there is some kind of complete circuit (maybe even with the unequal gap experiment I reported here). And we've been told that if it is valid, and there really is an Ampere force, then Lorentz is wrong and relativity is based on crap physics. That wouldn't disprove relativity, of course, but it would put the cat in the pigeon-loft just the same, wunnit? Well for the sheer schadenfreude of it all, the chance of the joy of destruction, it would be worth doing that experiment - wouldn't it? Any comments anybody? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 11:37:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23605; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960726180903_100433.1541_BHG80-2@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: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Henry Scudder comments: > PSS, if you put a capacitor in the primary maybe you could get V > and I completely out of phase and get what Chernetski refers to as > "negative energy". You can quite easily have active circuits which demonstrate negative resistance, capacitance (and presumbably inductance). And certainly if the V and I are between 90 and 270deg out of phase, then the circuit takes negative power - no problem, that's what V*I*cos[phi] gives you and it has real meaning; the energy is going the wrong way. But negative energy? I don't see it. Chris (who gets terribly confused by ac power) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 13:50:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA22127; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: 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: Re: (fwd) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Mike Correa probably should put some smaller capacitors such as .1ufd ceramics directly(physically close) across the pulse source in parallel with his large ones. The large ones tend to have a large equivalent series resistance at high frequencies, and a fair amount of inductance as well. He probably should low inductance and resistance Litz wiring (braid) in these portions of his circuit. He should look into the literature put out by the semiconductor manufacturers and capacitor companies for high efficiency switching power supplies which are being used in laptop computers these days. Hank ---------- From: RMCarrell@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: (fwd) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (fwd) Date: Friday, July 26, 1996 7:58AM I stand corrected on my arithmetic about the battery ampere-hours, but the headings in Table 8 are correct. The batteries are a source of stable, ripple free voltage to initate the PAGD, and good collectors of energy from the bursts, which are extremely energetic. They are not magic. Patent '391 shows the reactor as an energy transducer running electric motors in various configurations, with motor performance curves shown. Fig. 3, p33, IE #7 shows a battery, mains power supply and DC generator as alternative sources of drive power. Operation of the reactor is somewhat sensitive to ripple in the drive voltage. In Fig. 9, p36, IE #7, 3,500 mfd filter capacitors are connected across the charge pack. These buffer the extremely peaked energy burst in the reactor. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 15:34:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA14539; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607262217.PAA13252@dfw-ix12.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: Equipment Needed! Memory for Compac 386s Deskpro ('88 Vintag X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Equipment Needed! Memory for Compac 386s Deskpro ('88 Vintage) >- >Hi Vortex gang. I have a Compac 386s Deskpro, vintage about '88, 1 MB >ram, 3.5" and 5 1/4" floppies, VGA card, 40 MB hard drive. Does not have >"SIM" slots. Has Compac proprietary slot for memory expansion. Seeking to >get to 2 MB (minimum) and 4 MB preferable. Trying to do it for <$150 (above >that I might as well swap for a 386DX with 4 MB in it for $230 at a local >shop). Any suggestions? Local surplus dealers, contacts, etc.? >- Go buy the Computer Shopper Magazine at a local bookstore or magazine stand ($4.95). In memory upgrades (listed in their Products Index)for the Deskpro, there are many sources. One I list here is the H Co. which lists 4 megs for $69, 8 megs for $139. Their phone is 1-800-347-1273 Fax 714-833-3389. There are 16 & 32 megs also but this depends on your model. Warning: The Computer Shopper is almost like a thick telephone directory and full of computer goodies. -AK- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 15:35:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA14663; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:29:24 -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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Henry Scudder comments: > > > PSS, if you put a capacitor in the primary maybe you could get V > > and I completely out of phase and get what Chernetski refers to as > > "negative energy". > >You can quite easily have active circuits which demonstrate negative >resistance, capacitance (and presumbably inductance). And certainly if >the V and I are between 90 and 270deg out of phase, then the circuit >takes negative power - no problem, that's what V*I*cos[phi] gives you >and it has real meaning; the energy is going the wrong way. But >negative energy? I don't see it. > >Chris >(who gets terribly confused by ac power) That was I who said the above PSS, not Henry Scudder. Negative power applied through time equals negative energy. Please don't assume from the above I buy into Chernetski's negative energy. I have a somewhat open but very doubting mind about all that - especially the bit about the negative energy destroying a power plant. I believe the plant was destroyed, but suspect voltage transients. There's no proving one way or the other I supppose. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 16:14:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA22250; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:06:02 -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: Hering Expt. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I have sent a number of messages as replies that I thought were going to vortex. I wondered why they were not posted, yet other stuff was. Now I know. I'll edit and send them as posts. Here is the first: Well, it appears I was wrong and Hal and Scott are completely correct. I added two magnets between the C's, so now there are two on one side and one magnet and a gap on the other. This gave a big boost to the flux and made it possible to be 100 percent sure about the direction of the induced voltages. I connected the probe/ground to two pieces of copper bell wire about 2 feet long and twisted together. At the end it was broken out into a loop with the exposed ends bent to form the "clip" brushes. With the brushes closed together and pushed inwards through the gap at a rate corresponding to about 2 Hz a voltage of about 0.005 V was generated positively. The same wires were then connected to the sides of the magnet. The voltage trace could be seen with some difficulty as it was less than 0.001 V, even less than yesterday in proportion to the gap voltage. However with much repetition I could see with certainty that the inward stroke was producing a negative pulse, thus confirming it was an artifact of the external field. The proportion must have changed due to the increased ratio in internal flux to external, and the increased copper coating on the magnet. Too bad. :( Maybe electrons are points after all. The good news is that if they are then the field of each and every electron contains an infinite amount of energy. That's probably not true either! :{ Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 16:12:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA22323; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:06:20 -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: Chris's EM brain teaser (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Horace, > > > Where SW is a triggered vacuum gap (TVG) device which is triggered > > at the same instant or shortly after A's supply is cut. > >Well, not even all that shortly, I would suggest. A good cap will hold >charge for a good while. Will a TVG stand many kV? What's wrong with a >big old knife switch - flipped with a very long insulating string device >haha. > > > So, it's just a matter of chosing a wire size for the link between > > A and B to show the effects. > >And the right caps, too. We want kA through that wire. > >Are you telling me that this would work? We've been told that the >*sole* argument with the Graneau experiments is that there is some kind >of complete circuit (maybe even with the unequal gap experiment I >reported here). And we've been told that if it is valid, and there >really is an Ampere force, then Lorentz is wrong and relativity is based >on crap physics. That wouldn't disprove relativity, of course, but it >would put the cat in the pigeon-loft just the same, wunnit? > >Well for the sheer schadenfreude of it all, the chance of the joy of >destruction, it would be worth doing that experiment - wouldn't it? Any >comments anybody? > >Chris A capacitor will not work without a complete circuit. This is because the opposite charges on the plates attract each other. You need a single pole capacitor. Come to think of of it, the same is true (in effect) for the inductors. The charge to support the current must come from somewhere, otherwise the voltage will go through the roof. Large spherical single electrode capacitors are the ticket - to act as a charge reservoir. The inductors might be an easier way to generate the pulse though. To avoid too many coulombs the pulse must be very short, have a fast rise time. Just a thought. Die Schadenfreude, das ist ein Gemutlikheit! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 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 QAA22408; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960726230256_100433.1541_BHG70-2@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: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, > That was I who said the above PSS, not Henry Scudder. I've already apologised privately to Henry. I blame this mad cow disease - or old-fashioned senility. Speaking of which, they are now talking about how sheep and goats can be infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (try sayin' *that* after a dozen pints of Newcastle Brown Ale), and have banned certain products - which means I can't have my favourite breakfast of goat spleen. The excellent cartoonist Matt of The Daily Telegraph does tiny drawings on the front page - this week he had a group of startled-looking sheep turning to look at one of their number, who was saying "MOO." Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 17:40:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA07176; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stumbles and more stumbles X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I have been considering how magnetic alignments may assist in the electrostatic forces producing repulsion of the neutral atoms. For example the case: N-S N-S <---- B The electron orbitals would be magnetically thinned toward the poles of the dipoles. That is to say the electrons would tend to orbit in a horizontal orientation. This thinning of the sides presented would decrease the electron screening and increase the nucleus repulsion in a manner similar to that discussed for FIG. A: QA1 QB1 } distance x QA2 <-- distance d --> QB2 } distance x QA3 QB3 FIG. A Atoms in parallel: N N ^ | | | S S | B In addition to magnetic repulsion, would tend to be repelled by the proximal electron clouds squished out sideways by the magnetic field, resulting in a force similar to that referred to in discussion of FIG. B: |<--X-->|<--X-->| |<--X-->|<--X-->| QA1 QA2 QA3 QB1 QB2 QB3 |<------------------ d ------------------>| FIG. B I hope I got that right. It is an objective to avoid forming the XeH molecule. The objective is to create or find a non-conserving cycle fed by ZPE. Here is a proposed cycle: H + energy1 -> H+ + e- (inital ionization) H+ + Xe -> H + Xe+ + energy2 (H+ strips electron from Xe) Resulting in the questionable ZPE fed interaction of discussion: H + Xe+ (in proximity) -> H + Xe+ (separated) + energy5 and finally: Xe+ + e- -> Xe + energy6 Now, energy2 plus energy6 should equal energy1, so the net energy is zero except for energy5. Perhaps magnetic field strength could be adjusted to add to energy2 by using Rydberg obits, and energy5 by maximising the repulsion, simultaneously. Here is another variation of the proposed cycle: H + energy1 -> H+ + e- (inital ionization) H+ + Xe -> H + Xe+ + energy2 (H+ strips electron from Xe, may take some work or special conditions to make exothermic) Xe+ + e- -> Xe + energy3 (Xe immediately gets electron back) Resulting in the questionable ZPE fed interaction of discussion: H + Xe (in proximity) -> H + Xe (separated) + energy4 Now, energy2 plus energy3 should equal energy1, so the net energy is zero except for energy4. Perhaps magnetic field strength could be adjusted to increase energy2 by using Rydberg obits, and energy4 by maximising the repulsion, simultaneously. All the other variations of H2 -> H + H, etc. are ignored as they are considered conservative. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 17:34:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA07513; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:25:35 -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: Re: Stumbles and more stumbles X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Isn't there a repulsive force that prevents one piece of matter from >passing "through" another? (Why doesn't my hand go through the table?) [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk I believe it is true that the electron distribution on proximal surfaces thin out due to mutual repulsion, thus reducing nucleus screening and producing a situation similar to the subject FIG. A: QA1 QB1 } distance x QA2 <-- distance d --> QB2 } distance x QA3 QB3 FIG. A Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 17:43:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA08389; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960726235540_76216.2421_HHB65-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Ross - > "About six months ago I spoke with someone who > had actually constructed adevice to demonstrate > this effect." Wow! Thanks for that note. It's encouraging that *somebody* had a positive result from some BB experiments. I saw the patents that describe a toroidal ring and sphere electrode setup that sounds geometrically similar to the cutout squares you described. Hey, if this works too, I might even let you out of the hat thing. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 20:38:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA09569; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607270304.UAA31966@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > Negative power >applied through time equals negative energy. >Horace Heffner I agree that this is so from a mathematical point of view. But I would assert that if you are measuring "negative" power then you simply erred in the assumption of where the power and energy were coming from. This is a confusing concept with the summation of sinusoids with 180 degree phase angles, but there is no need to invoke "negative" anything. All you need do is to shift your reference point. Neither do you ever need to invoke backwards time. All you need to do is to suppose a forward moving object in time or space, which is 180 phase shifted from the originally conceived observation. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 20:38:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA09684; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607270304.UAA32032@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Rick wrote; >Hey, if this works too, I might even let you out of the hat thing. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI Nothing much to hide from re the hat, give it your best shot. But here with this thing you might actually find something out new. The problem is the level of vacuum you might be able to pull on a tall cylinder. You will need to verify that the effect is not due to coronal discharge glowing in the air. I agree it is odd that the thrust was in the same direction independent of the polarity of the voltage, but this does not rule out the geometry being responsible since there are positive and negative ions in the air when it has tension on it. I personally suspect ion motions, but you might be able to prove that if you conduct the test in a vacuum, and then measure the amount of displacement as a function of absolute pressure. If it varies, and tends toward zero with zero air pressure when you plot the points, then you have your answer as to the source. But if the displacement is independent from the air pressure, then this may be significant and I would think it was. At least I would try to analyse it a lot more closely than I have to date. Here are some old email messages I got from Paul Stowe who is the person that conducted the tests. I know him fairly well, and his partner lives near me. They are competent physicists both so I am confident that Paul was on his toes when he tried to figure this out. He also posted this stuff in the new theories group near the first of the year, so you could look up his name in dejanews.com. ***************************************************************** X-POP3-Rcpt: tessien@au Return-Path: pstowe@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 07:07:23 -0800 From: pstowe@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe) Subject: Re: biefeld-brown-effect To: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) You wrote: > >Paul; > >Thanks for the post, it was helpful and pertinent to some things I have >been working on. I was not aware of this effect. Has it been >experimentally demonstrated? (I assume so from your post), and what >magnitude shift in the gravitational force were they able to cause? > I have personally created and observed these effects. The magnitude of thrust is dependent on two things, 1) the voltage (Best results are achieved above 100KV) and (for dielectric fluid movers) the sustained power input. If you want more particulars let me know what by specific questions. Paul Stowe From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Jul 26 20:58:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA13477; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31F98F81.3CAD@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hering Expt. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: Snip: > Too bad. :( Maybe electrons are points after all. The good news is that > if they are then the field of each and every electron contains an infinite > amount of energy. That's probably not true either! Interesting point, Horace! We read about gravitational black holes. What happens when we near a "point charge"? Is there an electromagnetic equivalent to the gravitational black hole? Let's agree that the electric lines of force about an electron (-) point into the heart of the little sucker. Maybe "ON THE OTHER SIDE", in some higher dimensionality, they emerge from a coresponding point pointing outward! A (+) charge - a positron? Perhaps these high, point-source energy concentrations mark a sort of boundary in the "energy concentration dimension". If we stand back, from a privileged viewpoint, perhaps we could see never-ending lines of electric flux plunging into electrons on OUR SIDE, and emerging from their positron counterparts on THE OTHER SIDE - looping off to join together again in the fuzzy outskirts of the universe. I think I've been reading too many of Ross T's posts lately. I better go to bed and get some rest! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 00:26:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11577; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 00:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 00:23:55 -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: Fwd: electromagnetism...... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >> Negative power >>applied through time equals negative energy. > >>Horace Heffner > >I agree that this is so from a mathematical point of view. But I would >assert that if you are measuring "negative" power then you simply erred in >the assumption of where the power and energy were coming from. This is a >confusing concept with the summation of sinusoids with 180 degree phase >angles, but there is no need to invoke "negative" anything. > >All you need do is to shift your reference point. Neither do you ever need >to invoke backwards time. All you need to do is to suppose a forward moving >object in time or space, which is 180 phase shifted from the originally >conceived observation. > >Ross Tessien I must admit I too have a strong bias against the negative power concepts of Chernetski. However, as Chris points out, you don't have to go backwards, all you really need to do is get to zero power. Maybe another approach is in having something to which to add the negative power through time (and thus energy) so as to arrive at zero power requirements. Maybe this is basically what is behind Chris' idea for the motor. If you can match the phases right there is no demand from the power line. Maybe an alternative is to set up a motor that runs 180 degrees out of phase with a normal motor and run them in parallel electrically and tandem mechanically. Just another wacky thought to throw on the pile. It appears there is really little or no hope of finding ou devices utilizing "normal" EM theory. In fact, if you postulate Maxwell's laws you can just about derive everything else. If ou exists it must be due to something outside normal theory which therefore can only be found experimentally. Kicking ideas and concepts around here, though, maybe will provide someone motivation to look under the right rock. The important thing is the rock turning. The best rocks so far IMHO seem to be in the categories of forgotten science anomalies, non-linearities, vacuum fluctuations/zero point energy (ZPE), cold fusion (whatever that is), ball lightning, and maybe superconductivity. This forum is a treasure trove of arcane information and maybe just the clues needed to find that magic rock. There are some really good experimentallists here too that must get a chuckle out of the amateur stuff like I do. However, I and others have recieved much help and moral support here, and I hope it pays off for all in the long run. What a great place to be. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 06:11:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA03570; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 05:58:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 05:58:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607271256.WAA09561@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Physicists found on the internet. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To Hal, Ah well I must admit a little smug satisfaction on hearing about your difficulties. Many's the time I've asked questions of theorists and gotten gobble-de-gook. I guess that the good ones can't see why I have a problem and the bad ones want to cover their ignorance. I'm glad to see that theoretical Physicists have the same problems occasionly too! Maybe you'll take pity on some poor unfortunate in the future :-). To Chris: It has been my experience in "conversing" with Physicists on the open forums (like spf) that many do not have much more than a first year University student's knowledge and that even then they often fail to follow ideas through to the correct conclusion. Homopolar generators are notoriously difficult to understand and even when you get the explanation that works (it gives the right answer) you are left wondering why the standard description of how an EMF is induced (via the rate of change of magnetic flux through a loop) is not applicable. There was a Departmental seminar devoted to the topic here at the U of M by an expert from Germany. At the end of the seminar I still wasn't sure what the answer is. However I got the impression that this was a deliberate ploy by the speaker to make his own research appear current and not something that was solved at the turn of the century (which I'm fairly sure it was). Cheers! Martin PS. The answer that explains homopolar generators is that the current is generated by the rate at which flux lines cross the loop of wire. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 09:39:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA08261; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 09:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 09:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960727104344_246906250@emout18.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: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: This is a general response to several recent comments about the Correa device. I am preparing an article for IE in which I plan to spell out what is going on in the reactors and the measurement procedures. Gene had little time to prepare IE #7 and so reprinted patents and portions of an internal technical report. Patents are not popular magazine articles, and I have spent considerable time understanding the diagrams and graphs. I will be reformatting them to make them easier to follow. The energy events are tens to hundreds of kilowatts in amplitude and tens of milliseconds in duration, depending on the operating conditions. There are oscillograms which show the waveforms, which will be in the article. The repetition rate varies from a few pps to hundreds, again depending on the operating conditions. The calculation of efficiency divides the energy gained by the charge pack by the energy lost by the drive pack during the run. As the latter becomes smaller, the measurement of the drive pack loss becomes increasingly sensitive to calibration errors, where one is dealing with the differences between two large numbers. The Correas calibrate the batteries before each run. The presence of o/u performance is shown in the oscillograms, which don't involve battery calibrations. The buffering capacitors across the charge pack do two things. They reduce the shock from the energy pulse, and bring the waveforms within the range that can be measured by the RMS multimeters they used for the calibrations. Yes, with L-C filters the pulses could be smoothed to dc, but it isn't really necessary. I hope that when you see the forthcoming article and take time to think through what the Correas are dealing with, you will see that their approach is not unreasonable. Meantime, the questions raised here are useful to me as they show issues that need to be addressed in the article. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 09:40:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA08579; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 09:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 09:35:42 -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: Vololdya from St.Pete: Answers X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Dear Vortex, It is nice that according to Larry Wharton 's estimate I belong to 1% of the physicists who know about '4/3 factor' problem in relativity theory. Moreover, I know about recent succeses in this area (Dr.Ashok Singal from India sent me a preprint of his paper where he resolves this problem). However, I don't agree with mr. Wharton in other points of his message. He wrote: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Re your planned wing experiment: An important datum to interpret the experiment is the pressure on the underside of the wing. Put a pressure gauge where it measures the underside pressure. You should have another gauge on the top side, but far away from your air streams. Can you put a small valve on the inlet tube? This would let you maintain steady conditions while you use your fingers for other tasks. You could also very the chamber pressures (which you read with the gauges). Good luck. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 13:25:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA16025; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 13:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 13:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mike Carrell wrote...... >The buffering capacitors across the charge pack do two things. They reduce >the shock from the energy pulse, and bring the waveforms within the range >that can be measured by the RMS multimeters they used for the calibrations. >Yes, with L-C filters the pulses could be smoothed to dc, but it isn't really >necessary. Ah! But the result would be SO clear! Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 14:46:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA29441; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 14:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 14:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960727173829_247077835@emout10.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: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge--Errata X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I mistakenly asserted that Cols. 8 & 10 of Table 8, p38 IE #7 were in kWh as shown. The numbers make more sense as Wh. The drive battery capacity is nominally 3 kWh. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 15:12:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA04098; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960727180439_247088331@emout16.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: Chernetskii/EarthTech X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner said: "Please don't assume from the above I buy into Chernetski's negative energy. I have a somewhat open but very doubting mind about all that - especially the bit about the negative energy destroying a power plant. I believe the plant was destroyed, but suspect voltage transients. There's no proving one way or the other I supppose." My own discussion with Chernetskii while I was in Moscow tends to support what Horace says. That is, large reactive powers were fed back from his circuit with large rf noise from the spark discharges, and this overloaded the system control mechanisms. Proof of net energy gain has to be determined elsewhere that from this rumor. I and a colleague were arranging for him to come to the West with his apparatus for a definitive test, when he died. (No conspiracies needed - he was quite elderly and already partially paralyzed by strokes when I met with him in Moscow.) Our attempts here to reproduce his effect appeared to produce similar phenomenological observations, but careful measurement of power balances with a Dranetz power meter showed no o/u effect in our attempted replication. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 15:25:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA06046; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:22:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:22:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960727221928_100060.173_JHB58-1@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: Longitudinal b-field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Dieter, >> Btw, how about using shorter lines? << How about you using longer lines ? Mine are 79 chars on my screen so what is the problem ? Its the first time anyone has commented on this, and I would appreciate some feedback - my editor might be sending longer strings than I am aware. >> You seem to be telling us what you think should happen << Yes - its my theory as to the cause of the described events - crazy maybe, but in the absence of any other valid conventional cause, worthy of mention I would have thought. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 15:34:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07417; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607272228.PAA04036@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Mike; >The energy events are tens to hundreds of kilowatts in amplitude and tens of >milliseconds in duration, depending on the operating conditions. There are >oscillograms which show the waveforms, which will be in the article. The >repetition rate varies from a few pps to hundreds, again depending on the >operating conditions. Do they have equipment to measure high frequency ripple during the pulse periods? This would require a digital storage scope that could be triggered to acquire during the events. ie, have they noticed any Mhz level ripple during the events? I am wondering if they may have interjected a conduction phase shift for the nodal structure of the material interacting with the electrons causing them to appear to be shifting their charge during the resonant cycle. this may be possible according to the model I am studying and I have been seeking evidence of it. This may be such evidence. Try to find out if they have, or if they can attain the ripple spectrum if it exists. Even "DC" batteries can exhibit such frequencies since the chemical reactions releasing the charges are discrete events. So, a reactivity wave could give rise to a coherency in the reactivity as a function of time. Ultrasonics take advantage of this effect and patents in just the last ten years have exploited this fact in real devices that induce much greater reactivities in chemical mixing processes. Thus, an electrical positive feedback resonance could excite high frequency energy that might not be considered to be significant. While the energy of the high frequency indeed would not be significant, the resonance, if it can phase shift the electrons standing waves 180 degrees due to the relative motions of the electrons and the nuclei in the lattice, could create a resonance that places the electron alternately in the positive and negative phased array construction of emissions from the "positive" nuclei. This could give rise not only to room temperature superconductivity, but as well to the ability of such a device to draw energy from the QVF nodal structure of space and to use that energy to either accelerate the electrons, or to push the electrons against a load applied elsewhere in the loop. ie, ou. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 15:33:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07488; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607272228.PAA04042@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hering Expt. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >What happens when we near a "point charge"? Is there an electromagnetic >equivalent to the gravitational black hole? Let's agree that the >electric lines of force about an electron (-) point into the heart of >the little sucker. Maybe "ON THE OTHER SIDE", in some higher >dimensionality, they emerge from a coresponding point pointing outward! >A (+) charge - a positron? Perhaps these high, point-source energy >concentrations mark a sort of boundary in the "energy concentration >dimension". If we stand back, from a privileged viewpoint, perhaps we >could see never-ending lines of electric flux plunging into electrons >on OUR SIDE, and emerging from their positron counterparts on THE OTHER >SIDE - looping off to join together again in the fuzzy outskirts of the >universe. > >I think I've been reading too many of Ross T's posts lately. I better >go to bed and get some rest! Get the rest, but as you are falling to sleep, and as you are waking up, take your time and let the thoughts flow in your own dreamscape. Your mind can work on them without you trying if you let it. And, from the above, I see that you are doing just that because you may not know if but you just described perfectly, a standing wave. Any convergent wave will not go back out again into some other universe, it will go right on back out again into our universe. that is the emission of the standing wave I have been talking about, so you just hit it on the head. Further, when a wave runs into a "short circuit", ie the condensing core of a particle like electron, it reflects inverted. You can prove this with your own eyes and a piece of rope (or just read a physics text on high frequency EM reflections at a short.). Tie the rope to a pole near the ground. Then whip the rope horizontally from center, to the right, and then back to center. to send a wave down the length. Try about 15 to 20 feet of medium weight rope so the friction of the floor does not damp out the motion too fast. When the wave strikes the end, it reflects inverted. Now, try the same thing by straightening the rope, and do the same motion, but with the rope not tied to the pole, ie the end is just free on the floor. this is like a reflection at an open circuit. The reflection is positive, and you get a positive pulse coming back. You can really see this if you send down the rope a square wave. To do this, just rapidly move the rope from center to the right and then stay there. This will send a wave down the rope that moves the entire length of the rope over the distance of your motion. but, when it strikes the end at either the open or the short (free or tied end), the reflection will be constructive or destructive. In one case the return wave puts the rope back to the original straight position, while in the other case the reflected wave doubles the displacement, ie a 2x displacement due to constructive interference. When you study that concept with repetitive waves that are convergent, you wind up with a static structure so to speak. In other words, the standing wave remains coherent in space, but there is wave energy flowing in and out simultaneously. It only appears like it is essentially a static structure. this is in a sense, much like an 18th century bucket fire brigade would look like a static structure if you observe the people and the buckets. this is because there are always the same stationary static people, and they always seem to have two buckets in their hands. True the buckets they are holding seem to be swinging back and forth, but that pattern repeats and appears unchanging. But if instead you observe the filled and empty buckets as separate entities, then finally you notice that there really is a difference in the directions of propogation of the "energy", or waves. Now, in a standing wave, it would be even less obvious because the "buckets" heading in both directions are filled so to speak. but the net real motions are still applicable. Waves heading in, and waves heading out, each with momentum and energy. Also, you began to allude to positive and negative charge. If you place two such fire bucket brigades next to each other I can give you a really crude analogy of the more complex effect. Pretend that instead of a fire, what we are doing is to try to empty two wells of water. So, we use the buckets to transport the water out and away from the well. We want to get this done rapidly, so we set up a bunch of radial lines of people with buckets. But, there is one line that joins the two wells. I want to study just that one line, which is really the combination of the radial line leading away from one well and the line leading away from another well, but they become one and the same line in the middle. Lets explore what happens to the buckets of wave energy, the water. The link between them is continuous, so we wind up with two possibilities for connecting the two lines. 1) full buckets motions heading out from well A connect to the full buckets motions heading out from well B. 2) Full buckets heading out from well A are in phase synchronization with the Empty buckets heading out from well B Remember that the people in the line are just swinging both hands at the same time with one bucket in each hand, and then at full swing an exchange is made with the adjacent person such that as they swing their arms the opposite direction, there is still a transfer of buckets in the same direction. In other words, There are buckets that I will set at an arbitrary 0 degree phase angle that are handed out from well A full. this means that empty buckets normally arrive at well A at 180 degrees. This also means that as each person swings their arms back and forth, the full buckets always precess to the right and the empty ones to the left (left and right are arbitrary here and intended to get across the concept of two waves moving through one another, each with its own specific properties and momentum, here the image of full and empty are being employed to describe that momentum directional distinction. OK, if the two bucket lines are in phase synchronization with one another, then it means that the full buckets are heading out of each well at the same time. but this will link in the middle in such a manner that the full buckets from one line are handed to the end person in the other wells line in time with when that other person should be receiving an empty bucket. So, it winds up that all of the buckets end up filled, and the energy flowing out of well A simply gets poured into well be when they arrive at well B full. Neither well becomes drained. If, on the other hand, the timing is in error, say both lines motions are 180 degrees out of phase, then all of the buckets are crashing into each other where the two lines join. All of the buckets of water are getting dropped and water is piling up there in the middle. If the wells were really floats on the ocean, then by pouring the water in between, the two wells would be induced to float apart from one another due to the increase in water level due to dumping the water between the wells. If the water is just transmitted from one well to the other, then no impetus is transmitted. But then if you consider the waves on the ocean, and the two rafts having the same bobbing frequency, the interference with the external waves will push the rafts together. Well, this did not work out quite as well as I hoped, but it gives you a bit of an idea and a few conceptual things to consider in the communication of wave energy from one place to another and how interferences can influence the action imposed by that wave energy. By the way, phenomena that employ these sort of wave interferences are found in laser atomic traps, laser and or EM compression of Bose Einstein Condensates, particle confinement in air via acoustic nodes, sand accumulating in the nodes on a vibrating plate, phased array radar, holograms, ghosts on TV images, magnetic "attraction" and repulsion, electric "attraction" and repulsion, nuclear "attraction" and repulsion, gravitational "attraction" and repulsion. I know some are going to smack me for that last one, but if gravitation is simple interference between standing waves due to frequency de-coherencies from Doppler shifting of sub atomic resonances due to relative motions of distant galaxies, then we are repulsed by the earth less than we are repulsed by space. thus, IMO, I do not use the concept of "attraction" in any part of my construction of space. Fluids just don't need or use that fictitious "attractive" force mechanism. All you need are compressions and rarefactions below some nominal high gage pressure, and standing waves to accomplish the transmission of any sort of action you desire and at any amplitude up to that at which the fluid undergoes a change in state to a more dense form as in the cores of matter standing waves. To maximize the amplitude, you must maximize the phase and frequency coherency of the bucket brigades. Otherwise, you get a lot of spillage, and little action via wave interactions. So, if you have two particles that are nicely timed, they will experience a tremendous force if interaction, while two particles that must hand off their waves to some generic nodal structure of space, will only poorly communicate their energies. And for those particles that wish to communicate an action via Doppler interference of their waves, (at least in our universe), there will be yet again another tremendous reduction in the amplitude of the interactions due to the great distances at which those objects are from us, ie galaxies red shifted quantum vacuum fluctuations. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 15:35:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07523; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607272228.PAA04048@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: List of Common Abbreviations: X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: It has been requested a couple of times that each time we use abbreviations, that we write out the meaning in the first usage. This is time consuming when responding to many letters in many sections or groups. Instead, how about those out there just print out this post and pin it up somewhere as a reference. I will include a number of common abbreviations, and others who like to use some I did not happen to think of just now can add to this list. Those who do not know these, please keep this list handy. EM Electro Magnetics ou, O/U, o u...Over Unity power producing device, ie, perpetual motion machine GR General Relativity SR Special Relativity QM Quantum Mechanics QED Quantum Electrodynamics QCD Quantum Chromodynamics QVF Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations QFT Quantum Field Theory IMO In my opinion IMHO In my humble opinion (often a bit sarcastic!) BTW By the way WRT With respect to Well, these are the main ones I use, so others can add some more Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 16:00:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA10916; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607272250.PAA31638@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Mike Carrell wrote...... >>The buffering capacitors across the charge pack do two things. They reduce >>the shock from the energy pulse, and bring the waveforms within the range >>that can be measured by the RMS multimeters they used for the calibrations. >>Yes, with L-C filters the pulses could be smoothed to dc, but it isn't really >>necessary. > > Ah! But the result would be SO clear! If the effect is due to high frequency resonances in the system phase shifting the apparent charge of the electrons within the metal lattice, then the capacitors may chop this effect and eliminate the process giving rise to ou if it is there. So, the addition of filters is not so simple. Yes, it helps us to verify that energy was created, but I think a better method would be to leave the process alone, and to plug the output power into a battery charger to recharge the batteries used (I think this was the battery one). In any case, plugging the thing into itself is a better solution because you prove ou, while leaving whatever is going on alone. that way you don't have the additional complexity of figuring out whether or not your LC circuit shut down the process, or whether the process was never there in the first place. Another method would be to use a calorimeter and a resistor to heat some water. then, repeat the process several times using just one battery driven system (invert the battery power for devices that need AC). this way you can measure the amount of heating from individual batteries and repeatedly recharge them running them one time with the ou device and the next time without and each time recording the amount of thermal heat generated in the resistive heating of the water in the calorimeter. This should be a conclusive test it seems to me and it leaves the process alone. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 16:05:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA10958; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607272250.PAA31640@hg.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Chernetskii/EarthTech X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Our attempts here to reproduce his effect appeared to produce similar >phenomenological observations, but careful measurement of power balances with >a Dranetz power meter showed no o/u effect in our attempted replication. > >Hal Puthoff Heard any ~13 Mhz ripple in yours or their devices? Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 18:19:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA03423; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 18:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 18:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I analyzed the Hering experiment, as described by Chris Tinsley, by three diferent approaches. All three agreed that there is NO EMF induced in the "broom holder" loop. First, I want to comment that (I think) field lines are not physical. Trying to resolve problems of this kind by thinking about moving field lines gets one the right answer only by chance. Some earlier discussions on this list have gotten entangled in this issue. Next, some background. We only need to use Faraday's law of magnetic induction. The original experimental basis of this law is measurements of induced electromotive force (EMF) in macroscopic loops due to magnetic fields. This is a law of CONTINUM electrodynamics, not microscopic or quantum ED. The law is expressed for loops by the integral form of Faraday's law: d(magnetic flux)/dt = - [Integral of E around closed loop] (1) = EMF or "voltage" Here E is the instantaneous electric field AS MEASURED AT EVERY ELEMENT IN THE LOOP BY "SOMEONE" MOVING WITH THAT ELEMENT. The magnetic flux is given by the integral (sum) over all the magnetic field-times-area elements passing through the area enclosed by the loop. Frequently it is convenient to work with the differential equation statement of the same law. A differential equation holds at each point in space, point-by-point. Faraday's law in this form is: dB/dt = - curl E (2) Here B is the magnetic field. E is the electric field at the point in question, and it is importantissimo to remember that it is the electric field measured by "someone" AT REST IN THE COORDINATE SYSTEM IN WHICH THE EQUATION IS WRITTEN. These differences in how E is measured in each formulation are not games; they derive mathematically from the relationships between integral and differential forms in the presence of motion. (Actually, the "d" should be the non-ascii partial derivative symbol, and curl or rot is the differential operator related to integration around a loop. For those of you who do not understand this, just try to follow the gist of the comments for a moment.) Eqs 1 & 2 show explicitly the role of the time derivative or dependence in inducing E. Eq 1 also has the role of motion, because it is valid for moving and deforming loops. Eq 2 does not directly contain the motional information, but the motion appears via the transformation rule that follows when eq 2 is written in a second coordinate system. For our present purposes at low velocities, the Galilean transformation suffices. For two systems, 1 and 2: B2 = B1 = B (B is the same from all points of view if v^2 << c^2) E2 = E1 + v1 x B (3) Here v1 is the velocity of system 2 motion as measured by an observer in system 1. All the quantities in eq 3 are vectors, and x indicates the vector "cross" product. This is the true origin of "v x B" as motional induction; it is not "moving flux lines", but the difference between electric fields measured by observers moving at different velocities across a magnetic field. (My taste differs from Cullwick's.) The ELECTROMAGNETIC field is one. B and E transform into each other, but at low speeds or low rates of change, only the B-into-E is large. Now, let's take on Herring. The easy way to resolve this seemingly paradoxical problem is to ATTACH OURSELVES AND OUR COORDINATE SYSTEM TO THE MAGNETIZED CORE. Simplifying the geometry, but not changing the topology, the problem looks like: _________________________________________ * | *********** v_core <----| * ^ * * * y| * * | * meter * ----> * * x * * Fig. 1 *********** v_core <----| --------------*--------------------------| The core has a rectangular cross section with little pieces sticking out to contact the wires. (This change is not important for now, but simplifies the third method of soving the problem.) In fig 1 the loop moves with v_x = -v_core (whereas in the original frame of the loop, the core moved with v_x = v_core). The z-axis points out of the paper, and let this also be the direction of B. The magnetic field is static in fig 1--a steady value in the core and zero in the loop. Because dB/dt = 0 everywhere, there is no induced EMF, and E = 0 everywhere from this vantage point. Because B = 0 at all points of the moving loop, when we look eq 3 with B = 0 it says that E = 0 from the vantage point of someone attached to the loop, too, and that includes the meter. Therefore, the meter reads zero. The problem is trickier to resolve as originally posed, when the loop appears stationary and the magnetized core moves. The simplest way to view the problem in this case is: |------------------------------------------| |---------------* | *********** | * ^ * * * y| * * | *----> v_core meter * ----> * * x * * Fig. 2 *********** | |---------------* | |------------------------------------------| Here the sliding contact between core and loop is replaced by a direct connection between the wires and the core. The left side of the wires is unimportant to the circuit; I have tried (ascii permitting) to show that one can fold the wires (now insulated) on the left so that the core slides past them. The circuit to the right is unaltered. The solution follows from eq 1. The circuit to calculate the flux and voltage is drawn from one side of the meter, along the interior of the wire, through the magnetized core to the other wire, along it and to the other meter terminal. The magnetic flux enclosed by this circuit remains constant. Therefore, no EMF is induced around it, and the meter again reads zero. The third solution is for the circuit as originally drawn--with sliding contacts and in the frame where the loop is stationary--is more complicated. Begin with fig 1, where we found E = 0 in the core. Eq 3 tells us that the electric field inside the core from the point of view of someone attached to the loop, looks like 0 = E(core frame) = E(loop frame) + v(loop frame) x B Eq. 4 or E(loop frame) = - v_core x B Eq. 5 which acts in the positive y-direction. However, we have to address the question of how an electric field from a moving object couples to a stationary one. Again this is a transformation between moving coordinates. The result, derived from eq 1 in any decent intermediate text, is that the component of electric field parallel to a moving surface obeys n x (E in moving region - E in stationary region) = n.[v(B in moving region - B in stationary region)] Eq 6 Here the E's are all as measured by the stationary observer and vB is the dyadic product of two vectors (warned you this way is more complicated!). n is the unit vector pointing out of the moving medium. We want to find the unknown E in stationary region. In our case, E in moving region is given by eq 5, and n x (E in moving region) = v_core B in the positive z-direction. B in stationary region is zero. With the geometric simplification I made to a rectangular core cross section, n.[vB in moving region] = v_core B in the positive z-direction. Thus in eq 6, the first and third terms are equal, and the last term is zero. Therefore, the second term must be zero, hence E in the stationary region must be zero. No electric field appears between the two wires, and, therefore, the meter reads zero once again. Did I get it right, or did I fool myself three ways? Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 18:19:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA03672; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 18:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 18:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960727211658_586359531@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: Pictures X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu Bart Simon contacted me for information. He wants to do a historical account of what is happening in cold fusion. I have pictures of all of the great people I met: Hal Puthoff Yuui Potapov Jed Rothwell George Miley Frank Stenger I met Reed Huish...I wanted a picture...but didn't have the nerve to ask for it... Damm!!!!! Next time Reed. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 18:47:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA08309; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 18:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 18:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607280140.VAA14338@ns1.ptd.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net (Jeff Fink) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >A suction cup is not "attracted" to the surface by the vacuum. It is >compressed against the surface by the high pressure on the outside. An >airfoil is not attracted to the stars by the vacuum over the wing, rather it >is pushed toward the stars from below by the higher pressure air down there. > >Think about it and at least try to eliminate the concept of attraction where >we know it does not exist. Then it will be more pallatable later for you to >eliminate it where it takes a bit more faith. Once you do, you will find >things make a lot more sense. > >Ross Tessien > I would really like to hear your explanation of how a rotating cylinder in a moving air stream generates lift if the Bernouli principle is bogus? Jeff Fink> > > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 18:48:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA08361; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 18:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 18:45:51 -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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Chris, The results concerning this brain teaser put into question now the Farady disk experiment in the case where the magnet turns with the disk. I took the queue for my answer from that experiment. I don't see any significant difference. How good and clear are the results from that experiment? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 27 18:57:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA09627; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 18:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 18:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31FAC7ED.4B38@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Pictures X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > > bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu Bart Simon contacted me for information. He wants to > do a historical account of what is happening in cold fusion. I have pictures > of all of the great people I met: > > Hal Puthoff > Yuui Potapov > Jed Rothwell > George Miley > Frank Stenger ??????????? Dear Frank Z.: I would like the other folks in the above list to know that I know that I do not belong there! I'm just a capacitor zapper, and I have contributed nothing to the CF area except a fan's great interest. You are thoughtful to a fault, Frank, but if you wish an honest history of CF, my name should be deleted! Your friend, Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 03:53:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA11177; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 03:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 03:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960728100644_100433.1541_BHG68-1@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: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, > The results concerning this brain teaser put into question now the > Farady disk experiment in the case where the magnet turns with the > disk. I took the queue for my answer from that experiment. I > don't see any significant difference. How good and clear are the > results from that experiment? 100% clear and solid. It makes no difference whatsoever if the magnet is stationary or rotates with the disc. I did see one paper which also showed that there is zero torque on the magnet when power is taken from the disc. In fact, it is easier with the magnet fixed to the disc. In the case where the disc spins separately from the magnet, you have to be very careful to get the two perfectly concentric - I used an annular ferrite magnet, which made concentricity fairly easy to achieve. The trick with designing hompolar motor/generator experiments is to arrange it so you are going for on/off results rather than quantitative ones. And they are a fine way of learning real respeck for your elders and betters (like Michael Faraday). Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 07:36:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA03294; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 07:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 07:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960728103054_371640352@emout19.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: Re: Pictures X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Frank, Your name does belong there. Where the sustaining energy of ball lightning comes from is one of the great mysteries in science. You have spent 25 years working on the subject, doing experiments, and mathematical analysis. I came out to see you many times because I knew your work could easily lead to a great breakthrough. I am a very busy man and would never drive long distances to see some nut. I was, and I remain very interested in your work. I am sure that if you solve the mystery of ball lighting our energy future will become secure. Of everyone that I have met, you are the one who underestands the problem of ball lightning the best. I have told your story in my Book on a Disk and I respect your opinions. I just wish you would write more. Frank Znidarsic PS I forgot Peter Glueck...and James Paterson...I have their pictures to....I am quite proud to have met and talked to these great men. Patterson, Puthoff, Miley, Glueck, Potapov, Huish, Rothwell, and Stenger. All have opened up to me and a learned a great deal from each encounter and the continuing relationship that has ensued. Joe Newman and Stan Myer .I will not be needing their pictures. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 07:36:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA03294; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 07:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 07:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960728103054_371640352@emout19.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: Re: Pictures X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Frank, Your name does belong there. Where the sustaining energy of ball lightning comes from is one of the great mysteries in science. You have spent 25 years working on the subject, doing experiments, and mathematical analysis. I came out to see you many times because I knew your work could easily lead to a great breakthrough. I am a very busy man and would never drive long distances to see some nut. I was, and I remain very interested in your work. I am sure that if you solve the mystery of ball lighting our energy future will become secure. Of everyone that I have met, you are the one who underestands the problem of ball lightning the best. I have told your story in my Book on a Disk and I respect your opinions. I just wish you would write more. Frank Znidarsic PS I forgot Peter Glueck...and James Paterson...I have their pictures to....I am quite proud to have met and talked to these great men. Patterson, Puthoff, Miley, Glueck, Potapov, Huish, Rothwell, and Stenger. All have opened up to me and a learned a great deal from each encounter and the continuing relationship that has ensued. Joe Newman and Stan Myer .I will not be needing their pictures. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 10:05:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA23321; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 10:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 10:01:35 -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: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Chris, OK, thinking about this some more, the current/conductor loop of the Faraday disk experiment is closed. Every flux loop is also closed. Therefore every flux loop will cut the conductor loop exactly zero times or some multiple of 2 times, typically 2 times assuming the wire has no kinks, each rotation. Each cut alternates going "into" (adding voltage) and "out" (subtracting voltage) of the loop so there is no net induced voltage on the loop from the magnet, regardless of the magnet/conductor relative velocity. Therefore there is no net rotational force on the magnet, only a torque on the poles of rotation due to the current induced in the loop, but this is resisted by the bearings. If the stator becomes an envelope instead of a wire, then even this polar torque is removed. The important factor in generating current is the relative angular velocity between the armature and the rest of the loop, the stator. It is interresting that the armature (disk) could be left stationary and the stator part of the loop could rotate instead, reversing roles. It is only the simple relative motion of the stator and armature that produces the voltage and current. The other part of effective use of the field is minimizing the number of times flux lines cross either the armature or stator both ways, as these flux line double crossings cancel their own effects. So, put another way, to the degree the magnet rotates relative to the stator, the stator becomes the armature to the exact same degree the effect of the armature is diminished. This is why the Faraday disk experiment is different from the Hering experiment, because in the Hering experiment there is no conductor being cut by flux. In the Faraday experiment the is always some conductor being cut by flux as long as there is armature/stator relative motion, it's just not immediately intuitively clear that the stator becomes the conductor being cut as the magnet begins to rotate. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 10:26:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA25862; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 10:17:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 10:17:51 -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: Chernetskii/EarthTech X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Hal Puthoff's remarks on Chrenetskii demonstrate again the amazing breadth of experience in some members of this group. It's just amazing the things that pop up here from the casual remark. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 10:20:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA25948; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 10:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 10:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607281716.KAA12205@helix.ucsd.edu> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Bart Simon" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Chain Reaction - the film X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Greetings, I wanted to come out of lurkerdom to thank Frank Z. for his kind reference to my work on the history of cold fusion research. Thanks also to the various vortexers who've given me help and advice over the last months as well (much thanks to Dieter for breaking the bibliography into smaller files by letter - its a dream come true!!!). While I have the chance I thought I'd mention that part of my work involves tracing cold fusion's appearences in popular culture. No doubt this group is aware of the film "chain reaction" which is being released this week. From what I can tell the story of cold fusion figures in the basic theme of the film. The connection is made explicitly in the web page for the film located at - www.chain-reaction.com Anyway, I'm keen on writing a review of the film for the Journal for the Public Understanding of Science and I'd be very interested in hearing what Vortexers think of the film and its connection (or not) with the o/u and cf interests of this group (one wonders what the film might have been like if the producers had met Yuri Potopov). cheers, Bart Simon (bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu) p.s. on a related topic, I just thought I'd ask if anybody out there might have a screen shot from an old episode of the Simpsons where Homer is walking through an alternative energy festival (or some such) and there is a CF booth behind him - I kow its a long shot, but such cultural tidbits are like gems for me. ------------------------------------------------ Bart Simon Dept. of Sociology/Science Studies UC, San Diego 9500 Gilman Dr. La Jolla, CA, 92093-0104 phone: 619-534-0491 fax: 619-534-3388 ============================================ Bart Simon Dept. of Sociology/Science Studies UC, San Diego 9500 Gilman Dr. La Jolla, CA, 92093-0104 phone: 619-534-0491/fax: 619-534-3388 =========================================== From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 11:08:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA01673; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 10:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 10:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607281750.KAA14587@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Greetings guys; I read about this in a couple of books, but it was a long time ago. Could you repeat the experimental observations please. I know that it is probably back in your thread somewhere. I gather that the cases are; I assume that non rotating means that it is not rotating relative to the laboratory, and earth solar and other rotations are ignored. 1 disk rotates, magnet is stationary. Take voltage from the center to the outer perimeter. ??Does the device taking the power (LED or whatever) need to rotate with disk, or be in a non rotating reference or either? 2 disk rotates, magnet rotates with it. again how is voltage taken out 3 disk is stationary, magnet rotates. is this a zero voltage situation? So, what combinations have I missed, and what exactly must be done to bleed power away? If the power circuit must be fixed, then this requires contacts or brushes for DC power so doesn't the friction come into play? In any case, I think this one would be very interesting to investigate from a phased array point of view. I have a fairly good model for the electrons motions in the magnets and for how that affects the surrounding nodal structure of space according to my model. So I want to use the above results to fine tune my model. Thanks. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 11:29:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA06642; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960728142011.10ffbdc8@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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 06:16 PM 7/27/96 -0700, Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > > dB/dt = - curl E (2) > >Here B is the magnetic field. E is the electric field at the point in >question, and it is importantissimo to remember that it is the electric >field measured by "someone" AT REST IN THE COORDINATE SYSTEM IN WHICH THE >EQUATION IS WRITTEN. Agree with the fact that the correct way to do this is continuum electromechanics (however would use the Maxwell Stress Tensor approach), but please note: Actually, B is the magnetic flux density, and H is the magentic field intensity. B = mu(*) H where mu is complex and has real and imaginary (loss) terms. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 11:57:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA11322; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 11:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 11:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960728144754_166066539@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: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 96-07-27 18:31:41 EDT, Ross wrote: << Do they have equipment to measure high frequency ripple during the pulse periods? This would require a digital storage scope that could be triggered to acquire during the events. ie, have they noticed any Mhz level ripple during the events? >> I asked Correa about this. He has observed bursts of MHz energy at the turn-on of the energy pulse, and has seen similar effects in earlier work with x-ray tubes. This ringing dies out quickly while the energy burst continues for milliseconds before it extinguishes. It is not at all clear that the MHz bursts are not simply ringing of the measuring equipment or the ancillary structures. He has made efforts to refine the observation, but it isn't easy at all. One should be very cautious about drawing any conclusions. In a post on 7/12, titled "Correa Patent, Battery Exchange" I referred to a figure in the '989 patent showing two reactors and two center-tapped batteries with a switching arrangement. Effectively, in phase A, battery 1 drives both reactors, each of which charges half of battery 2. In phase B, both halves of battery 2 drive both reactors, each of which charge half of battery 1. In a test, the cycle ran for 8 hours, with **both** batteries gaining energy. This is a straightforward demonstration of o/u performance. The cycling can be automatic and continuous and Correa implied that in some application configurations just that happens. As a matter of courtesy, I have not pressed Correa for details of demonstrations and configurations not yet patented and which are private with any investors. If someone wants to show up with a fistful of cash he might negotiate for a demonstration tailored to his specific requirements. In the meantime, adequate information to evaluate the o/u performance is available. Not all of it was in the IE #7 article, but I expect to have a coherent picture in the forthcoming article. After the IE article appears, perhaps some of the key illustrations might get posted to a Web site. But regular readers of Vortex should also be Infinite Energy subscribers. In my conversations, Correa has shown himself to be very competent and knowledgeable. Discovery favors the prepared mind; Correa did stumble on the anamolus energy while pursuing other work, but he has proceeded systematically with experimentation and literature search to develop a technology. The phenomenon itself shapes the ancillary technology. The shape of the technology does not have to conform to our preconceptions. Mike Carrell Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 12:32:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA16335; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 12:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 12:22:56 -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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Greetings guys; > >I read about this in a couple of books, but it was a long time ago. Could >you repeat the experimental observations please. I know that it is probably >back in your thread somewhere. > >I gather that the cases are; > >I assume that non rotating means that it is not rotating relative to the >laboratory, and earth solar and other rotations are ignored. Only three reference frames are important, the disk, the magnet, and the rest of the circuit (the stator). The earth's magnetic field and all other motion is ignored and could not be expected to have a measureable effect, especially in the time of Micahel Faraday. > >1 disk rotates, magnet is stationary. Take voltage from the center to the >outer perimeter. ??Does the device taking the power (LED or whatever) need >to rotate with disk, or be in a non rotating reference or either? Typically this is a microammeter.=and is in the stator frame of reference. > >2 disk rotates, magnet rotates with it. again how is voltage taken out Same way. Chris has suggested a variation of the Faraday experiment where the magnet is circular and the size of the disk and the disk axle goes through the magnet. The magnet is on bearings on the axle so it is free to rotate with the disk or to remain stationary. There is a brush on the axel so there is a current path (uncut) down the center of the magnetic field. There is a brush on the outside perimeter of the disk. The microammeter is in the circuit between the two brushes. In the orginal version of the experiment the disk rotation cuts the flux so induces a voltage from the axle across the disk to the peripheral area of the disk. The brushes close the loop to generate the current. > >3 disk is stationary, magnet rotates. is this a zero voltage situation? Yes. (I deduce.) > >So, what combinations have I missed, and what exactly must be done to bleed >power away? The area of interest here is whether current theory predicts the behavior (i.e. is there an anomaly here to be investigated for energy creating potential?) or whether the results are simply non-intuitive. Michael Schaffer's excellent analysis shows clearly "three ways from Sunday" the actual results agree with the results expected by theory in the case of the Hering experiment. Based on my comments in the prior post, I think all the stated observations in the case of the Faraday disk experiment are completely expected on a qualitative basis. Unless someone has some new data or theory, I personally see no anomalies, no excess energy potential, so therefore consider it case closed. (I have a very small workspace. Case closed to me means the stuff goes into a box and into the crawl space to make room for the next thing on my queue, which happens to be condensed charge. I am now in the process of zapping little sparks through xenon bulbs. Fun!) > >If the power circuit must be fixed, then this requires contacts or brushes >for DC power so doesn't the friction come into play? There has not been any energy balance experiment discussed. The implied interest here (at least for me) is just in turning over old rocks to look for the unexplained. The unexplained leads to experiments that show the unexpected, or vice versa, which leads to discovering a law that leads to engineering principles for an ou device which leads to an experiment, etc. This is pretty old stuff, so not much hope, but maybe the longitudinal force and exploding wire thing maybe could show some leads. > >In any case, I think this one would be very interesting to investigate from >a phased array point of view. I have a fairly good model for the electrons >motions in the magnets and for how that affects the surrounding nodal >structure of space according to my model. So I want to use the above >results to fine tune my model. > >Thanks. Ross Tessien I have an experimental angle. Maybe the longitudinal force problem could be investigated by looking at effects on wires or spring loaded segmented rods which are the center conductors of a large coaxial cable? The results could be compared for coaxials of outer conductor inner radius r and much larger outer conductor inner radius R, and if the results are the same then perhaps it can be concluded there is an "inner current only" related force affecting the inner conductor, possibly the micro-pinch phenomenon I suggested, or something similar. Comments anyone? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 12:52:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20924; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 12:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 12:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Dranetz ?? Re: Chernetskii/EarthTech X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Dear Hal, I may have missed something. Can you tell us about the Dranetz power meter? Is this a phenomenological name or a company name? I confess I am un familiar with it. How does it work? Why is it advantageous? Thanks, J On Sat, 27 Jul 1996 Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > Horace Heffner said: > > "Please don't assume from the above I buy into Chernetski's negative energy. > I have a somewhat open but very doubting mind about all that - especially > the bit about the negative energy destroying a power plant. I believe the > plant was destroyed, but suspect voltage transients. There's no proving > one way or the other I supppose." > > My own discussion with Chernetskii while I was in Moscow tends to support > what Horace says. That is, large reactive powers were fed back from his > circuit with large rf noise from the spark discharges, and this overloaded > the system control mechanisms. Proof of net energy gain has to be determined > elsewhere that from this rumor. > > I and a colleague were arranging for him to come to the West with his > apparatus for a definitive test, when he died. (No conspiracies needed - he > was quite elderly and already partially paralyzed by strokes when I met with > him in Moscow.) > > Our attempts here to reproduce his effect appeared to produce similar > phenomenological observations, but careful measurement of power balances with > a Dranetz power meter showed no o/u effect in our attempted replication. > > Hal Puthoff > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 13:20:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA25579; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 13:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 13:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960728160856_247516510@emout13.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: Dranetz ?? Re: Chernetskii/EarthTech X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: John Schnurer asks about the Dranetz Power Meter: Dranetz is the name of a company that makes the gold standard power meter. Plug in all the leads and it gives current, voltage, power factor, VA product, vars. Quite expensive to buy (~$20K, I think), but they can be leased quite reasonably by week or month from electronics leasing companies. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 13:25:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA25702; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 13:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 13:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960728161258_247518529@emout13.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: Chernetskii/EarthTech X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Ross asks: >Heard any ~13 Mhz ripple in yours or their devices? Hadn't heard, and we didn't do any spectrum analysis in our experiments. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 13:39:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA29007; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 13:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 13:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960728163126_247526975@emout12.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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace asks: >The results concerning this brain teaser put into question >now the Farady disk experiment in the case where the magnet >turns with the disk. I took the queue for my answer from that >experiment. I don't see any significant difference. How good >and clear are the results from that experiment? The experiment is good. When the magnet rotates with the disk, the voltage is still generated in the disk. See nice clear exposition of the experiment and its results under all conditions of relative movement of disk and magnet by Gupta, Amer. Jour. of Phys., vol 31, p. 428 (1963). My favorite interpretation is that under the cemented-magnet condition, even though there is no relative motion between the disk and the magnet, there is relative motion between the rotating combination and the circuit in which the voltage is picked off, and that's where the action is. I know this is controversial, and Francisco Muller has published an article with other interpretations in Galilean Electrodynamics, as well as in Marinov's hard-to-find "Thorny Way of Truth" series. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 13:49:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA00693; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 13:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 13:46:46 -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: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Horace asks: > >>The results concerning this brain teaser put into question >now the Farady >disk experiment in the case where the magnet >turns with the disk. I took >the queue for my answer from that >experiment. I don't see any significant >difference. How good >and clear are the results from that experiment? > >The experiment is good. When the magnet rotates with the disk, the voltage >is still generated in the disk. See nice clear exposition of the experiment >and its results under all conditions of relative movement of disk and magnet >by Gupta, Amer. Jour. of Phys., vol 31, p. 428 (1963). > >My favorite interpretation is that under the cemented-magnet condition, even >though there is no relative motion between the disk and the magnet, there is >relative motion between the rotating combination and the circuit in which the >voltage is picked off, and that's where the action is. I know this is >controversial, and Francisco Muller has published an article with other >interpretations in Galilean Electrodynamics, as well as in Marinov's >hard-to-find "Thorny Way of Truth" series. > >Hal Puthoff Not controverial with me! I just came to the same conclusion - see earlier post. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Jul 28 14:02:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA02041; Sun, 28 Jul 1996 13:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 13:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960728165113_247536726@emout09.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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Ross asks about Faraday disk experiment. As I said in another post, good summary of all the combinations is in paper by Gupta, Amer Jour Phys vol 31, p 428 (1963). See also book by Tom Valone on homopolar generators, available from him by writing or calling Integrity Research Institute in Washington DC, 202-452-7674. Tom has done extensive experiments himself, and an especially interesting one to me was one in which Tom cemented an LED to rotate with the conducting disk cemented to the magnet while it was generating voltage as picked up on external brushes fixed in the lab frame. In the rotating frame of the disk the LED did not light! This is what led me to think that it was the magnetic flux cutting the external fixed lab circuit that was responsible for the voltage generation. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:37:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA02150; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607290102.SAA08707@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: End of Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The June 30, 1996 Sunday Book Review section of the New York Times has a review of a new book reviewed by Natalie Angier. The book warranted a front cover drawing of the review section. Ms. Angier is a science reporter for the New York Times. The book is titled 'The End of Science'. And the review article is titled: 'The Job Is Finished'. The book's subtitle is:'Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age'. According to the reviewer, the author "insists, is that scientists are beginning to sense that "the great era of scientific discovery is over." The big truths, the primodial truths, the pure truths about "the universe and our place in it" have already been mapped out." Also that "Further research may yield no more great revelations or revolutions, but only incremental, diminishing returns." The ten chapters and an epilogue of the book is as follows: 1. End of Progress 2. End of Philosophy 3. End of Physics 4. End of Cosmology 5. End of Evolution 6. End of Social Science 7. End of Neuroscience 8. End of Chaoplexity 9. End of Limitology 10. Scientific Theology, or The End of Machine Science Epilogue: The Terror of God There is a nod to 'The End to Chemistry' but "when Linus Pauling showed how all chemical interactions could be understood in terms of Qantum Mechanics" the author seems to be lump chemistry together with Physics. The 'larger than life' individuals (none of the names has appeared on the vortex)that the author ran accross in his work and the talks, discussions and interviews he made with them plus his own thoughts come to make up the book. The reviewer in conclusion does not agree with the author and feels the book to be controversial. She feels that too many of the individuals interviewed has gone into philosopause (rhymes with Menopause) and phased into professional cogitation rather than the laboratory. The publisher is a Helix Book of Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Incf. ISBN 0-201-62679-9. First Printing May, 1996. The author is John Hogan, senior writer at Scientific American. Well, well, well! Any thoughts after reading the book, vortexians? That is, if you feel like reading the book. -AK- Oh! the 'larger than life names? Some are: Lynn Margolis, Roger Penrose, Francis Click, Richard Dawkins, Freeman Dyson, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephan Jay Gould, Stepheb Hawking, Thomas Kuhn, Chris Langdon, Karl Popper, Stevin Weinberg, E.O. Wilson, Fred Hoyle, Noam Chomsky, Jo0hn Wheeler, Clifford Geetz, Francis Fukuyama, Philip Anderson, David Bohm, Richard Feynman, Michael Feigenbaum, and so on and on. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:45:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA03010; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:32:28 -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: Longitudinal force investigation methods X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The longitudinal force problem could possibly be investigated by looking at effects on wires or spring loaded segmented rods which are the center conductors of a large coaxial cable. The results could be compared for coaxials of outer conductor radius r and much larger outer conductor radius R. It is assumed the other lateral dimensions are fixed and small in comparison to r and R. If the results are the same then perhaps it can be concluded there is an "inner current only" related force affecting the inner conductor in a longitudinal manner. This technique has the principle advantage that ordinary methods of pulse production can be used because a full circuit is provided. Typical capacitor bank methods can be used to achieve very large current pulses. The coax conductive sheath could be made of many closely spaced conductors with small slits for photography and other methods of obervation. An outer conductive sheath could be pre-constructed and hard mounted for the R tests, with room to bolt in an inner sheath for the smaller radius r tests. Access doors or panels provided and an insulating support put in place to hold the subject inner conductor. Some longitudinal component force should be detected due to compression on the metal lattice of the inner conductor due to lateral repulsion of the opposite going currents on the outer sheath. By using a coaxial configuration for the experiment, such expected force would be symmetrical and thus manifest longitudinally in a strictly expansive (elongating) manner. Such lateral force should be roughly proportional to the distance between the inner and outer conductors. If an observed effect occurs and it is due to the relaionship between currents in the inner conductor and the sheath, then the effect should vary by r/R. If no such variation occurs for some specific effect, then the effect must be due only to events in the inner conductor. Was this method applied in the case of Graneau or other experiments? Is there any reason this method should not work? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:43:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA03118; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607290138.DAA28967@mailbox.swip.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Tommy Andersson" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Vololdya from St.Pete: problem in relativity theory X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Problem in relativity theory have a look at =============================================== Society For the Advancement of Autodynamics =============================================== http://www.autodynamics.org email: saa@autodynamics.org emailing list: saalist@autodynamics.org "No new physics theory in history has had so much supporting evidence." "Autodynamics is a superset of Special Relativity picking up where Special Relativity leaves off. Among its implications are: the ability to describe important experimental data that Special Relativity cannot (e.g., muon decay, nucleus-nucleus collision, proton-proton annihilation), the theoretical lifting of the light speed barrier (including an outline of an experiment for creating faster-than-light-speed photons), the description of decay events without the neutrino, and a description of a system for gravity based on an elemental quantum particle that also explains the perihelion advance for the orbits of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. Also, calculations for the DI Herculis binary star compared with others: Newton 14 times the measured value, Einstein 3.6 times, Autodynamics 0.61 (new calculations are showing even more improved results)! AD also predicted a particle apparently discovered by the Karmen Consortium." --------------------------------- Tommy Andersson tommy.andersson@mbox2.swipnet.se SWEDEN --------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:45:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA03265; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31FC2236.10E8@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hering experiment-coaxial rig X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: Snip: > I have an experimental angle. Maybe the longitudinal force problem could > be investigated by looking at effects on wires or spring loaded segmented > rods which are the center conductors of a large coaxial cable? The results > could be compared for coaxials of outer conductor inner radius r and much > larger outer conductor inner radius R, and if the results are the same then > perhaps it can be concluded there is an "inner current only" related force > affecting the inner conductor, possibly the micro-pinch phenomenon I > suggested, or something similar. Comments anyone? Horace, I like your coaxial idea! ____________________________________________________________________ | | | CAP SWITCH | |_____| |_____| |______________ TEST SECTION _________________| | | | | | | | | |____________________________________________________________________| In a coaxial setup as shown above, the central conductor is oblivious to the existance of the cylindrical current-return-path. As you implied there will be end thrusts on the "shorting-disks" at the ends of the system, but we know what they are FROM CONVENTIONAL THEORY! If the test section I show above contains some kind of radially stable, but longitudinally LIMP conductor, then, we should be able to detect "extra" end thrust on, say, the right-hand shorting disk. Maybe the disk could be restrained by a strain-gage type thrust transducer - against longitudinal deflection. Wouldn't we just need to compare the measured longitudinal force with that predicted by Biot-Savart type analysis? If the end disk were relatively flexible, perhaps a short-circuited auto battery (~500 > 1000 amp?) and a sensitive mechanical force meter might do the job. Another way might be to come up with some kind of thin liquid-metal slip contact at the right center-conductor to end-disk joint - a-la an earlier Ross T. suggestion. However, I know that conventional rail-gun type forces would try to expell the metal at this location. Maybe such joints would work better in the "test section" region of the illustrated coaxial center conductor. Comments? Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:37:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA03417; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31fc2151.14925947@fhills.starway.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: Business group meets Yuri Potapov X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:02:12 -0700 (PDT), MHUGO@EPRI wrote: [snip] >"quantum generator". What I mean by that is that the high voltage I have >alluded to may have been found by Yuri, and even current/load curve >measurements made. However, I suspect that a 15KV, quasi-static charge >system might present difficulties in: A. Accurate assessment of the power >potential, and B. Actual translation to functional power. Yuri's claims >might be sincere in one respect, but they may also be akin to what the >software industry calls: Vaporware. MDH > > I seem to have missed the original post where this was first mentioned. Could someone send me a copy perhaps? Thanks, Robin From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:45:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA03536; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31fc3cce.137155@fhills.starway.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: Free C program (fusion-fission) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I have just written a small C program, that along with its attendant data file, produces a list of all the possible fission products from any given set of fusion reactions. A set comprises a primary isotope, and a range of secondary isotopes, specified by their mass range e.g. deuterium + all stable isotopes of titanium yields the following: 1H2 + 22Ti46 -> 0n1 + 23V47 + 2.944001 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti46 -> 1H1 + 22Ti47 + 6.652999 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti46 -> 2He4 + 21Sc44 + 4.401999 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti46 -> 21Sc44 + 2He4 + 4.401999 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti47 -> 0n1 + 23V48 + 4.607999 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti47 -> 1H1 + 22Ti48 + 9.403000 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti47 -> 2He4 + 21Sc45 + 6.850000 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti47 -> 21Sc45 + 2He4 + 6.850000 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti48 -> 0n1 + 23V49 + 4.534001 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti48 -> 1H1 + 22Ti49 + 5.917999 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti48 -> 2He4 + 21Sc46 + 3.983000 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti48 -> 21Sc46 + 2He4 + 3.983000 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti49 -> 0n1 + 23V50 + 5.726003 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti49 -> 1H1 + 22Ti50 + 8.715000 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti49 -> 2He4 + 21Sc47 + 6.484003 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti49 -> 21Sc47 + 2He4 + 6.484003 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti50 -> 0n1 + 23V51 + 5.838002 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti50 -> 1H1 + 22Ti51 + 4.147003 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti50 -> 2He4 + 21Sc48 + 3.778002 MeV 1H2 + 22Ti50 -> 21Sc48 + 2He4 + 3.778002 MeV You will notice a few duplicates. You might like to tinker with the code yourself to get rid of these :). Only exothermic reactions are listed. (0n1 is a neutron. To specify neutron input write 0 1). You can download a zip file containing the source of the program, and the input data file from: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa/fusion.zip (17 Kbytes) Example input for the above list would be 1 2 in response to the first request for input from the program, 22 46 50 in response to the second request. It runs under DOS. The first parameter on the command line is the data input file (fulltab.txt), the second parameter is an optional output file. If no second parameter is specified, then output goes to the screen. 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 Mon Jul 29 21:45:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA03655; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31fc2486.15746634@fhills.starway.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: Energy = gravity, UN-SPACE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Francis J. Stenger wrote: [snip] >That could well be, Robin. A photon is an amazing little beast! It >always moves at light speed. I wonder what the universe looks like >to a photon? Does a photon think it's everywhere in the universe at >once? Will all photons please respond! > >Frank Stenger > I don't think you'll get an answer from any photons, they are a bit "light" headed, and not always all too "bright" :) 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 Mon Jul 29 21:40:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA03750; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31fc5aa5.7776536@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) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:19:20 -0700 (PDT), William Beaty wrote: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 11:59:17 -0400 >From: RMCarrell@aol.com >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: (fwd) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge > [snip] >I have the original patents, in which Col. *9* and 10 are given in kWh. The >batteries are banks of 12 V, 6 Ah gel-cells, totalling about 500 V for the >drive packs and 300+ volts for the charge packs. 500 V x 6 Ah = 3000 kWh. 500 V x 6 Ah = 3000 Wh (not kWh); You make the same error. >The *peak* power in the discharges is in the hundreds of kilowatts. The Correa >reactor isn't any birthday-party sparkler. > >And yes, Ross, you should subscribe to Infinite Energy. I am preparting an >article for the next issue on the Correa's reactor which will focus on the >key issue so close to our hearts. > >Mike Carrell > > 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 Mon Jul 29 21:39:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA03881; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:35:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:35:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960729090021_100433.1541_BHG52-1@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: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hal, [homopolar devices] > As I said in another post, good summary of all the combinations > is in paper by Gupta, Amer Jour Phys vol 31, p 428 (1963). I'll have to read this one. I will be very sceptical though, unless he quotes specific experiments of good quality. > See also book by Tom Valone on homopolar generators, available > from him by writing or calling Integrity Research Institute in > Washington DC, 202-452-7674. Tom has done extensive experiments > himself, and an especially interesting one to me was one in which > Tom cemented an LED to rotate with the conducting disk cemented to > the magnet while it was generating voltage as picked up on > external brushes fixed in the lab frame. In the rotating frame of > the disk the LED did not light! As I recall, the device glued on was actually a small battery-powered voltage tester with LED indicator. That *was* useful but the rest of Vallone's stuff was, I thought, less good. > This is what led me to think that it was the magnetic flux cutting > the external fixed lab circuit that was responsible for the > voltage generation. Exactly. I was sort-of waiting for someone to say this. In fact, the disc sees the fixed circuit producing an emf, while the fixed circuit sees the disc producing it. Or I think it does. Also, consider a fully 'flux-enclosed' device: Make a yo-yo shaped device. The axis is a powerful disc magnet, the rest of the yo-yo is iron or ferrite, such that the field passes axially through the axis and returns through the gap between the larger discs of the yo-yo. Place the conducting disc (with a hole for the magnet, of course) between the discs of the yo-yo. It may as well be fixed to the disc, since co-rotation of the disc is not relevant. Some commercial homopolar generators are made this way. The pick-up brushes are at the inner and out rims of the conducting disc, and - sure enough - it works fine. And of course the 'external circuit' is the lead which runs through the gap in the yo-yo! Every combination of the homopolar system appears to satisfy the 'model' that one must have brushes and that both the fixed and moving parts see the other as producing the emf. I think that if Vallone had put his 'spinning meter' in reverse, it would have seen the external circuit producing the emf. The alternative is that acceleration is important. I mention this because although Cullwick *describes* as working a homopolar device where the disc is replaced by a cylinder (with brushes at either end, the field being radial) I built one and it did NOT produce any voltage. Is it any wonder that I get confused by EM? Chris (looking for un-dinted stretch of wall to bang head against) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:41:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA04023; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960729090029_100433.1541_BHG52-3@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: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross, [homopolar devices] I think the question of the various combinations has been answered. > If the power circuit must be fixed, then this requires contacts or > brushes for DC power so doesn't the friction come into play? Yes, brushes are essential. In the case of the (presumably equivalent) homopolar *motor* it is easy to see that the reaction forces are between the brushes and the moving conductor (the disc). As to friction, I think this is a red Hering. In high-current machines, mercury brushes are frequently used. As I say elsewhere, my two 'models' are (1) that the fixed and moving circuits are each seen by the other as the source of emf, and (2) that radial effects are essential - 'acceleration of the electrons' or some such idea. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:41:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA04125; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960729090025_100433.1541_BHG52-2@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: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, [homopolar generators] > Only three reference frames are important, the disk, the magnet, > and the rest of the circuit (the stator). The earth's magnetic > field and all other motion is ignored and could not be expected to > have a measureable effect, especially in the time of Micahel > Faraday. YES! > >3 disk is stationary, magnet rotates. is this a zero voltage > situation? > > Yes. (I deduce.) Yes. (I measured) > The area of interest here is whether current theory predicts the > behavior (i.e. is there an anomaly here to be investigated for > energy creating potential?) or whether the results are simply > non-intuitive. Tewari in India claims energy anomalies, personally I think not. The notorious DePalma free energy machine did fool some people, but it was not anomalous at all. But I consider that the problem may be slightly worse than merely non-intuitive, in that people have big trouble in either believing or predicting the behaviour of the many combinations. I suggest that it is not so much that theory is flawed, as that so simple an electrical machine (the simplest possible one, I suggest) should be the basis for teaching of electrical machines. I did find that Lego made an excellent basis for experiment, and had vaguely dreamed of making a push-together demonstration 'kit' for teaching purposes. My own approach was to take on faith (cum grano salis!) the idea that a homopolar generator is a precise analogue of a homopolar *motor*, and do some of the more difficult experiments with the latter. The idea was always to set it up to produce an on/off result rather than a quantitative one. The end result was that I became totally confused - Chris Morriss will recall that the whole thing became mind-boggling - and I would at some stage love to investigate the whole field as a definitive study of what *actually happens*, disregarding *all* theoretical prediction. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 22:00:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA04281; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960729090032_100433.1541_BHG52-4@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: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, > It is only the simple relative motion of the stator and armature > that produces the voltage and current. I agree with this - I think. > In the Faraday experiment the is always some conductor being cut > by flux as long as there is armature/stator relative motion, it's > just not immediately intuitively clear that the stator becomes the > conductor being cut as the magnet begins to rotate. But I disagree with this - I think. Maybe I'll go and have a little lie-down, my head is starting to hurt again. I suppose I'm happier with wire and bits of string, all this thinkin's bad fo' me. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:52:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA04376; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960729090034_100433.1541_BHG52-5@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: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael, > Did I get it right, or did I fool myself three ways? Well, you sure impressed the hell out of me. I really must go to the U library and find out what Hering measured. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:46:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA04883; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960729101845_100060.173_JHB47-1@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: magnetic water conditioning X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Gentlemen and any ladies who might be trapped in our vortex. I append herewith a message which I have just posted to the Compuserve science forum which deals finally with this subject after the usual sarcastic and typically arrogant flaming which anything different attracts there. Thought you might like to smile. (Message in SCIENCE{1}) #: 255002 S10/Speculative Science (CIS:SCIENCE) 29-Jul-96 10:54:27 Sb: #254853-Magnetic water treatment Fm: Norman Horwood 100060,173 To: Norman Horwood 100060,173 Replies: 0 Further to my last posting on this subject, I have just spoken to the scientist at Cranfield University (tel: +44 1234 750111) by the name of Simon Parsons, who confirms that there is no doubt as to the effectiveness of magnetic "conditioning" of hard water to alter the structure of the lime-scale so that it no longer adheres to the walls of the vessel or pipework. It seems to make no difference whether the magnetism is electro or permanent so long as there is enough of it and the water is moving in the field. It also seems to make no difference whether the magnets are in opposition or attraction across the pipe. There was a conference dealing solely with this subject last May and the procs are to be published as soon as the I.Chem.E get it printed. The cost will be L50. I also understand that Kyoto University (Japan) has been working hard to establish the mechanism involved, and it is thought that they are further ahead than Cranfield (better facilities and equipment!!). So, my clever and sarcastic friends, how about a spot of hat eating and sack-cloth and ashes - wana buy a magnet anyone? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 22:00:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA05173; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Dranetz ?? Re: Chernetskii/EarthTech X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Dear Hal, For the sake of future reference, and to help our understanding, can we have internal operation of the Dranetz? If you let me know their address I will communicate with them and get details. The reason I ask this is to put some guts behind a name. An example is the Bird RF meters ... I often wondered why people prized them and after examining them I understood. Everyone said the Bird was the meter to have ... and it is. Most times. But there are conditions where you could put 2 watts RF into a Bird meter .... but read only 1.5. A gold standard meter for the commercial power industry is grand. Can we define if for the sake of making it a known entity? And: What are all the leads .... and where do they go? And why? J On Sun, 28 Jul 1996 Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > John Schnurer asks about the Dranetz Power Meter: > > Dranetz is the name of a company that makes the gold standard power meter. > Plug in all the leads and it gives current, voltage, power factor, VA > product, vars. Quite expensive to buy (~$20K, I think), but they can be > leased quite reasonably by week or month from electronics leasing companies. > > Hal Puthoff > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:48:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA05351; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Hal, Is it not true many of these types of homopolar generators are capable of producing power at high currents but of low voltage? What are the typical voltages of low to moderate RPM H Polar generators? If the generator power is, say, 0.5 volts, then a common red visible light LED will not light up even if the current is 0.5 amps. This is because a forward voltage threshhold must be satisfied. Did Tom measure any voltages? What type of LED did he use? On Sun, 28 Jul 1996 Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > Ross asks about Faraday disk experiment. As I said in another post, good > summary of all the combinations is in paper by Gupta, Amer Jour Phys vol 31, > p 428 (1963). See also book by Tom Valone on homopolar generators, available > from him by writing or calling Integrity Research Institute in Washington DC, > 202-452-7674. Tom has done extensive experiments himself, and an especially > interesting one to me was one in which Tom cemented an LED to rotate with the > conducting disk cemented to the magnet while it was generating voltage as > picked up on external brushes fixed in the lab frame. In the rotating frame > of the disk the LED did not light! This is what led me to think that it was > the magnetic flux cutting the external fixed lab circuit that was responsible > for the voltage generation. > > Hal Puthoff > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 21:52:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA05632; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31fca7ea.13442434@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) PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 26 Jul 1996 07:58:24 -0700 (PDT), RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: >I stand corrected on my arithmetic about the battery ampere-hours, but the >headings in Table 8 are correct. > [snip] Then how do you explain the fact that according to column 8 in table 8 IE#7 page 38, for experiment 1, the gain in the charge batteries is 269 kWh (i.e. 269000 Wh), while according to columns 2 and 4, the maximum capacity of the charge packs is 1337 Wh for position a, and 1325 Wh for b. It would appear that the gain in energy is 269000/(1325+1337) = 101 times the maximum capacity of the batteries! Needless to say, this could not have been measured by measuring the degree of charge in the batteries. Ergo the table contains some error. Given further that from fig. 2, typical currents at 1000 V are approx. 0.1 Amp, (i.e. 100 Watt) one would expect something along the lines of 100 Wh / hour, rather than 753000 Wh/hr, and 753 Wh/hr would indeed represent a gain of about 846%, given that the input power calculated above was an estimate. I would further point out that 753 kW is 3/4 of a megawatt, and I suspect that for a tube that you hold in your hands to handle that much power, it would probably melt in short order. If the headings are correct, then perhaps decimal points are missing (or misplaced) in the numbers themselves? 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 Mon Jul 29 22:00:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA06283; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31fcc057.19696415@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: Vololdya from St.Pete: Answers X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 27 Jul 1996 09:35:46 -0700 (PDT), dacha@shentel.net wrote: [snip] >I met with one scientist who claims that they reach CF >reaction due to >something like weak interaction (at least, they have >experimental >results). It connects with disappearing of Coulomb ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >barrier. Maybe the ^^^^^^^ You might like to take another look at Charles Cagle's theory. [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 Mon Jul 29 22:01:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA07351; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31fcc146.19935235@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: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge--Errata X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 27 Jul 1996 14:41:17 -0700 (PDT), RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: >I mistakenly asserted that Cols. 8 & 10 of Table 8, p38 IE #7 were in kWh as >shown. The numbers make more sense as Wh. The drive battery capacity is >nominally 3 kWh. > >Mike Carrell > Sorry about my previous post, I'm going through a mail backlog, and didn't get to this until I had already sent it. 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 Mon Jul 29 22:10:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA08593; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: 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: Re: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: The curve ball is a myth, an optical illusion, right? Hank ---------- From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) Date: Saturday, July 27, 1996 6:45PM > >A suction cup is not "attracted" to the surface by the vacuum. It is >compressed against the surface by the high pressure on the outside. An >airfoil is not attracted to the stars by the vacuum over the wing, rather it >is pushed toward the stars from below by the higher pressure air down there. > >Think about it and at least try to eliminate the concept of attraction where >we know it does not exist. Then it will be more pallatable later for you to >eliminate it where it takes a bit more faith. Once you do, you will find >things make a lot more sense. > >Ross Tessien > I would really like to hear your explanation of how a rotating cylinder in a moving air stream generates lift if the Bernouli principle is bogus? Jeff Fink> > > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 22:07:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA08982; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote.... > >100% clear and solid. It makes no difference whatsoever if the magnet is >stationary or rotates with the disc. I did see one paper which showed that >there is zero torque on the magnet when power is taken from the disc. In fact, >it is easier with the magnet fixed to the disc. .... >In the case where the disc >spins separately from the magnet, you have to be very careful to get the two >perfectly concentric - I used an annular ferrite magnet, which made >concentricity fairly easy to achieve. and Hal Puthoff wrote..... > >Tom has done extensive experiments himself, and an especially interesting one to me was one in which Tom cemented an LED to rotate with the conducting disk cemented to the magnet while it was generating voltage as picked up on external brushes fixed in the lab frame. In the rotating frame of the disk the LED did not light!..... These results are readily explained by analyzing the homopolar generator by my first method for the Hering experiment. Attach yourself and your coordinate system to the rotor. This is a rotating coordinate system, but no mind; centrifugal and Coriolis forces on the electrons are negligible compared to the EMF in a typical generator. Now, if the externally applied magnetic field is azimuthally uniform (see Chris above; a nonuniform external field will look like a time varying one in our rotating frame, it will induce "eddy" currents in our disk, and this will give the electrodynamic brake effect), or for any distribution if the magnet is attached to the same rotor, then we on the rotor see NO TEMPORAL VARIATION of B. Thus, dB/dt = 0, and no EMF is generated in the rotor from our vantage point--as cleverly demonstrated by Tom Valone cited by Hal above (I wasn't aware of that experiment). Next, we transform our result to the reference frame of the stator, external circuit and load, using the Galilean transformation (see my post on the Hering problem) E2 = E1 + v1 x B Here E1 is the electric field and v1 is the velocity of the rotor as measured by an observer attached to the external circuit, and E2 is the electric field we saw when attached to the rotor (which was zero). Therefore, in the external system we see E1, a radially directed electric field equal to - v1 x B. This is the usual "formula" result. It does not depend at all on where or how the magnetic field is generated. About torque: Where the shaft "input" torque eventually "outputs" depends on the geometric details of the generator, specifically, how the current leads to the rotor and shaft thread through the magnetic path. As a simple example, if the current lead to the shaft crosses the magnetic field, then a torque will act on that lead. More generally, the leads often cross return flux from the magnet, distributed over a considerable distance from the machine; in this case forces and torque contributions appear on the external conductors. If the leads thread through holes in a ferromagnetic magnetic circuit, then the magnetic field of the currents interacts with that in the magnetic circuit to produce the torque. In this case the detailed calculation is complicated and depends on geometry and material; Mitchell Swartz's favorite method, the Maxwell stress tensor, might have to be used to calculate the local forces. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 22:07:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA09248; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607292022.PAA24361@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: CETI Experimenter Kit X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Latest rumor is that the kit will sell for $5,000...not $20,000. I wonder if they will offer a money-back excess-heat guarantee? Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 22:07:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA09308; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607292025.PAA24629@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: KS beads, run #2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Run #2 on the KS beads (batch #1) has terminated uneventfully. No significant sign (i.e. >0.1 watt) of excess heat was observed. The graph looks a whole lot like the graph of run #1 which is on our web page. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Jul 29 22:08:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA09353; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960729210822_76216.2421_HHB29-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Hal Puthoff wrote: > My favorite interpretation is that under the > cemented-magnet condition, even though there is no > relative motion between the disk and the magnet, > there is relative motion between the rotating > combination and the circuit in which the voltage is > picked off, and that's where the action is. This is the part from Chris Tinsley's posts on the subject that sure gets my attention. Chris stated that in one of his experiments where the brushes were mounted in a way that allowed some movement, they appeared to be under some stress during conduction, while it could be shown that the magnet itself was not receiving any back torque. That would mean that force was appearing between the disk and the external circuit, which coincidently is the interface between the actions occuring in the rotating and stationery reference frames. This sounds to me like a longitudinal force acting on the brushes. Now am I (and perhaps Chris) just wrong, or is this just more counterintuition, or is it 'weird'? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 03:54:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA18696; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 03:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 03:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607300640.XAA11331@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Moller Intern. M400 Skycar (Volantor) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>A suction cup is not "attracted" to the surface by the vacuum. It is >>compressed against the surface by the high pressure on the outside. An >>airfoil is not attracted to the stars by the vacuum over the wing, rather it >>is pushed toward the stars from below by the higher pressure air down there. >> >>Think about it and at least try to eliminate the concept of attraction where >>we know it does not exist. Then it will be more pallatable later for you to >>eliminate it where it takes a bit more faith. Once you do, you will find >>things make a lot more sense. >> >>Ross Tessien >> >I would really like to hear your explanation of how a rotating cylinder >in a >moving air stream generates lift if the Bernouli principle is bogus? > >Jeff Fink> Good Question. I have not worked out an analogy for this one previously so I will do my best on the fly, so to speak. If matter exists as standing waves, then any Doppler shift in incident frequency should induce an interference with that energy. So, the greatest shearing of the air stream is on the side of the rotating cylinder that has the greater relative velocity. That should induce the greater interference and repulsion. If we consider the relative velocities, then I think we get that the vertical relative velocities all cancel out since the air stream is not moving with a vertical component. The horizontal relative velocity must then be broken into four quadrants. Leading half of cylinder and trailing half, and upper and lower halves, which yeilds four quadrants. The air at the surface of the cylinder is not moving relative to the cylinder, so there will be a greater shearing where there is a greater velocity gradient. This occurs on the lower side of the cylinder if that side is rotated into the air stream, ie it has the larger relative velocity and thus produces lift. Thus, there is more friction on the lower side than on the upper side. That gives rise to greater turbulence and that to greater pressure. Thus the pressure on the lower side of the cylinder is greater than on the upper side, ergo lift. How's that???? Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 03:50:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA18744; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 03:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 03:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607300640.XAA11357@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Yes, brushes are essential. In the case of the (presumably equivalent) >homopolar *motor* it is easy to see that the reaction forces are between >the brushes and the moving conductor (the disc). As to friction, I >think this is a red Hering. In high-current machines, mercury brushes >are frequently used. OK, I'll buy the red Hering exp. for high net produced power. But then if this is the case, why is this not out? Does it require some fancy materials or something? > >As I say elsewhere, my two 'models' are (1) that the fixed and moving >circuits are each seen by the other as the source of emf, and (2) that >radial effects are essential - 'acceleration of the electrons' or some >such idea. I can comment on just two things, and have wondered about this device since I read about it quite a while back on my own. First, the rotation of the disk induces a rotational precession of the phased array emissions of any matter in the vicinity. But the rotation of both positive and negative charge should wind up with no rotational precession of the nodal structure of space. However, the magnet has electrons in it which are themselves rotating with a net magnetic field which is summed and observed as a magnetic field. This is just a precession of the nodal structure of space. So, any object in that field will think space is rotating in counter directions for positive vs negative charge (ie 0 or 180 degree phase angles of the matter standing waves). This is a bit like the rotations of objects in a kaleidoscope where every other node is rotating in the opposing direction sort of like counter rotating vortices. With the circuit described in these devices, there is an additional complexity. There is the rotation of the circuit itself through the field. This happens because there is a speed of light time delay for energy that is flowing axially through the disk. That energy should sort of spiral through in a sort of helix, and it should thus actually pass through the loop of the circuit. But it sure seems to me that you should wind up with a torque produced that would require an input of energy to drive the thing and to produce electricity. How do they spin these devices to insure that no torque is applied and that the energy produced is indeed net? Do they drive the thing with a motor that is powered by the energy produced? Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 04:07:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA18835; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 03:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 03:45:41 -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: Chris'/Cullwick's cylinder X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: [snip] >Every combination of the homopolar system appears to satisfy the 'model' >that one must have brushes and that both the fixed and moving parts see >the other as producing the emf. I think that if Vallone had put his >'spinning meter' in reverse, it would have seen the external circuit >producing the emf. The alternative is that acceleration is important. >I mention this because although Cullwick *describes* as working a >homopolar device where the disc is replaced by a cylinder (with brushes >at either end, the field being radial) I built one and it did NOT >produce any voltage. > [snip] >Chris Chris, Could you please describe the non-working cylindrical homopolar device you built in more detail? If it is as appears via first impression, then it should work just fine. There must be something missing in the details. Thanks very much for your tutorial examples. This is wonderful stuff. You are so right about respect for your elders. It is truly amazing that Michael Faraday or Hering could do their experiments with the magnets and instrumentation of their day. Though some others may not trust my personal experimental results on the Hering experiment, *I* know they are correct to the degree of accuracy measured, and that is some of the value of learning by doing, faith in what you know. The trick for me was brute force. The main difficulty I had in getting a clear result (by having a strong enough field) was in putting such strong magnets together without harm, and then getting them back apart! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 03:54:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA18868; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 03:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 03:45:51 -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: Hering experiment-coaxial rig X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Stenger wrote: > >Horace, I like your coaxial idea! > > ____________________________________________________________________ > | | > | CAP SWITCH | > |_____| |_____| |______________ TEST SECTION _________________| > | | | | | | > | | > |____________________________________________________________________| > >In a coaxial setup as shown above, the central conductor is oblivious >to the existance of the cylindrical current-return-path. As you implied >there will be end thrusts on the "shorting-disks" at the ends of the >system, but we know what they are FROM CONVENTIONAL THEORY! If the test >section I show above contains some kind of radially stable, but >longitudinally LIMP conductor, then, we should be able to detect "extra" >end thrust on, say, the right-hand shorting disk. Maybe the disk could >be restrained by a strain-gage type thrust transducer - against >longitudinal deflection. Wouldn't we just need to compare the measured >longitudinal force with that predicted by Biot-Savart type analysis? > >If the end disk were relatively flexible, perhaps a short-circuited >auto battery (~500 > 1000 amp?) and a sensitive mechanical force meter >might do the job. I would think you would want to do all measurements as far from the ends as possible, i.e. in the test section, and make the test section very long in relation to diameter. I don't see any special advantage to putting the caps & switch inside the tube if that is implied above. > >Another way might be to come up with some kind of thin liquid-metal >slip contact at the right center-conductor to end-disk joint - a-la >an earlier Ross T. suggestion. However, I know that conventional >rail-gun type forces would try to expell the metal at this location. >Maybe such joints would work better in the "test section" region of >the illustrated coaxial center conductor. >Comments? > >Frank Stenger This might produce some results, but I was thinking more in terms of the ribboning railgun rails, the exploding wire segmenting observed by Graneau and the spring loaded rod "voltage regulator" effect mentioned by Chris. I had in mind large capacitive discharges, but small may work, especially for the exploding wire stuff. I do think it is important to take into account the lateral force of magnetic pressure and therefore do experiments with more than one outer sheath diameter. It may be possible to do some meaningful work with 4" and 2" copper pipe for outer sheaths, for example, but I was originally thinking much, much larger. I have a 20 uF 7500 V capacitor that might be useful for such a small experiment. I don't have a variac to drive a HV transformer with or a variable voltage DC supply. Maybe I could charge through a large resistor and just stop at the desired voltage though. You could do some 1000 V exploding wire experiments with a few of your capacitors very nicely and easily, I would think. I could do something similar in the higher voltage range and we could compare notes. Just a thought. I just spent a good part of September's budget ordering a custom xenon/hydrogen tube from a neon sign maker about 100 miles away, so I am limited to what I have around, but I have a some HV stuff from my ball lightning experiments. It would be good to have a clear test objective and to know what has gone before. Robert Stirniman gave some very good information earlier about all this. Here are the book references he gave: "Newtonian Electrodynamics; P. Graneau and N. Graneau; World Scientific, 1996. Ampere-Neumann Electrodynamics of Metals; P. Graneau; Hadronic Press, 1994. Newton Vs. Einstein: How Matter Interacts with Matter; P. Graneau and N. Graneau; Carlton Press, 1993. A related book I have not seen yet is: Weber's Electrodynamics; A.K.T. Assis; Kluwer Academic; Dordrecht, 1994." It would be good to get phone numbers or addresses for the above publishers or find out how/where to order. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 06:20:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA08255; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 05:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 05:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960730085605.18c79628@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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:13 AM 7/29/96 -0800, Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > >> Actually, B is the magnetic flux density, and >>H is the magentic field intensity. >> >> B = mu(*) H >> >> where mu is complex and has real and imaginary (loss) terms. > >True, but it has no bearing here. Faraday's law is formulated in terms of >B, not H. The relation between H and B is important, of course, in the >generation of B, but it is easer to solve the question by simply assuming >that B is already given and staying with B throughout. > >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > > it does have a bearing here. three reasons support this. first, it is not done that way. it is the field intensities which are related and from them, the wave equation is derived. E and H. coupled and in this way the wave equation ends with the free space impedance. second, as you yourself state: it is the magnetic flux density which links the Faradays law to ruin Kirchov's voltage "law" (confer: Dielectrics and Waves, von Hippel). That is B, flux density, not the field intensity. third, by separating it out, there is the possibility of H d(mu*)/dt terms which may not normally be considered, as "speed voltage" is almost never considered, or dielectrophoresis, or .... best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 06:18:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA11300; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 06:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 06:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: herman@gemini.desk.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: magnetic water conditioning (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 08:43:19 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: b , John Schnurer Subject: magnetic water conditioning (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:38:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: magnetic water conditioning Gentlemen and any ladies who might be trapped in our vortex. I append herewith a message which I have just posted to the Compuserve science forum which deals finally with this subject after the usual sarcastic and typically arrogant flaming which anything different attracts there. Thought you might like to smile. (Message in SCIENCE{1}) #: 255002 S10/Speculative Science (CIS:SCIENCE) 29-Jul-96 10:54:27 Sb: #254853-Magnetic water treatment Fm: Norman Horwood 100060,173 To: Norman Horwood 100060,173 Replies: 0 Further to my last posting on this subject, I have just spoken to the scientist at Cranfield University (tel: +44 1234 750111) by the name of Simon Parsons, who confirms that there is no doubt as to the effectiveness of magnetic "conditioning" of hard water to alter the structure of the lime-scale so that it no longer adheres to the walls of the vessel or pipework. It seems to make no difference whether the magnetism is electro or permanent so long as there is enough of it and the water is moving in the field. It also seems to make no difference whether the magnets are in opposition or attraction across the pipe. There was a conference dealing solely with this subject last May and the procs are to be published as soon as the I.Chem.E get it printed. The cost will be L50. I also understand that Kyoto University (Japan) has been working hard to establish the mechanism involved, and it is thought that they are further ahead than Cranfield (better facilities and equipment!!). So, my clever and sarcastic friends, how about a spot of hat eating and sack-cloth and ashes - wana buy a magnet anyone? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 07:37:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26682; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 07:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 07:30:03 -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: magnetic water conditioning (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/30/96 06:18 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: magnetic water conditioning (fwd) Part of the "mechanism" of magnetic water conditioning I'm sure will be the effect of the magnetic field on the "Zeta potential" of the fluid. Which influences the tendancy of colloids in suspension to precipitate or stay in suspension. I think a lot of "hardness" in many water systems is not dissolved Ca per see, but rather a colloidal suspension of Ca. My OPINION, not hard fact. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 07:40:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26766; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 07:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 07:30:24 -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: End of Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/29/96 21:37 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: End of Science Interesting.....when I read the Feynman lectures on Physics, particularily the 3rd volume, I though Dick Feynman was pretty up front about some "unknowns". (Like what causes gravitational attraction, what is the nature of charge, magnetic lines of force, etc.) Make me rather suspicious that the author of "The End of Science" is the SHALLOW MINDED person, not the "larger than life" names...Maybe the author of the "End of Science" is a member of the "simplicity movement"? - Last time I checked, bone marrow transplants were made by putting the bone marrow cells into a plasma (blood plasma, not physics plasma) suspension, doing a transfusion to the recipient, and WALLA! Like magic the bone marrow finds its way into the middle of the bones....Hey, Mr. "End of Science" tell us the how and why of that!!!! I think we could start a string here on "fundamental mysteries of science" and keep it going for months. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 08:57:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA13203; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 08:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 08:46:12 -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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>Yes, brushes are essential. In the case of the (presumably equivalent) >>homopolar *motor* it is easy to see that the reaction forces are between >>the brushes and the moving conductor (the disc). As to friction, I >>think this is a red Hering. In high-current machines, mercury brushes >>are frequently used. > >OK, I'll buy the red Hering exp. for high net produced power. But then if >this is the case, why is this not out? Does it require some fancy materials >or something? Somehow you have confused the experiements, maybe due to arriving late in the discussion. The Hering experiment is moving a magnetic ring through a metal clip, the Faraday disk experiment is rotating a disk in a magnetic field with central and outer brushes. The Hering experiment produces zero current, zero power. The Faraday experiment produces power exactly in the amout expected due to the torque/rpm applied to the disk. There is no ou. The discussion was in regard to the existence of anomalies, of which there appear to be none, unless maybe Chris' disk version of the Faraday experiment provides one. > >> >>As I say elsewhere, my two 'models' are (1) that the fixed and moving >>circuits are each seen by the other as the source of emf, and (2) that >>radial effects are essential - 'acceleration of the electrons' or some >>such idea. > >I can comment on just two things, and have wondered about this device since >I read about it quite a while back on my own. First, the rotation of the >disk induces a rotational precession of the phased array emissions of any >matter in the vicinity. But the rotation of both positive and negative >charge should wind up with no rotational precession of the nodal structure >of space. > >However, the magnet has electrons in it which are themselves rotating with a >net magnetic field which is summed and observed as a magnetic field. This >is just a precession of the nodal structure of space. So, any object in >that field will think space is rotating in counter directions for positive >vs negative charge (ie 0 or 180 degree phase angles of the matter standing >waves). This is a bit like the rotations of objects in a kaleidoscope where >every other node is rotating in the opposing direction sort of like counter >rotating vortices. > >With the circuit described in these devices, there is an additional >complexity. There is the rotation of the circuit itself through the field. >This happens because there is a speed of light time delay for energy that is >flowing axially through the disk. That energy should sort of spiral through >in a sort of helix, and it should thus actually pass through the loop of the >circuit. > >But it sure seems to me that you should wind up with a torque produced that >would require an input of energy to drive the thing and to produce electricity. > >How do they spin these devices to insure that no torque is applied and that >the energy produced is indeed net? Do they drive the thing with a motor >that is powered by the energy produced? > >Ross Tessien There is zero net torque on the magnet about its axis of rotation because any force exerted on any particular line of flux in some part of its rotation must be exactly reversed in the course of completing the relative rotation of the field/current loop. Also, there is no net rotational force between a stationary current loop and magnet, other than torque which tends to make the poles rotate, however the disk bearings prevent such relative rotation. In the Faraday experiment the ratational energy must be applied to the disk. The electric current and associated power do not depend on the magnet rotation so it doesn't matter what the magnet does. However, rotation of the magnet can have infulence (exert force) on specific portions of the current loop, e.g. the brushes, which is balanced by forces elsewhere in the current loop. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 09:39:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA21272; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:22:39 -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: End of Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >*** Reply to note of 07/29/96 21:37 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. [snip] >Last time I checked, bone marrow transplants were made by putting the >bone marrow cells into a plasma (blood plasma, not physics plasma) suspension, >doing a transfusion to the recipient, and WALLA! Like magic the bone marrow >finds its way into the middle of the bones....Hey, Mr. "End of Science" tell >us the how and why of that!!!! I think we could start a string here on >"fundamental mysteries of science" and keep it going for months. MDH If it doesn't relate to energy production hopefully such a thread will find its way to another group. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 09:34:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA21353; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote..... >This >sounds to me like a longitudinal force acting on the brushes. Now am I (and >perhaps Chris) just wrong, or is this just more counterintuition, or is it >'weird'? Not longitudinal force, not wierd. Homopolar machines can be understood by systematic application of conventional continuum electrodynamics. The key concept is the transformation of the electric field between moving systems. This is not a trivial concept. Although I "learned" it in school, I didn't really learn it until I had to deal with some aspects of EMF generation in a turbulently moving magnetized plasma, at about age 45 y. Chris Tinsley wrote..... >I suggest that it is not so much that theory is flawed, as that so simple an electrical machine (the simplest possible one, I suggest) should be the basis for teaching of electrical machines.... Chris is right in saying that it is a mistake to dwell on homopolar machines in introductory classes, even if historically they were the first generators. The AC alternator is far easier to understand. >My own approach was to take on faith (cum grano salis!) the idea that a homopolar generator is a precise analogue of a homopolar *motor*, and do some of the more difficult experiments with the latter.... Should be true; when dissipation (friction, resistance, hysteresis) is vanishingly small, generators and motors are electrodynamically equal. >I mention this because although Cullwick *describes* as working a homopolar device where the disc is replaced by a cylinder (with brushes at either end, the field being radial) I built one and it did NOT produce any voltage.... It ought to work, so long as there is nonzero net magnetic flux radially through the cylinder. Ross Tessien writes... >OK, I'll buy the red Hering exp. for high net produced power. But then if this is the case, why is this not out? Does it require some fancy materials or something?..... (Actually, this is in response to Tinsley on homopolar generators, not the Hering experiment.) Homopolar generators and motors have niche applications. Usually the brush problem is the bottle neck. The brushes have to maintain good contact at large currents on a very rapidly moving outer periphery of a disk with low friction while experiencing large forces. I designed a homopolar generator-motor once, for use as a variable speed coupling between a motor and a load. We used liquid mercury for both inner and outer brushes. We built a prototype, but we never solved the Hg leakage problem. On top of everything else, the large current in the Hg makes a force (J X B) and adds complexity to the liquid current collector design problem. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 11:24:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA15129; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607301623.JAA00248@shell.skylink.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Robert Stirniman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: End of Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > The book is titled 'The End of Science'. And the review article is > titled: 'The Job Is Finished'. The book's subtitle is:'Facing the > Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age'. Yes. I happened upon this book review, lieing on the counter, at the post office, and read it while in a long line. Lying in this case is spelled lieing. Don't get me started about who it might be that comes up with this crap, and why. I'm mad enough already. Modified title of the first chapter -- 1. End of Progress. My Ass. > Well, well, well! Any thoughts after reading the book, vortexians? That > is, if you feel like reading the book. If you feel like wasting money on trash, its easy to find much better porno than this. > Oh! the 'larger than life names? Some are: > Lynn Margolis, Roger Penrose, Francis Click, Richard Dawkins, Freeman > Dyson, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephan Jay Gould, Stepheb Hawking, Thomas > Kuhn, Chris Langdon, Karl Popper, Stevin Weinberg, E.O. Wilson, Fred > Hoyle, Noam Chomsky, Jo0hn Wheeler, Clifford Geetz, Francis Fukuyama, > Philip Anderson, David Bohm, Richard Feynman, Michael Feigenbaum, and > so on and on. Not a single one of these people ever for a minute believed in the end of progress. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 11:23:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA15659; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607301639.JAA05001@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: End of Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:29 PM 7/29/96 -0700, you wrote: > >The June 30, 1996 Sunday Book Review section of the New York Times has >a review of a new book reviewed by Natalie Angier. The book warranted a >front cover drawing of the review section. Ms. Angier is a science >reporter for the New York Times. > >The book is titled 'The End of Science'. And the review article is >titled: 'The Job Is Finished'. The book's subtitle is:'Facing the >Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age'. > >According to the reviewer, the author "insists, is that scientists are >beginning to sense that "the great era of scientific discovery is >over." The big truths, the primodial truths, the pure truths about "the >universe and our place in it" have already been mapped out." Also that >"Further research may yield no more great revelations or revolutions, >but only incremental, diminishing returns." > >The author is John Hogan, senior writer at Scientific American. > >Well, well, well! Any thoughts after reading the book, vortexians? That waste of time except insofar as Hogan may document the exhaustion of existing paradigms ask Hogan if science is so smart why is humanity so impossibly ignorant? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 11:22:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA16251; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607301642.JAA05254@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: End of Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:30 AM 7/30/96 -0700, you wrote: >*** Reply to note of 07/29/96 21:37 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: End of Science >Interesting.....when I read the Feynman lectures on Physics, particularily >the 3rd volume, I though Dick Feynman was pretty up front about some >"unknowns". (Like what causes gravitational attraction, what is the nature >of charge, magnetic lines of force, etc.) Make me rather suspicious that >the author of "The End of Science" is the SHALLOW MINDED person, not the >"larger than life" names...Maybe the author of the "End of Science" is >a member of the "simplicity movement"? >- >Last time I checked, bone marrow transplants were made by putting the >bone marrow cells into a plasma (blood plasma, not physics plasma) suspension, >doing a transfusion to the recipient, and WALLA! Like magic the bone marrow >finds its way into the middle of the bones....Hey, Mr. "End of Science" tell >us the how and why of that!!!! I think we could start a string here on >"fundamental mysteries of science" and keep it going for months. MDH > > absolutely. it should be conceived as a growing web document right from the getgo the author should be: collective human consciousness ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 11:29:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA16665; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:17:05 -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: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 13:18:53 GMT From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") On Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:28:04 -0700 (PDT), Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >Return-Path: pstowe@ix.netcom.com >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 07:07:23 -0800 >From: pstowe@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe) >Subject: Re: biefeld-brown-effect >To: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) [snip] >I have personally created and observed these effects. The magnitude of >thrust is dependent on two things, 1) the voltage (Best results are >achieved above 100KV) and (for dielectric fluid movers) the sustained >power input. > >If you want more particulars let me know what by specific questions. > >Paul Stowe I have a vague suspicion, that what's really important is that the voltage be a reasonable fraction of 511 kV. (Electron mass is 511 keV). 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 Tue Jul 30 11:24:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA16824; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:17:49 -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: Longitudinal force investigation methods (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 09:16:37 -0800 From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Longitudinal force investigation methods The longitudinal force problem could possibly be investigated by looking at effects on wires or spring loaded segmented rods which are the center conductors of a large coaxial cable. The results could be compared for coaxials of outer conductor radius r and much larger outer conductor radius R. It is assumed the other lateral dimensions are fixed and small in comparison to r and R. If the results are the same then perhaps it can be concluded there is an "inner current only" related force affecting the inner conductor in a longitudinal manner. This technique has the principle advantage that ordinary methods of pulse production can be used because a full circuit is provided. Typical capacitor bank methods can be used to achieve very large current pulses. The coax conductive sheath could be made of many closely spaced conductors with small slits for photography and other methods of obervation. An outer conductive sheath could be pre-constructed and hard mounted for the R tests, with room to bolt in an inner sheath for the smaller radius r tests. Access doors or panels provided and an insulating support put in place to hold the subject inner conductor. Some longitudinal component force should be detected due to compression on the metal lattice of the inner conductor due to lateral repulsion of the opposite going currents on the outer sheath. By using a coaxial configuration for the experiment, such expected force would be symmetrical and thus manifest longitudinally in a strictly expansive (elongating) manner. Such lateral force should be roughly proportional to the distance between the inner and outer conductors. If an observed effect occurs and it is due to the relaionship between currents in the inner conductor and the sheath, then the effect should vary by r/R. If no such variation occurs for some specific effect, then the effect must be due only to events in the inner conductor. Was this method applied in the case of Graneau or other experiments? Is there any reason this method should not work? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 11:28:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA17002; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607301648.JAA00279@shell.skylink.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Robert Stirniman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Dranetz ?? Re: Chernetskii/EarthTech X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > For the sake of future reference, and to help our understanding, > can we have internal operation of the Dranetz? If you let me know their > address I will communicate with them and get details. I did a market survey regarding Dranetz about four years ago when they were being acquired. They are by far the largest and best producer of power monitoring instruments. The main application is power line disturbance monitoring -- most of their users are much more concerned about power problems than power usage. These are expensive instruments. Mush of their market is rentals. Sorry I don't have their address handy. Maybe somewhere in Ohio. They are listed in any good electronic industry directory, or power conditioning industry directory. Also ISA product directory. > And: What are all the leads .... and where do they go? And why? Indeed. In a survey of users of Dranetz equipment, many more than a few say things like -- you make it read anything you want depending on how you hook it up. Espeically it matters how you connect the grounds, and which "ground" you connect to. In my opinion, the best and relatively cheapest means of measuring "real" power is an analog multiplier circuit -- Analog Devices, Burr Brown, etc -- $20 to 30 -- plus other components, and voltage and current transducers. Bandwith of about 100 Khz. Will get you harmonics, and real (average) power. Will not capture transient power pulses well. Nor I think will Dranetz. Dranetz is great for detecting them, and correlating them with other problems, in computers, medical instruments, etc -- but not so great at "measuring" them. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 14:36:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA28914; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607301851.NAA29367@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: End of Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 21:29 7/29/96 -0700, Akira wrote: >According to the reviewer, the author "insists, is that scientists are >beginning to sense that "the great era of scientific discovery is >over." The author must not have read Feynman's epilogue to his three volume "Lectures On Physics" in which he says in conclusion to the reader: "....you may want to join in the greatest adventure that the human mind has ever begun". Doesn't much sound like Feynman thinks we're done, does it? Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 14:33:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA29143; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: 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: longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Why are the longitudinal force experiments being proposed all high frequency short pulse experiments? Can they not be done at DC or 60Hz AC? Could you not put a strain gauge on the cables of an arc welder, or maybe on an AC transmission line of long span, such as along side a highway or over a river? Hank ---------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 14:36:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA29239; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31FE75CB.230D@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Longitudinal force investigation methods (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > From: Horace Heffner > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Longitudinal force investigation methods > (Horace discussed the coaxial conductor system for longitudinal force experiments) > there any reason this method should not work? As I said before, Horace, I think the coaxial rig is a great idea. Keep in mind that the center conductor does not "feel" the outer return current in any way, except for the mechanical end-thrust of the closure disks at the conductor ends. The field inside the outer conductor is ENTIRELY due to the center conductor! The radius of the outer conductor has no electromagnetic effect on the inner conductor - no matter what that radius is! Increasing the outer radius does two things: 1. It increases the volume of the magnetic field, and so increases the inductance of the coax line (no special interest for these tests) 2. It increases the size of the end closure disks and, thus, the outward force on the disks (more magnetic field area pushing out on the disks). The point is, the center region of the center conductor is a great place for longitudinal force tests. You just need to provide for the fact that the outer (longitudinal) thrust force acts on the end disks. The CONVENTIONAL size of this force is known by integrating the magnetic pressure over the area of the end disk. If you set up a test to be independent of this end-disk-thrust thing, then varying the outer conductor radius should have no effect! I guess I don't see why it would effect the looked-for longitudinal force either - so I don't see it as a good test parameter. I think if you could put a symmetrical slip joint in the inner conductor and compare the actual end thrust with the expected CONVENTIONAL one, then you might have a good test. It's still going to be difficult to make sure that slip joints or spring sections that vary the conduction radius of the inner conductor don't cause normal pinch forces with longitudinal components to mess up the results. I do not have a good detailed design in mind because of the just-mentioned problems, but, in my previous post, I did not mean to say the capacitors and/or switch had to be inside the outer conductor! I showed them that way for schematic reasons only. One thing that intrigues me about this longitudinal-force question is: why is it so damned hard to come up with a simple test to show if it's there? Still-thinking-coax-is-a-good-way-to-go, Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 16:38:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA26139; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 16:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 16:32:41 -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: Volodya:Questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I received email about the comment on disappearing of Coulomb barrier. Robin says about Charles Cagle's theory? Do you know what is that theory? A fellow scientist said me that they think CF reaction is possible because of the following scheme: 1. De -> Pr + Ne 2. Ne + De -> some nuclear ( we call it as Protium) 3. Ne (inside Protium) -> Pr + e i.e. Protium -> Tritium + e. The reaction Ne <--> Pr + e supposes disappearing of Coulomb barrier. Does any of the vortex group assume the existence of the longitudinal EM force? ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 7/30/96 Time: 5:18:31 PM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 16:51:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA26258; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 16:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 16:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960730181126.2a9f0bfc@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: End of Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:31 AM 7/30/96 -0700, you wrote: >*** Reply to note of 07/29/96 21:37 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: End of Science >Interesting.....when I read the Feynman lectures on Physics, particularily >the 3rd volume, I though Dick Feynman was pretty up front about some >"unknowns". (Like what causes gravitational attraction, what is the nature >of charge, magnetic lines of force, etc.) Make me rather suspicious that >the author of "The End of Science" is the SHALLOW MINDED person, not the >"larger than life" names...Maybe the author of the "End of Science" is >a member of the "simplicity movement"? >- >Last time I checked, bone marrow transplants were made by putting the >bone marrow cells into a plasma (blood plasma, not physics plasma) suspension, >doing a transfusion to the recipient, and WALLA! Like magic the bone marrow >finds its way into the middle of the bones... Mark, As the Vorlon said, "they were there all along." ;-)X >.Hey, Mr. "End of Science" tell >us the how and why of that!!!! I think we could start a string here on >"fundamental mysteries of science" and keep it going for months. MDH > > io, callisto, portable fusion packs, floating cities, 20 gigabyte wristwatch ram coherent matter, nanomaterials, internet video browsers, microCDromWriters, rotating energy storage devices, external permanent organs, coupled mind switches, personal coanda vechiles, cryopreservation without cell rupture, cold fusion, .......... Mitchell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 16:40:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA26572; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 16:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 16:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960730223409_100433.1541_BHG76-1@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: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I accidentally sent this to Henry instead ofd Vortex. It's been a long day. ---------------------- Hank, > Why are the longitudinal force experiments being proposed all high > frequency short pulse experiments? Because it takes kA to snap a thin wire, unless somebody can think of a very high-conductivity material with very low tensile strength. Chris PS I have a bit of a backlog here and elsewhere, I will answer it as soon as I have a bit of free time. But tomorrow is my day off... PPS I think that the coaxial longitudinal force tester is BRILLIANT. If anybody can see a catch, please tell us all SOON. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 16:49:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA27048; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 16:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 16:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Henry Scudder wrote..... >Why are the longitudinal force experiments being proposed all high >frequency short pulse experiments? Can they not be done at DC or >60Hz AC? Could you not put a strain gauge on the cables.... Strain gauges would be nice. They DO have to be used with care. The usual strain gauge systems do not respond well to high frequency, so the test should be done at DC. The usual strain gauges pick up AC magnetic fields and electrical noise, so again, DC would be better. The usual strain gauges have residual response to temperature changes and even to DC magnetic fields--They have to be used with CARE and UNDERSTANDING. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 17:48:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA11388; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 17:41:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 17:41:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960730194234_445761265@emout07.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: pumps X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Lanl L does not have the high head high temperature pump needed to test the Yusmar. Znidarsic's group has one and has offered to send it to LanL. Scott Little has some testing equipment that may also be of use. So far Lanl has not responded to the offer. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 18:36:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA22331; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 18:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 18:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607310105.LAA24049@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: End of Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark Hugo writes: > Subject: End of Science > Interesting.....when I read the Feynman lectures on Physics, particularily > the 3rd volume, I though Dick Feynman was pretty up front about some > "unknowns". (Like what causes gravitational attraction, what is the nature > of charge, magnetic lines of force, etc.) Make me rather suspicious that > the author of "The End of Science" is the SHALLOW MINDED person, not the > "larger than life" names...Maybe the author of the "End of Science" is > a member of the "simplicity movement"? > - More likely he's out for a fast buck. There's always a market for a "The sky is falling" type book. > Last time I checked, bone marrow transplants were made by putting the > bone marrow cells into a plasma (blood plasma, not physics plasma) suspension, > doing a transfusion to the recipient, and WALLA! Like magic the bone marrow > finds its way into the middle of the bones....Hey, Mr. "End of Science" tell > us the how and why of that!!!! I think we could start a string here on > "fundamental mysteries of science" and keep it going for months. MDH > I can list some REALLY interesting questions that have just to do with Particle Physics. 1. Do protons decay? 2. Why are there 3 generation of quarks and leptons? 3. Is there a further level of substructure smaller than quarks? 4. Do neutrinos change from one species to another? 5. Why do the strong, the weak and the electromagnetic forces have the strengths they have? 6. What is it about leptons and quarks that make them behave differently? 7. Is there really a Higgs field? 8. What causes the matter - antimatter asymmetry in the Universe? 9. Is it possible to do exact Quantum Field Theory calculations without employing Perturbation theory? 10. What does the Quantum Wavefunction of a particle really represent? 11. How does Quantum Mechanical coherence really work? 12. Why do particles have the masses they do? 13. Why do quarks mix in the way they do? plus lots more I can't think of right at this moment. I'm sure the answers to these questions will raise further deep questions. To say we're "at the end of science" is much like that director of the US patent officie stating that they might as well close it down coz "all the inventions have been made" already. I can't help but inject a bit of metaphysics in too. Einstein was quoted as saying he wanted to find out "if God had any choice in creating the Universe"? I think the answer to that is that he had no choice if his Universe required intelligent carbon-based lifeforms. The degree of fine tuning of the 3 subatomic forces neccessary to create life is incredible. Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 19:35:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA02624; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607310217.TAA28055@li.oro.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I have a vague suspicion, that what's really important is that the >voltage be a reasonable fraction of 511 kV. (Electron mass is 511 >keV). >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Interesting point. But I fail to see any reason that e- / p+ interactions would induce the effect. Why would the effect move in the same direction with either polarity? Could be ions moving through the air. And you should as you point out be getting some p+ ions at these voltages I would assume. HMMMM??? One thing I did note about this contraption was that the pyramidal geometry is not unlike a water molecule. When I noted that, it seemed to me reasonable that water molecules are like little submarines, powered by the QVF. When you think about it, they have to be since the QVF are the only energy source with which they are in contact. OK, here is an ou bone. Taking the above little H2O submarines to heart, one then wonders if it might be possible to interfere coherently with the QVF. this of course is the entire gambit of all ou devices. There is a little guy called a Rotifer. A little micro-organism. It has a helical tail (sound like DNA and other stuff?). But here is the catch. It's tail does not wag back and forth. It rotates. No shit. So, how did that guy build himself a rotor and stator? I say he didn't and the designs I put together for constructing some anti grav and other ou devices I think stand a chance at tapping into this. I think he deflected the coherent structure of space and the QVF in a coherent manner. Thus, he is forced to motor taking a ride on the QVF like an eagle on the breeze. So, where are those guys that had the wafer fab capabilities? I lost the address, but I can send an NDA now as this has been approved to move to the next stage with these devices. Heck, my partner even thinks I'm looney on this one so he doesn't care. Personally, I think this is the more valuable technology. Can't wait for "Chain Reaction" to learn what to watch out for! Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 20:22:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA14214; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 20:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 20:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607310306.UAA06201@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: Hutchinson Video X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Unable to find a decent quality video. The best I can source looks like it is about a tenth generation tape. Sorry I can't help. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 21:27:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA25384; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 21:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 21:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9607310402.AA09885@fourier.math.ucla.edu> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Barry Merriman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: My CETI Experiment is on the Web X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Fellow Vorticians: I have put a detailed report of my attempt to replicate the CETI experiment on my web page. As noted before, I have not yet observed excess heat. However, this report is still notable as the most complete description of a CETI experiment ever published. Check it out at: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/CF/reportcover.html Or, go via the debut of my homepage, http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry Comments and criticism are welcome. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 21:43:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA29665; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 21:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 21:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31FEDF4E.70B1@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > Because it takes kA to snap a thin wire, unless somebody can think of a > very high-conductivity material with very low tensile strength. A few thoughts Chris: 1. I think the general idea of a coaxial rig rules! 2. I would also like to see a "slow" DC current profile, maybe hundreds of amps from a car battery for 20 or 30 seconds. I would also like some kind of steady-state force indication - perhaps a sensitive spring scale or some such. 3. I think you would need to keep the geometry of the inner conductor as constant as possible. THE MINUTE YOU LET THE CONDUCTOR BREAK AND/OR NECK DOWN, ALL BETS ARE OFF! There are just too many pinch or vapor explosion forces to deal with if this happens! I'm new to this anomally, but shouldn't the questioned longitudinal forces be comparable to the other magnetic pressure forces near (or at) the conductor? Would not the forces tend to be proportional to current as are conventional forces? I yak a lot about this test setup, but, I have yet to come up with a fool-proof configuration - just a general warm, coaxial feeling! (Working on the house cuts in on brainstorm time! Horace, have you fixed your leaky roof yet?) Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 22:06:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00873; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 21:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 21:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607310433.VAA29669@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Jurich" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hering experiment-coaxial rig X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace states: > It would be good to have a clear test objective and to know what has gone > before. Robert Stirniman gave some very good information earlier about all > this. Here are the book references he gave: > > "Newtonian Electrodynamics; P. Graneau and N. Graneau; World > Scientific, 1996. > > Ampere-Neumann Electrodynamics of Metals; P. Graneau; Hadronic Press, > 1994. > > Newton Vs. Einstein: How Matter Interacts with Matter; P. Graneau and > N. Graneau; Carlton Press, 1993. > > A related book I have not seen yet is: > > Weber's Electrodynamics; A.K.T. Assis; Kluwer Academic; Dordrecht, > 1994." > > It would be good to get phone numbers or addresses for the above publishers > or find out how/where to order. Here's a start (sorry, don't have any of these myself) ... World Scientific: http://www.singnet.com.sg/~wspclib http://www.singnet.com.sg/~wspclib/Books/physics/2770.html Newtonian Electrodynamics, P. Graneau and N. Graneau Number of pages: 304pp Published: Feb 1996 Hardcover: ISBN 981-02-2284-X US $58/L(pounds)41 Softcover: ISBN 981-02-2681-0 US $36/L(pounds)25 Ordering (USA): World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc. 1060 Main Street, River Edge NJ 07661, USA Fax: 1-201-487-9656 Tel: 1-201-487-9655 Toll-free: 1-800-227-7562 E-mail: wspub@haven.ios.com Hadronic Press: HADRONIC PRESS, INC. 35246 US 19 North # 115, Palm Harbor, FL 34684, U.S.A. Tel. 1-813-934 9593; Fax 1-813-934 9275; E-address ibrrms@pinet.aip.org BOOKS IN ADVANCED PHYSICS ------------------------- Ampere-Neumann Electrodynamics of Metals P. GRANEAU (M.I.T., Cambridge, USA) Second Edition, 1993, ISBN 0-911767-75-4, 330 pages $ 80 (first edition was 1985) Carlton Press: Carlton Press (Sheffield) Ltd, The Hallam Works Herries Road Sheffield S61QY Tel. 0114 233 8241 Fax 0114 233 4007 Newton Vs. Einstein: How Matter Interacts with Matter P. Graneau and N. Graneau, 1993 Ordering: ???? Kluwer Academic: http://www.wkap.nl gopher://gopher.wkap.nl:70/00gopher_root1%3A%5Bbook.phys.5100%5D5140124.txt Weber's Electrodynamics, A.K.T. Assis (FUNDAMENTAL THEORIES OF PHYSICS, Volume 66) Number of Pages: 288pp Published: Sept 1994 (Dordrecht) Hardbound: ISBN 0-7923-3137-0 Pricing: NLG: 195.00 USD: 125.00 GBP: 82.00 Mexico, USA, Canada and Latin America Ordering: Kluwer Academic Publishers Order Department P.O. Box 358 Accord Station Hingham, MA 02018-0358 U.S.A. Tel : 617 871 6600 Fax : 617 871 6528 Email : kluwer@wkap.com See the Internet locations for more info ... Cheers, Mark Jurich, IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, CA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 22:11:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA05369; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 22:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 22:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9607310505.AA10152@fourier.math.ucla.edu> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Barry Merriman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Merriman-Mallove CF bet X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: For those interested in the Merriman-Mallove cold fusion bet, the document and related info are on my web site at: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/CF/mmbet.html I think its clear that technically I won, though Mallove feels we both won, or perhaps just him. Actually, I would say if anything that we both *lost*---he lost the bet, and I lost a large chunk of money and time trying to replicate the CETI experiment :-(. In case there is any remaining ambiguity over who won, I suggest Dr. Mallove and I settle the issue via a Battle Royale fight to the death. Before you place your bets, check out the contenders: Me: Dr. Barry ``The Stagnant Sheep'' Merriman http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/weights/ VS. Him: Dr. Gene ``The Ignorant Crank'' Mallove http://www.planetarymysteries.com/mallove.html This should settle the CF issue once and for all :-) Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 23:59:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA24263; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 23:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 23:55:21 -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: Longitudinal force logic X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I have a some statements to propose for examination. I have suggested using a coaxial design to test various observed effects for being related to a proposed longitudinal force. The objective was to have a method to rule out the return loop as being involved in the observed effects, as well as overcome severe limitations on achievable currents due to no possibility of using a return circuit. Robert Stirniman writes: "The reality of a longitudinal EM force comes down to the question of who's law best describes the force between current elements -- Ampere's Law or Grassman's Law. The two laws are similar, in fact identical if the force of individual current elements are integrated around a complete current loop. But in the interim, the two give radically different results. In Ampere's law there is a longitudinal component of force between current elements, as well as transverse force. This results in a net stress in a current loop, which does not show up from of Grassman's Law, or Biot-Savart, or the Lorentz force law. Ampere's Law complies with Newton's third law, having an equal and opposite force between two current elements. Grassman's Law is derived in the same fashion as the Biot-Savart Law, and the Lorentz Force. According to Grassman, all forces on a current element are transverse to the direction of current flow. In the general case, for individual current elements, Grassman's Law does not comply with Newton's third law. But Grassman's law does comply with Newton's third law, when the force is summed over complete current loops." Now the statements for examination: Every anomaly suggested for investigation involves large currents. Large currents are not feasible without return paths, even if that path consists of a voltage induced on the ground by large single terminal spherical capacitors, i.e. the return path may include capacitive elements. Capacitive elements should not affect the ability to predict performance. For this reason, there should be no two conflicting laws involved because complete current loops were involved in the original experiments demonstrating the anomalies. Therefore, there is no means of comparing propositions (laws) and there can be no "longitudinal force" involved in the anomalies suggested for investigation as there could have been no means of generating it in the original experiments. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 00:33:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA29852; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:30:01 -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: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > >(Working on the house cuts in on brainstorm time! Horace, have you >fixed your leaky roof yet?) > >Frank Stenger Some good thoughts Frank. My mail server has been down, and it appears I have missed some posts from the quotes in above message. I'm going bannanas thinking about three experiments at once and relatives coming to visit next week. Snow is about 8 weeks off. Yikes. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 02:44:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA15211; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 02:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 02:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960731093244_100433.1541_BHG83-1@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: Re: End of Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Whilst I very much favour the writing of silly books, there are limits! This one of course not merely says that science has got it all right now, but also that it always had. One of its theses is that the notion that C19th science thought all was resolved is false, so in fact the scientists of the day were right, they *understood* that they had it wrong. Jed forwarded to me a letter to the NY Times, which quotes from Nobel prizewinning physicist Albert Abraham Michelson's address at the dedication ceremony for the Ryerson Physical Laboratory at the University of Chicago in 1894: "The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.... Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals." If Horgan is right, then we do have certain obligations. One is to fire all the scientists, and the other is to stop buying Sci Am.... Has anbody asked Horgan's view on the latter suggestion? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 05:00:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA28993; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 04:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 04:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960731074957_249508980@emout14.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: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I now have some oscillograms from Correa taken with sohisticated computerized instrumentation which measured instantaneous current and voltage at the drive and charge packs with better than millisecond resolution. The instrumentation also calculates instantaneous power. The current surge reaches about 65 amperes, which will charge the 3500 mfd shunt capacitors almost instantly, so these contribute little filtering. I have data from three different operating conditions, and they differ in energy yield and pulse repetition rate, but they all show dramatic o/u performance. In one instance the power pulse from the drive pack is about 200 watts for about 25 ms while the power pulse into the charge pack reaches a peak of over 20 kilowatts, falling to around 3 kW in 25 ms. The measurements in Table 8 are based on DC measurements of the discharge of calibrated batteries, and are thus insensitive to questions of waveforms, power factors, or the characteristics of RMS multimeters. It is only in Fig. 20 of the '989 patent that RMS measurements are of importance, and that figure is only for illustrative purposes. The case for o/u performance does not depend on it. The patents represent a snapshot circa 1992. Since then the Correas have refined their instrumentation and reactors, so the oscillograms in hand represent later work than the patents. All the data point clearly to o/u performance. The work of the Correas has been a path of discovery, from the awareness of an unusual phenomenon, through a gradual increase in funding and the sophistication of measurement. While the use of calibrated batteries to measure input and output energy has its problems, they dealt with those problems thoroughly. It takes sophisticated instrumentation to accurately capture the essential information, and that was not available to them when the patent work was done. They were able to see the pulses on a wideband oscilloscope, but not to perform quantitative measurements. If the thrust of this note seems at variance with my earlier postings, it is that I am getting a better understanding and more data. I expect to present a fairly coherent story in the article. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 05:24:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA02689; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 05:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 05:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607311217.WAA00928@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrell wrote: > [Lotsa good stuff snipped] > > If the thrust of this note seems at variance with my earlier postings, it is > that I am getting a better understanding and more data. I expect to present a > fairly coherent story in the article. > This is getting quite interesting. Is there any chance of a site visit and demonstrating self sustaining behaviour? Either via continual battery swapping or with Mark Hugo's Dc-Dc converter scheme? Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 08:17:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA03619; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 08:07:25 -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: Graneau book order info X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The Graneau books may be ordered from: World Scientific Pub. Co. 1-800-227-7562 fax: 1-201-7562 email: wspc@wspc.com http://www.singnet.com.sg/~wspclib The best one for mathematical detail is: Newtonian Electrodynamics $26 isbn: 981-02-2681 (paper back) Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 10:00:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA23379; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960731155910_72240.1256_EHB158-1@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: We won the bet in 1994 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex The Mallove - Merriman bet is a tempest in a teapot. I was hoping it would not come up in this forum, but since it has, I would like to say a few words about it. Alan M Dunsmuir discussed it in the CompuServe SCIENCE forum. I responded as follows, quoting the terms of the bet. We won that bet a long time ago. We won it in August 1994, when EPRI published TR-104195, their final report on project 3170-01. No skeptic will ever dare to challenge that data or the conclusion stated so unequivocally: "This work confirms the claims of Fleischmann, Pons and Hawkins of the production of excess heat in deuterium-loaded palladium cathodes at levels too large for chemical transformation." And: ". . . small but definite evidence of nuclear reactions have been detected at levels some 40 orders of magnitude greater than predicted by conventional nuclear theory." We won the bet by 40 orders of magnitude. We won the bet big time last year when MITI quadrupled government support for cold fusion last year. CF certainly is "widely accepted as existing" and "energy producing" in Japan! I think when the big-name labs like KEK published positive papers, the last serious opposition died. Morrison once wrote that KEK would be the acid test of CF. That is why he never mentions Japan any more. CF is doing well in Italy too, and of course your [Dunsmuir's] company, Shell Oil, has repeatedly published strong positive experiments. That is gratifying. Economic viability is not proven in the field, I will grant. Obviously, CF is potentially many orders of magnitude cheaper than oil, but it is still in the R&D stage unfortunately. Unless, that is, we assume the Griggs gadget is CF. (I have no idea if it is or not.) If we include that thing then there is no denying the economic viability, even at 170% excess. After all, Griggs has sold units to hard-nosed customers like Georgia Power who report the thing is definitely over-unity, and he is installing gigantic 6-foot rotors in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) which are expected to save millions of dollars per year. So that wraps up the economics . . . Incidentally, yesterday Griggs called me from a power company test facility in Virginia where he is testing the 6-foot TVA rotors with a 1200 horsepower electric motor. I have some interesting mixed news about Joe Champion and his material, which I hope I will have time to post here today or tomorrow. Busy busy busy! - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 09:53:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA24230; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:35:15 -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: pumps X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 07/30/96 17:48 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: pumps WHAAAAAATTTTTTT!!!!!!! All the G--D-mn $$$$$$$$$$ we put out tax wise to those turkeys, and they can't produce an "off the shelf" item like that? What gives....?????? Tell 'em to take apart a bomb, and sell the Plutonium to a needy power company... MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 12:13:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00336; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrel wrote..... >I now have some oscillograms from Correa taken with sohisticated computerized >instrumentation which measured instantaneous current and voltage at the drive >and charge packs with better than millisecond resolution. The instrumentation >also calculates instantaneous power. The current surge reaches about 65 >amperes, which will charge the 3500 mfd shunt capacitors almost instantly... 65 A into 3500 uF (micro farad, I presume, not mili farad) will charge it 300 V in 16 ms. This is short, but not "almost instantly" in view of 25 ms below. >In one instance the power pulse from the drive pack is about 200 watts for >about 25 ms while the power pulse into the charge pack reaches a peak of over >20 kilowatts, falling to around 3 kW in 25 ms. Let's see. The drive battery pack is about 500 V. This stores energy of (1/2) CV^2 or about 440 joule. If the capacitor were to briefly discharge to half voltage during a pulse, it would deliver 75% of this to the load, or about 330 joule. The output pulse of "20 KW, falling...in 25 ms" might be approximated by a triangle waveform in time (?); if so, then the energy in the output pulse is Pt/2 = 20,000 x .025/2 = 250 joule. Therefore, it is not foregone conclusion that the output energy could not have come from the drive pack capacitor. Tell us where the measurements were made--input voltage and current plus output voltage and current---4 channels simultaneously. If 200 W were flowing approximately steadily into the reactor tube (ie. no input power pulse from the drive pack and associated capacitor), then I agree with Martin that "This is getting quite interesting." In this case, I too would be interested in a site visit and demonstration of self sustaining behavior. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 12:13:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA00666; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 12:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 12:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607311737.KAA19235@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: End of Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: >>According to the reviewer, the author "insists, is that scientists are >>beginning to sense that "the great era of scientific discovery is >>over." > >The author must not have read Feynman's epilogue to his three volume >"Lectures On Physics" in which he says in conclusion to the reader: > >"....you may want to join in the greatest adventure that the human mind has >ever begun". > >Doesn't much sound like Feynman thinks we're done, does it? > The author J. Horgan writes: Chapter Three, End of Physics 'Feynman's Gloomy Philosophy' (Horgan quotes from Feynman's 1967 published "The Character of Physical Law": "We are very lucky to live in an age in which we are still making discoveies. It is like the discovery of America -- you only discover it once. The age in which we live is the age in which we are discovering the fundamental laws of nature, and that day will never come again, It is very exciting, it is marvelous, but this excitement will have to go. Of course in the future there will be other interests. There will be the interest of the connection of one level of phenomena to another -- phenomena in biology and so on, or, if you are talking about exploration, exploring other planets, but there will not be the same thing we are doing now." Also under chapter nine, "End of Limitology", Meeting on the Hudson Horgan writes of meeting with Gregory Chaitin at Cold Spring, New York. Chaitin recalled an argument with Feynman about the limits of science at a 1980's conference (shortly before Feynman died). When Chaitin gave the opinion "that science was just beginning, Feynman became furious. "He said we already knew the physics of practically everything in everyday life, and anything that's left over is not going to be relevant."" Chaitin later realized and felt Feynman's attitude had to do with his having fatal cancer and not wanting to feel left out of future discoveries. Yes, I went and bought the book. I wanted to see what Addison-Wesely felt important enough to publish. It only costs about five porno magazines -- no pictures. I remembered the remark made in the nineteenth century about science having reached its limits. It occurred to me when I first saw the cover of the Book Review. I am happy to see that Jed had a copy of the actual remarks made by the famous. -AK- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 15:20:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA09732; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 15:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 15:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: 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: Presely Co. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Yesterday a computer service woman helped me with upgrading windows, and noticed the Cold Fusion stuff lying around my desk. She told me a sad tale that when she was a kid during the 70's her parents were sold a scam by Presely(sp?) Company, who said they were developing a cold fusion technology. Her parents invested money, buying some stock to finance the kids education. The company subsequently went belly up, selling their assets to Pacific Enterprises, which is still in existence. She is looking for more data for me, but I wonder if any of you have heard anything about this outfit. Hank From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 16:15:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA22782; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 16:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 16:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607312228.RAA00938@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: Presely Co. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 15:01 7/31/96 -0700, you wrote: >Yesterday a computer service woman helped me with >upgrading windows, and noticed the Cold Fusion stuff >lying around my desk. She told me a sad tale that when >she was a kid during the 70's her parents were sold a >scam by Presely(sp?) Company, who said they were >developing a cold fusion technology. Gosh, cold fusion in the 70's!? It wasn't around then, was it? P&F did their thing in 1989. I have never heard of them Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 20:58:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA27555; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 20:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 20:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960801000421_100433.1541_BHG68-1@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: Daily Telegraph X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: This may seem off topic, but I think it may at least interest some of us. Yesterday, one of the most-respected British broadsheet newspapers (The Daily Telegraph) produced an article on 'cold fusion'. I am grateful to Norman Horwood for spotting it, it was in their 'Connected' magazine section, which is devoted to the Internet and other new technologies. It was remarkable, even for a negativist article, in the number of errors achieved per column inch. [BOX] TechnoTurkey Barry Fox looks at duff technologies [My dictionary gives 'duff' as 'Br informal, not working, useless, worthless.] Cold fusion cools off NUCLEAR power stations generate searing heat, which is used to make steam and electricity. The system cannot be safely scaled down for consumer use. So it made front page news in 1989 when American researchers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons claimed to have triggered a cold nuclear reaction by passing electricity through palladium metal electrodes and into heavy water. Once started, the reaction would produce more electricity than it consumed. So the water cell would become a super-efficient battery, delivering free electricity, without getting hot. Some people scoffed, but others took the claims seriously. The price of palladium shot up to one third of the price of platinum. The University of Utah committed $5 million to a Cold Fusion Institute. Japanese optical company Canon set its researchers on the task; Matsushita Panasonic started research and filed worldwide patents. Matsushita mass-produces batteries and was clearly hedging bets. Its researchers pushed 20 volts through heavy water, saw "a lot of bubbles" and concluded that a "nuclear fusion reaction was caused at room temperature", For a short time it seemed that science had unlocked a free, safe, source of limitless energy. But seven years on, cold fusion is forgotten. [end] I responded to the magazine (connected@telegraph.co.uk) as follows, and today they have acknowledged my response. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tel/fax 0115-925-4308 127 Wollaton Vale Email 100433.1541@compuserve.com Nottingham NG8 2PE 30 July 1996 Sir, I saw with interest Barry Fox's 'TechnoTurkey' article, "Cold fusion cools off," (July 30). Might I point out some errors in this account? Professor Martin Fleischmann is not an American, he is a British electrochemist, and a Fellow of the Royal Society. "Once started, the reaction would produce more electricity than it consumed. So the water cell would become a super-efficient battery, delivering free electricity without heat." In fact, a 'cold fusion' cell produces no electricity at all, only heat. It would be quite useless as a battery. "Japanese optical company Canon set its researchers on the task; Matsushita Panasonic started research and filed worldwide patents." Indeed they did, but these were comparatively minor players. More significant are Hitachi, Toyota, Mitsubishi Heavy Engineering and the bulk of the Japanese Universities, under the general umbrella of the 'New Hydrogen Energy' programme of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, which has recently increased its 'CF' investment from $25m to $100m. When MITI began its sponsorship of 'CF' in 1992, it was with ten major industrial companies; that number has now grown to twenty. Outside Japan, much excellent work is in progress in the USA, and in Europe 'cold fusion' research is sponsored by Shell France and Fiat. "Matsushita mass-produces batteries and was clearly hedging bets." I would suggest otherwise, since the only similarity between a 'cold fusion' cell and a battery is that they both use electrochemical techniques. "Its researchers pushed 20 volts through heavy water ..." Voltage 'pushes' electrical current; volts cannot be pushed. "...and saw a lot of bubbles..." Of course they did, that was the electrolysis of the heavy water into deuterium and oxygen. "...and concluded that 'a nuclear reaction was caused at room temperature'." Not from the bubbles, they didn't! "But seven years on, cold fusion is forgotten." This is very far from the truth. I append a list of recent results from this ever-growing field. With your interest in new technology, you might consider covering the Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF6), sponsored by MITI's New Energy Technology Development Organisation (NEDO) in October. Yours faithfully, Christopher P Tinsley http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell ----------------------------------------------------------------- Some Recent Developments in Cold Fusion (CF) by Jed Rothwell http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell [etc snipped out] Should anyone feel so inclined, they might wish to email this fine newspaper. It would be an interesting sociological experiment to find out what happened if they got more than a couple of letters... If Vortex isn't a sociological study group, then what is it? And I am quite certain that even the most non-positive persons here would not wish to see CF-negativism so poorly presented! Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 00:50:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA19656; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 00:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 00:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960801063637_100060.173_JHB94-1@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: Daily Telegraph X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Chris: >> Should anyone feel so inclined, they might wish to email this fine newspaper. << I also responded to the D.Tel. with a mildly flaming email and received the following reply from the author: quote: Date: 30-Jul-96 19:43:27 MsgID: 247-11480 ToID: 100060,173 From: Barry Fox 100131,201 Subj: Cold Fusion Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: Std Receipt: No Thanks for the email to which I am replying direct. The info on palladium price was sourced direct from a metals broker. All the other material was taken from patents, filed early in the rush and like all patents they cover a wide range of options. They also show the uncertaintly over cause and effect which existed. My descriptions were inevitably very heavily condensed to fit the tight space. Have you read the patents? If you wish me to look out the patent numbers I am happy to do so. I am concerned over accuracy, but think that you may at least in part be shooting the messenger. Barry Fox **CCs to: Ben Rooney INTERNET:benry@telegraph.co.uk end of quote: I replied to this by asking him to publish a retraction in the next issue - we will see !! Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 05:29:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA25251; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 05:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 05:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <32007b59.11402577@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: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:20:06 -0700 (PDT), Ross Tessien wrote: > >>I have a vague suspicion, that what's really important is that the >>voltage be a reasonable fraction of 511 kV. (Electron mass is 511 >>keV). >>Regards, >> >>Robin van Spaandonk=20 > >Interesting point. But I fail to see any reason that e- / p+ = interactions >would induce the effect. Why would the effect move in the same = direction >with either polarity? Could be ions moving through the air. And you = should >as you point out be getting some p+ ions at these voltages I would = assume. >HMMMM??? [snip] Actually, I was thinking vaguely in the lines that this is the voltage at which "space" coalesces into particles. Therefore it would seem to be an indicator of the region in which one might expect non-linearities to occur. Your own theory is what best explains the conduct of an asymmetrical capacitor. More shielding of "space radiation" in one direction than the other, due to the asymmetry in the field generated, and also because of the difference in mass of the two plates. The implication here of course is that a flat plate capacitor might be more inclined to demonstrate the effect, if one plate is much heavier than the other. And yes, mass is the correct indicator of "worth" in this case, as gravity amply demonstrates! 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 Thu Aug 1 05:23:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA25297; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 05:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 05:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <32017df4.12069693@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: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 30 Jul 1996 16:35:19 -0700 (PDT), Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >PPS I think that the coaxial longitudinal force tester is BRILLIANT. If= =20 >anybody can see a catch, please tell us all SOON. > > Don't tell anyone, but I secretly harbour the belief that hollow conductors also have a magnetic field on the inside, that is circular, just like the field on the outside, but points in the opposite direction (i.e. clockwise, if the exterior field is anti-clockwise). To envisage this, think of a flat metal sheet carrying a current parallel to one edge. Think how the magnetic field lines loop around this sheet. Now role the sheet into a tube, such that the current is travelling along the length of the tube. Where the edges of the plate come together, the magnetic field lines exactly cancel out where they wrap around the edges. This leaves two circular fields, one inside, and one outside. If this is correct, then your coaxial conductor will also have internal circular magnetic fields, which will interact with the current in the central conductor, in such a fashion as to cause it to either swell or contract radially, depending on the direction of the current. 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. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*