From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 01:26:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA26560; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 01:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 01:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960801074743_100276.261_JHF87-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Wolfram Bahmann <100276.261@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: New WWW home page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexians and other New Energy Researchers, We proudly present the Associations presence in the World Wide Web with its own home page. The pages are available from now on at: http://energie.keng.de/~pace Please consider a visit during your next surf tour. The web site is actually administered by the European Secretariat. Responses are welcome. Wolfram Bahmann Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. - EURO. SECR. Feyermuehler Str.12 D-53894 MECHERNICH Germany fax: Int+49/ 2443-8221 e-mail: 100276.261@compuserve.com http://energie.keng.de/~pace From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 05:23:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA25358; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 05:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 05:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3203957e.18096313@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: Volodya:Questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 30 Jul 1996 16:32:55 -0700 (PDT), dacha@shentel.net wrote: >Robin says about Charles Cagle's theory? Do you know what=20 >is that theory? Charles is usually a bit tight lipped about it, but has posted it once on one of the newsgroups (possibly even here). I suggest you write him an email, and ask him yourself. His address is: Charles Cagle (Or perhaps he will read this and respond himself). >A fellow scientist said me that they think CF reaction is=20 >possible because of the >following scheme: >1. De -> Pr + Ne (Deuterium -> proton + neutron ?) >2. Ne + De -> some nuclear ( we call it as Protium) (neutron + deuterium -> Protium? (usually tritium?) >3. Ne (inside Protium) -> Pr + e (Tritium decays through beta decay to 2He3 + e?) > i.e. Protium -> Tritium + e. (Now I'm completely confused!) >The reaction Ne <--> Pr + e supposes disappearing of=20 >Coulomb barrier. (by "supposes", do you mean "presupposes", i.e. "requires", or are you trying to demonstrate a mechanism which *causes* the Coulomb barrier to disappear.) It may be my ignorance showing, but I'm not sure what your symbols mean. I.e. what is "De", "Pr", "Ne"? Also I always understood protium to be the isotope of hydrogen with no neutrons, i.e. only a proton. If Ne is supposed to be a neutron, then exactly what do you mean by "Ne (inside Protium)"? In English this means "a neutron inside a proton"!! [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 Aug 1 06:58:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA10280; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 06:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 06:46:51 -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: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: [snip] >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 Yes, it is the lateral magnetic pressure between this field and the opposing field of the central conductor that creates the latteral pressure to which I referred in the original writeup: "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." You get the rings by simply applying the Biot law by itself. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 10:29:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA22020; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 10:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 10:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960801162636_100433.1541_BHG91-2@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: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Is there any difference between a coaxial system for seeking the longitudinal force, and a system where there are just two heavy return conductors on either side of the one under test? This would seem to me to be so much simpler an implementation. And could the idea of large spherical caps driving a discharge between them produce the kinds of huge currents for the milliseconds (?) needed in order for the wire to snap - bearing in mind they have inertia etc? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 10:27:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA22198; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 10:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 10:10:59 -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: Help for Joe (AKA chemical/nuclear transmutation man) Champi X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Help for Joe (AKA chemical/nuclear transmutation man) Champion... Joe has not been getting any VORTEX mail for about two days. He's wondering if the VORTEX is down. Anyone know what's up? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 11:11:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA01809; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 10:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 10:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608011750.KAA19303@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: Barry Fox at the Telegraph is the TechnoTurkey X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Editor: Re: the article below You guys are so completely off base on the cold fusion article written by Barry Fox it is downright embarrassing to write you and inform you that you have been badly scammed by an ignorant writer. It is quite obvious the may knows nothing about cold fusion. Might I suggest that you hire an informed writer to provide you with highly literate and highly informed assessments in the field of energy technolology: Chris Tinsley. Might I suggest that you > >[BOX] >TechnoTurkey >Barry Fox >looks at duff >technologies > >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 > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 11:21:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA05356; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 11:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 11:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608011802.LAA20415@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: Help for Joe (AKA chemical/nuclear transmutation man) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 10:10 AM 8/1/96 -0700, you wrote: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Help for Joe (AKA chemical/nuclear transmutation man) Champion... >Joe has not been getting any VORTEX mail for about two days. He's wondering >if the VORTEX is down. Anyone know what's up? > > probably a router problem. some spots in the western usa occassionally get blocked from each other when a router is over-burdoned. it is a re-occuring problem out here, especially as related to the Pacific Northwest. Our lines and traffic have been growing more rapidly in the past few months than in any other part of the world. It is the M word. (Microsoft) Seems like now there is a computer shop on every block around here. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 11:48:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA09244; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 11:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 11:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Help for Joe (AKA chemical/nuclear transmutation man) Champi X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Help for Joe (AKA chemical/nuclear transmutation man) Champion... >Joe has not been getting any VORTEX mail for about two days. He's wondering >if the VORTEX is down. Anyone know what's up? I don't know, but I am seeing quotes from messages I haven't seen posted. It looks like something may be going wrong. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 11:46:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA09301; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 11:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 11:29:17 -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: August demo X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Joe Mark says your not getting mail from Vortex. I'm sending this one to you directly, and also through Vortex as a test. Is your demo still on for August?, what date? what arrangements? Please respond either way. Hank Scudder From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 12:40:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA21760; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 12:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 12:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320100B1.7B1D@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: Robin and Horace!! You otherwise brilliant guys are wrong about the details of a coaxial conductor! At a radius greater than that of the outer conductor, the field of the inner conductor is the same magnitude as that of the outer conductor - but of opposite sign. Thus, outside the coax the two fields add to zero and you have the "perfect" shielding coax lines are famous for. The field of the outer conductor reaches maximum at its outer surface and drops to zero as you move inside its inner surface. The field of the inner conductor continues to increase till you reach its outer surface. If the inner conductor is solid, the field then decreases to zero at zero radius. This is why conductors tend to crush from pinch forces - the magnetic pressure is always greater at the outer surface than at zero radius. In a coax conductor, the inner conductor tends to pinch and the outer conductor tends to push outward - since the outside magnetic pressure is zero. It's easy to see why the field is zero on the axis of a single, hollow conductor - each longitudinal current strip you look at has an equal strip 180 deg away. apply the right hand rule and you see that the fields cancel on the axis. It's not that easy to see, but the integrated field from all such longitudinal current strips also cancels everywhere inside the hollow ROUND conductor. I think a square section hollow conductor would have some fringing field inside, but I have not studied this case in detail. Another way to look at it is with Ampere's law which says: The line integral of (B dot dl) around a closed loop is equal to mu-sub-zero times the current flowing THRU the loop. For a coax, if we take a circle outside the outer conductor, we have i going one way and i going the other way - and they add to zero. For a circle between the two conductors, we only have i going THRU the loop, so B = (mu-sub-zero)*i/(2*pi*r). Notice that the current in the outer conductor goes AROUND the circle loop and not THRU it so, no contribution to the field. THE SPACE INSIDE THE OUTER CONDUCTOR DOES NOT KNOW THE OUTER CONDUCTOR CURRENT EXISTS!!!! Please - check this out in any good college physics book. And Chris: Yes, two symmetrical return paths would be pretty good. I approximated a coax for my rig by using 4 return paths. Horace mentioned using many conductors for the return path for visibility. Two conductors will shield each other only along the central axis. There will be increasing return-path field away from the axis. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 13:24:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA02450; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:15:10 -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: >Is there any difference between a coaxial system for seeking the >longitudinal force, and a system where there are just two heavy return >conductors on either side of the one under test? This would seem to me >to be so much simpler an implementation. The coax approach isn't all that difficult if you just build the sample on an insulating non-magnetic panel and slide it into the pipe. The problem with the two heavy return conductors approach is that the balanced and compressive force in the coaxial version is converted into an unbalanced lateral sqeeze. Small errors in symmetry or placement of the subject material can result in large shearing and unbalanced lateral forces. The results of an experiment are more difficult to interpret. In the coaxial configuration the force should be purely compressive and balanced. The resulting motion of the coaxial experiment lies principly in the longitudinal axis. Another benefit is that the generated magnetic field generated outside the coaxial cable is zero, thus effects of the environment are eliminated. > >And could the idea of large spherical caps driving a discharge between >them produce the kinds of huge currents for the milliseconds (?) needed >in order for the wire to snap - bearing in mind they have inertia etc? > >Chris Yes, very small wires, very large voltages. Van de Graff terminals "O": (-) (+) O O------wire-----O O Potential builds until spark jumps. Very small wires can snap or even vaporize at an amazing speed. However, a return current is induced upon the surroundings or ground. Assuming you can easily trigger all circuits at the same moment, here is another idea, compare: ==========------sw-------ccccccccccccccccccccccc----sw---++++++++++ ++++++++++------sw---------------test-bed-----------sw---========== ==========------sw-------ccccccccccccccccccccccc----sw---++++++++++ to: ==========---sw----------sw---++++++++++ Note that angle between two ++++++++++---sw-test-bed-sw---========== wires can be changed. The above could be in a complete vacuum. "====" indicates a large area plate charged negatively, "+++" indicates a large plate charged positively, "ccc" indicates coaxial sheath. "sw" means switches all thrown the same instant. This could be either the coaxial configuration or two rail configuration. The main point here is to get at the question of the significance of the collapsing electrostatic field at the ends of the conductors in invalidating use of the Biot-Savart method for calculation of forces. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 13:27:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA02571; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960801200306_72240.1256_EHB148-1@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: Mixed news about Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I'll take a break from bronchitis to report some of this news about Joe Champion. I have two items. Item 1. Mizuno tells me that he now has the raw data from the analysis at Hitachi. He says it will take him two or three weeks to sort it out and determine whether there are isotopic anomalies or not. As with his own cathode, he has data from SIMS, EPMA, AES and EDX machines. Russ George suggested here that a SIMS analysis can be done quickly -- in a few hours, I think he said -- but apparently that is not the case. I asked Ed Storms about this a few days ago. He calls SIMS analysis "a delicate art" and he began to tell me about all things that can go wrong. I now wonder how anyone ever gets it right. Well, I shall report back when I have more definite information. Item 2 is that I was contacted late at night a few days ago by two members of a group of people who are, shall we say, upset with Joe Champion. I would compare them to a lynch mob. They would like to throw the man in jail. They say that he stole $200,000 of their money for a transmutation venture. They have been trying to sue him and they have been appealing to various State Attorney Generals to file criminal charges against him. Champion apparently listed my name in his home page. These people have been trying to catch up with Champion, they found him on Internet, and they contacted me to warn me about him. I was, of course, aware that Champion has been the focus of controversy for many years. Wait, there is more to this story. I cannot vouch for these recent claims of fraud and wrongdoing. I asked the accusers to send me documentation, court filings and so on. Normally, I would not mention this incident here on e-mail until I get hard evidence in hand, but I have reasons for jumping the gun and telling the story now. First, because I was mildly alarmed that my name is associated with Champion on the Web and I want to disavow any connection. Second, and far more important, I want to report this now because of exceedingly weird nature of the charges against Champion. What these people told was so strange and so unbelievable, that if I had not written it down I might conclude that the codeine bronchitis medicine went to my head and I must have had late-night delusions. I have heard many strange tales about cold fusion and other weird science, but this one takes the cake. To make a long story short, these people are not upset with Champion because he claims he can do alchemy. They agree that he can. They endorse the data he has posted on his home page including the analysis by Perkin Elmer showing missing isotopes from silver and platinum. They say that they have had other independent studies of the platinum done, and these confirm that there are only three isotopes where there should be seven. I questioned these people carefully and repeatedly, and they assured me that they have full confidence that the metals are being transmuted on a large scale and they make no accusations of fraud on those grounds. Furthermore, they are fully aware that such transmutations are a gigantic violation of accepted scientific theory. One of these people is an old-fashioned miner who appears to know a great deal about the hands-on aspects of mining, assaying, valuation of pay dirt and the precious metals market. So what, I asked him in great bewilderment, are you so angry about? Why do you want to put Champion in jail if his method works? Because, the old miner explained, he ran out on us, he is in violation of his contract, and nobody can ever make a red cent on his process. It ain't cost effective! The raw materials cost too much; you can mine natural platinum cheaper. And there is no market for 3-isotope platinum! Nobody will touch the stuff with a 10-foot pole! We sent samples to Handy and Harmon, a cartel that controls 80% of the market for platinum, and they told us they will not touch it because it has only three isotopes. Well, naturally, these statements left me flabbergasted. I asked what the hell could that could possibly mean, and how could anyone tell there are only 3 isotopes with an ordinary chemical assay, and what difference does it make?!? I demanded to know if this was some kind of late night practical joke, but his tone convinced me it was not. He was serious. He said, in essence, that Handy and Harmon, Johnson Matthews and other precious metal dealers are well aware that you can produce platinum and other metals by transmutation. They are determined to prevent anyone from doing that by blacklisting people who try to sell metals with unnatural isotopic ratios. The universities and others who have analyzed the metals and observed weird isotopes disavow their results, claim there must be an error, refuse to discuss the matter, and ultimately break off contact. (This part of the story I believe; university professors and other scientists who test the Griggs machine always react the same way. They go in asserting that the test method is definitive and 100% reliable and they are sure it will show no excess. Then when the test shows indisputable, massive excess heat they disavow everything and run for the hills.) The old miner said Champion should have known that. He should have known that his venture was doomed because there is no market for the metals. And furthermore, his alchemy costs so much it can't compete with ordinary mining anyway. The old miner claimed that he has any amount of ore and lead enriched with precious metals that he cannot sell and has no use for. So I asked him to send me some. I hope he does. Barry Merriman has offered to assist in analyzing these samples, if they actually show up. Barry suggests I contact the old miner and ask if he can spare a few grams of the purified 3-isotope platinum, because it would be easier to analyze with the SIMS device. I will do that. That's the story. Take it or leave it. I do not know what to make of it. I am more convinced than ever that we can only get to the bottom of this weirdness by relying upon objective, replicated instrument readings. We want analyses done by people at places like Hitachi; people who have not heard about the controversy and the extraordinary weird tales surrounding the origin of this material. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 14:06:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA08334; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:45:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:45:33 -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: Mixed news about Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/01/96 13:27 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Mixed news about Champion WOW! What fun! Similar post from me Jed----I.e., I have been dealing with Joe primarily on the "heat" aspects of what he does. He has some interesting claims. Some of the "heat" in some of his reactions is chemical.....But some of it is, well.....it's that old bug-ga-boo, it calculates out to being more than could come from chemical. So rest assured Vortexians, the HUGO is not running around worrying about making Au, Pt, etc. But he is intrigued by the Joe-man. As far as these peoples claim against Joe---Sounds like you might be right Jed, they may (contractually) not have much to stand on. He may have actually "sold" them something that met HIS claims. HA! Let the buyer beware....! He's in the phone book. I wonder what their problem is?? - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 14:00:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA08482; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:46:15 -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: Help on Generating H2 (and D2 perhaps) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Help on Generating H2 (and D2 perhaps) - Does anyone have any references which would help me calculate the reaction rates of various acid solutions (Ph's, oxidation potentials, etc.) with Zn for making H2? I know I can throw in some H2SO4 and some Zn pellets and get plenty of H2, but I'm interested in a more gradual, controlled generation. Say using a "weak acid" like Boric acid, or acetic.... - Understand Zinc can "self passivate". Thanks in advance! From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 13:54:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA08657; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960801164526_447318974@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: In response of Michael Schaffer's comments, I have a further clarification from Correa. The test circuit for the oscillograms at hand is the same as shown on p 36, IE #7. The current pulse from the drive pack is 300 ma for 25 ms, depressing the drive pack from some 570 V by about 12 V. The current burst from the reactor charges C7a and C7b in about 20 ms; the capacitors then transfer their charge in a current pulse to the charge pack which begins at about 65 A and exponentially decays to about 5 A in 50 ms. In response to this kick in the lead, the charge pack voltage rises from about 280 V to about 350 V in the 25 ms, then relaxes to a small incremental increase by the next pulse, which in this case is 2 seconds later. The power from the drive pack is about 200 W and the peak power into the charge pack is some 25 kW per pulse. These results are for a particular test condition and may not apply to other operating modes, but they clearly show the o/u performance. The diodes in the test circuit isolate the drive-pack/reactor loop from the charge-pack/reactor loop, so the energy burst does not come from the drive pack charging capacitors C3 and C5. The reactor is quiet and plasma-free between bursts, and the current measurements at the drive pack show only background levels. One develops a festering curiosity about the current and voltage waveforms at the reactor itself, but these data are part of Correa's proprietary information. He has been very generous with information about the material in the patented area. Some waveforms from a European patent indicate that the current peak from the reactor reaches 200 amperes. I will not be including these in the article because they are illustrative and are not as good as the data from the digital instrumentation. In the matter of demonstrations, Correa is past the point of dog-and-pony shows for curious visitors. If anyone has a legitimate business interest and wants to inquire in an official capacity, the proper approach is a fax introduction and statement of intent -- this is how I began. Their fax number is 905 738 8427. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 14:20:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13155; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 14:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 14:11:18 -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: Platinum X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Jed A call to Handy and Harmon would be interesting also. Is their any possibility of creating "Industrial Platinum" like GE does with their "Industrial Diamonds" out of deference to DeBeers cartel. The physical properties of the artificial Platinum would be similar to real Platinum, and quite useful for all sorts of things if the production costs can be lowered aside from the Alchemy and scientific interest. Hank From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 14:56:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA17823; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 14:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 14:35:18 -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: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/01/96 13:54 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: PAGD - Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge Sorry Vortexians to load the Vortex up with just "puff", I don't want to do that. But I want to express two things that I think are important... #1 Thanks to Mike Carrell for his "running interference" between us and Correa, it is much appreciated. #2. Just a prognostication for the Correas**2-- They DO NOT understand the rigidity of the paradigm! When the paradigm is so rigid that even a device with a "heuristic" explaination for it's "excess energy", i.e. P&F's D saturated Pd creating a nuclear fusion event (the rigid paradigm there: two points, 1. The columb barrier, and the 10,000 eV to penetrate, 2. The "if it were that easy, it would have been done before" barrier) is not acceptable, CERTAINLY a totally mysterious and unknown source of energy is going to be even LESS likely to be accepted. I can only think of ONE way out of this for the Correa's. They have to build a functional prototype of a device producing USEFUL levels of power. After they do this, then they will have to drag---kicking and screaming people with $$$ to witness this device. AND THEN (this is the tricky part) they will have to show them how they can be achieving a 30% or better ROI (AKA a business plan) within 3 years... Standard economics. The forwarning to give them is that no organization such as G.E., ABB, Westinghouse, Shell Oil, etc. with a standard set of "rigid paradigm" thinkers will TOUCH them. AT BEST they need to meet up with some group seeking to dump capital and expand their influence into "other realms". Let me give you two examples: People from Honk Kong, and people from South Africa. - I think Tom Cruise had a better chance in the IM movie. - Good luck Correa's **2, this attempt at financing will self destruct in 6month to a year. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 15:12:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA23870; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 15:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 15:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608012202.PAA15871@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: Mixed news about Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:15 PM 8/1/96 -0700, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >I'll take a break from bronchitis to report some of this news >about Joe Champion. I have two items. > >Item 1. Mizuno tells me that he now has the raw data from the analysis at >Hitachi. He says it will take him two or three weeks to sort it out and >determine whether there are isotopic anomalies or not. As with his own >cathode, he has data from SIMS, EPMA, AES and EDX machines. Russ George >suggested here that a SIMS analysis can be done quickly -- in a few hours, I >think he said -- but apparently that is not the case. I asked Ed Storms about >this a few days ago. He calls SIMS analysis "a delicate art" and he began to >tell me about all things that can go wrong. I now wonder how anyone ever gets >it right. Well, I shall report back when I have more definite information. > Jed, did you go to Japan most recently? Don't you think that they already know and are also trying to head for the hills...? Are you becomming part of the weird story...? snip > I want to report this now because of >exceedingly weird nature of the charges against Champion. What these people >told was so strange and so unbelievable, that if I had not written it down I >might conclude that the codeine bronchitis medicine went to my head and I must >have had late-night delusions. I have heard many strange tales about cold >fusion and other weird science, but this one takes the cake. To make a long >story short, these people are not upset with Champion because he claims he can >do alchemy. snip >contract, and nobody can ever make a red cent on his process. It ain't cost >effective! The raw materials cost too much; you can mine natural platinum >cheaper. And there is no market for 3-isotope platinum! Nobody will touch the >stuff with a 10-foot pole! We sent samples to Handy and Harmon, a cartel that >controls 80% of the market for platinum, and they told us they will not touch >it because it has only three isotopes. So far nothing weird. The cartels have been controlling precious metal supply and demand for a very long time. They are going to continue to try to hang on by holding their golden line around "real" stuff. And, yes, they are aware of it. Hell, you can produce a lot of the stuff using high energy physics and more than a little has been unofficially produced via that route. Rumors passed through a highly knowledgable eminent central figure in this arena (not Champion) to me indicate that commercial low energy transmutation has been under way for many years now, very covertly of course. What does it matter? The old miner needs to learn how to find the right market. I would be more than happy to set him up for 10% of his action. NO PROBLEM. snip > He said, in essence, that Handy and Harmon, Johnson Matthews and >other precious metal dealers are well aware that you can produce platinum and >other metals by transmutation. They are determined to prevent anyone from >doing that by blacklisting people who try to sell metals with unnatural >isotopic ratios. The universities and others who have analyzed the metals and >observed weird isotopes disavow their results, claim there must be an error, >refuse to discuss the matter, and ultimately break off contact. (This part of >the story I believe; university professors and other scientists who test the >Griggs machine always react the same way. They go in asserting that the test >method is definitive and 100% reliable and they are sure it will show no >excess. Then when the test shows indisputable, massive excess heat they >disavow everything and run for the hills.) The old miner said Champion should >have known that. He should have known that his venture was doomed because >there is no market for the metals. And furthermore, his alchemy costs so much >it can't compete with ordinary mining anyway. The old miner claimed that he >has any amount of ore and lead enriched with precious metals that he cannot >sell and has no use for. So I asked him to send me some. I hope he does. Barry >Merriman has offered to assist in analyzing these samples, if they actually >show up. Barry suggests I contact the old miner snip I sure would like to talk with the old miner. If he gets off his high horse and phony suite, he could most likely quickly resolve his economic production problem. >That's the story. Take it or leave it. I do not know what to make of it. I >am more convinced than ever that we can only get to the bottom of this >weirdness by relying upon objective, replicated instrument readings. We want >analyses done by people at places like Hitachi; people who have not heard >about the controversy and the extraordinary weird tales surrounding the origin >of this material. > >- Jed > transmutation rumors are in the woodwork everywhere....I have some doubt you are going to find any virgins attached to major corporations. Best of luck in trying. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 15:29:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA26595; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 15:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 15:19:16 -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 logic X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I decided to look into the longitudinal force a bit more carefully. We have here a hypothesis, promoted by the Graneaus, that the original Ampere force law and the modern form (call it the Grassman law) predict measureably different forces on a current element. I reread the discussion on this topic in Mason and Weaver, "The Electromagnetic Field," (Dover reissue of the original 1929 book). M&W are very clear that Ampere's 3rd experimental finding is that any current element experiences ZERO LONGITUDINAL FORCE due to any combination of closed current circuits, and this observation is in fact contained in Ampere's force law. M&W go on to show that the Grassman and Ampere laws predict exactly the same force on a current element due to any closed current circuit. The mathematical proof is similar to doing an integration by parts and involves nothing exotic. I reread Graneau's papers that I have (journal papers; I have not bought any of his books). His arguments always present some kind of qualitatively argued reason why one does not have to include the whole circuit in a calculation of Ampere's force, and then he proceeds to show that the force on a current element from the just a PART of the circuit yields a non-zero longitidunal component. If it were indeed true that the neglected contributions were zero, then he would be correct; but the parts of the circuit he rules out of the calculation make canceling contributions. Bluntly stated, Graneau would lose his license if he were an accountant. The Ampere force equation predicts ZERO longitudinal force from any set of complete circuits, including the case of a single closed circuit. There is no point in trying to design an experiment, unless one has a hypothesis about some force other than Ampere's and Grassman's. The Grassman form of the force, which is a macroscopic law, can be derived by summing the magnetic fields of individual moving electrons. While this fact does not prove that the Grassman form is more or less right than the Ampere form in a fundamental sense, the Grassman form is more parsimonious (Occam's razor). 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 Aug 1 15:32:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA26652; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 15:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 15:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608012217.PAA17316@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: Mixed news about Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 01:45 PM 8/1/96 -0700, you wrote: >*** Reply to note of 08/01/96 13:27 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Mixed news about Champion >WOW! What fun! Similar post from me Jed----I.e., I have been dealing with >Joe primarily on the "heat" aspects of what he does. He has some interesting >claims. Some of the "heat" in some of his reactions is chemical.....But >some of it is, well.....it's that old bug-ga-boo, it calculates out to being >more than could come from chemical. So rest assured Vortexians, the HUGO >is not running around worrying about making Au, Pt, etc. But he is intrigued >by the Joe-man. As far as these peoples claim against Joe---Sounds like you >might be right Jed, they may (contractually) not have much to stand on. He >may have actually "sold" them something that met HIS claims. HA! Let the >buyer beware....! He's in the phone book. I wonder what their problem is?? >- >MDH > At this point, I believe we have graduated into the league where people play nasty games, including the black art of dis-information. You people who are still trying to convince yourselves of the reality of low energy transmutation have no idea what is about to happen. Stay tuned. Suffice it for now to say, we be talking big leagues here, and Champion is in the middle of it. Even the staid old American academies are going to be rocking and rolling by the end of the year - not over cold fusion, but the real basis of the ou heat energy - the T word. Transmutation. Ain't it just getting real obvious? It is imperative, Jed, that you be triply sensitive to the issue of dis-information. All hell is apparantly going to break out during the next two months. It is going to be really interesting to see who is still standing when the smoke clears along about the end of September. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 16:14:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA06165; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608012240.AA19233@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: uban@world.std.com (Jim Uban) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Mixed news about Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Joe Champion told me about two persons who had broken off with him. I would assume these are the same two that Jed spoke of, one of whom (the old miner) contacted Jed. Joe's story to me was that these two were the ones to actually renege on the contract with Joe. Joe usually sets up transmutation agreements where he gets a certain percentage of the action of any profits. Once it was demonstrated clearly earlier this year to these two that transmuation was real [in the form of a large bar of platinum], they suddenly stated they would only give Joe 1/10 to 1/5 of his contracted portion when they started up operations. Needless to say, Joe's lawyer told them to take a hike. Now they're on the outside without the latest, cost-effective processes and no legal charter to proceed. Jed's story actually encourages me, as I've been in the process of trying to replicate Joe's transmutations for the precious metals. So far, all the tests from the labs have come back negative. I've been starting to wonder if indeed there's anything to it. However, Joe told me once there's 5 times a many unknowns as knowns in the process. So, perhaps I've not got something right yet. I'd like to hear more about what Michael Mandeville knows about this also, as his just recent note implied he's got a lot of info. Jim U. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 16:31:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA09696; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608012303.SAA29637@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: Mixed news about Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 13:15 8/1/96 -0700, Jed recounted: >was serious. He said, in essence, that Handy and Harmon, Johnson Matthews and >other precious metal dealers are well aware that you can produce platinum and >other metals by transmutation. They are determined to prevent anyone from >doing that by blacklisting people who try to sell metals with unnatural >isotopic ratios..... give me a break! 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 Aug 1 17:02:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA16047; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608012345.QAA01626@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: Presely Co. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Gosh, cold fusion in the 70's!? It wasn't around then, was it? P&F did > their thing in 1989. > > Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Here's a cold fusion report from the 1950s. From: George Russell Harrison, THE CONQUEST OF ENERGY, William Morrow & Company Inc, New York 1968 Page 231: "In the early 1950's, when Peron was dictator of Argentina, the world was startled to hear that a European scientist, working for the glory of Peronismo in a laboratory on a small island lake in Patagonia, claimed to have succeeded in obtaining fusion energy from hydrogen. His equipment, now scattered for use in many Argentine college laboratories, was an amazing aggregation of devices designed to excite hydrogen molecules in every way he could think of. Large electrical condensers were arranged to be charged to high voltages and then discharged through vacuum tubes containing hydrogen; even loudspeakers were provided to stir up the atoms with noise. According to more orthodox scientists working on the fusion problem, the reports that fusion energy had been released turned out to be erroneous. While atomic pandemonium was indeed the key, to be successful it needed to be much more extreme, and there had to be more method in it." Remind you of anything "new"? Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 17:25:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA20162; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 17:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 17:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3201480E.4057@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 logic X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer wrote: There is > no point in trying to design an experiment, unless one has a hypothesis > about some force other than Ampere's and Grassman's. Thanks Michael! I don't. I quit. Back to remodeling the house! Still-in-love-with-coaxial-conductors:------Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 18:13:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA01447; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608020100.SAA16165@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...") (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >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 When I apply my theory, ie matter as acoustic resonances in the aether at a frequency of E45 Hz ie Planck scale, what happens is I see the geometry creating a phased array beam headed away from the two plates and along an axial line. This has a further geometric complexity in the plane of the plate with a hole in it since that should incude a secondary convergence at the center. However, the hole they cut out was a square, so the symmetry of convergence is not optimal. A curcular cut out should work better here, much better. Also, instead of two pyrimidal like squares, two circular discs should also converge the energy more symetrically creating a more uniform axial beam. The thing that bugs me about ou kinds of energy in this device is that the effect of "creating mass" at these energy densities may well be at work, I agree. But that is an energy dump, not gain. The effect still stands on its own two feet as interesting since this indicates interaction with the geometry of space. But I think that it will be explained away as just the creation of particle pairs and absorption of some of the energy in the charged plates. The thing about that, though, is that it may well be that the plates do not loose energy while the matter is formed. But the amplitude of energy gain or loss is going to be small as best I can figure. Thus, like CF, you are going to be in the mud to describe what you think happened. I think that the key to the device (if there is one) will be found in that axial beam. I have found in phenomena that range from particles to galaxies, that emissions of wave energy tend to "harvest" like amounts of energy from the direction of emission (long story why). In essence, though, if you emit a beam rearward due to the synchronized emissions of both plates which are frequency coherent and phase opposite (180 and 0 degrees), you should wind up with a beam coming back in that slams into the smaller plate and pushes it. (Again, by phase and frequency I mean QVF at Planck scale, and the electrons on one plate are phase opposite the positive charges on the other plate, and translated slightly to one side in the nodal structure of space such that they are in opposite phase angled nodes) I see this as very interesting, potentially important from the point of understanding the aether. But not an ou mechanism at this time. If you could alter the device to create a very large beam directed into space, perhaps you could induce lightning strikes or some other mechanism to get large effects. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 18:34:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA04535; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608020120.SAA05074@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: Platinum X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 02:11 PM 8/1/96 -0700, you wrote: >Jed >A call to Handy and Harmon would be interesting also. Is their any >possibility of creating "Industrial Platinum" like GE does with their >"Industrial Diamonds" out of deference to DeBeers cartel. The >physical properties of the artificial Platinum would be >similar to real Platinum, and quite useful for all sorts of things >if the production costs can be lowered >aside from the Alchemy and scientific interest. >Hank > > Exactly ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 19:16:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA09736; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608020151.SAA08156@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: Mixed news about Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 04:20 PM 8/1/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 13:15 8/1/96 -0700, Jed recounted: > >>was serious. He said, in essence, that Handy and Harmon, Johnson Matthews and >>other precious metal dealers are well aware that you can produce platinum and >>other metals by transmutation. They are determined to prevent anyone from >>doing that by blacklisting people who try to sell metals with unnatural >>isotopic ratios..... > >give me a break! > >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) > > Nope, that is not the story. Johnson Mathews and other international refiners (there are not many) are aware of Champion's work. Champion claims that he shut the door on the miners because they the miners were not willing to pay Champion his royalty. Champion claims that he just put the refiners on notice that he had a claim on any metals produced by the miners and the refiners refused to get involved only because of the legal controversy. Champion also claims that he can prove that the refiners did in fact sell precious metals to a black market buyer, by showing the receipts that the buyer copied to Champion. On the basis of those receipts, Champion claims that the Arizona Attorney General dismissed any consideration of their complaint against him. Champion thus alledges that the miners are spreading dis-information. The story as relayed by Rothwell does not help anybody, because the miners know exactly where Champion is and they have always known. Champion wonders why Rothwell did not call him to check out some of the details. Some background on the story is at Champion's webpage: (A TRUE STORY OF THE MISCONCEIVED MINING INDUSTRY AND ITS INVESTORS) http://www.netzone.com/~discpub/whats.html ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 19:57:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA18410; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 19:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 19:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608020245.TAA17507@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: HV PULSE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Fellow Vortexians: I would like to solicit opinions to a problem I am having with a high voltage pulse generator. This beast is of my own design, the idea for which was spawned from the dreams of my professors. I was asked to design a pulse generator with a variable amplitude from 500V to 10KV and a variable pulse width from 1us to 100us (if this were nanoseconds I would have used a coaxial Blumlein). To top off the spec's, it was to generate a square pulse with a VERY flat top portion... Well, here I am about two months later, with most of the specs achieved. I have used a high voltage triode, storage cap, and HV flyback from a TV set to build a neat and compact dreambox. The problem that I am having is how to truncate my pulse. The device was designed for dielectric testing, so my load is very capacitive (<500pF). I can get a good risetime on the voltage across the load, but when I stop applying voltage to the load its decay rate is limited by a load resistor of very high impedance (ie, no sharp cutoff). I would like to know of a moderately simple way of draining up to several kilovolts of charge from a 500pf load in less than say 2us. We have triggered spark gaps, but they do not work well for a range of 500 to 15KV. A prof. made a suggestion to me today about using a cryotron (no heater, nuclear charge, very fast, mucho $$$) but I have no experience with these. Any suggestions you guys have would be appreciated. BTW, I was also told that the reason these cryotrons were so pricy is that they are a national security item and can be used for triggering nuclear reactions. Is this true? (about triggering nuke stuff?) If so, how? Thanks for the bandwidth!!! -Brian QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu . From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 21:35:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA05717; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 21:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 21:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960802041728_76570.2270_FHU42-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Mixed news about Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mike, so please tell us what's going to happen around the end of September... Gene From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 22:02:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA09687; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 21:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 21:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608020441.VAA18878@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: Champion Follies!!!!! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Hello, my name is Joe Champion. I live in Phoenix Arizona (that's in the USA). It is very HOT here. I have lived here for two years. I have a listed telephone number which is BR-549, or 602-951-6816. In the words of the great Paul Harvey --- PAGE 2~! I find a degree of levity in the following: Jed said: >I'll take a break from bronchitis to report some of this news >about Joe Champion. I have two items. I say: Of course, Jed did not take the time to call me. Ooop's it's not Friday and he uses Sprint (You have to live in the USA to appreciate)! Jed said: >Item 1. Mizuno tells me that he now has the raw data from the analysis at >Hitachi. He says it will take him two or three weeks to sort it out and >determine whether there are isotopic anomalies or not. Hey, it was Jed who questioned me. I'm in no hurry. I already know the answers. >Item 2 is that I was contacted late at night a few days ago by two members of >a group of people who are, shall we say, upset with Joe Champion. I would >compare them to a lynch mob. They would like to throw the man in jail. They >say that he stole $200,000 of their money for a transmutation venture. They >have been trying to sue him and they have been appealing to various State >Attorney Generals to file criminal charges against him. Joe says: The Attorney General portion is true. The $200,000.00 is crap. I'll explain latter! >Champion apparently listed my name in his home page. These people have been trying to catch up >with Champion, they found him on Internet, and they contacted me to warn me >about him. I was, of course, aware that Champion has been the focus of >controversy for many years. I say: Jed, did you see your name on my Home PAGE? Hearsay, my friend! Jed said: >Wait, there is more to this story. I cannot vouch for these recent claims of >fraud and wrongdoing. I asked the accusers to send me documentation, court >filings and so on. Normally, I would not mention this incident here on e-mail >until I get hard evidence in hand, but I have reasons for jumping the gun and >telling the story now. First, because I was mildly alarmed that my name is >associated with Champion on the Web and I want to disavow any connection. Joe Says: With due respect, Jed I do not even know you. This being said, I question whether I would consider you a friend, or enemy. It doesn't matter which, for I know how to deal with both. Jed says: >Second, and far more important, I want to report this now because of >exceedingly weird nature of the charges against Champion. What these people >told was so strange and so unbelievable, that if I had not written it down I >might conclude that the codeine bronchitis medicine went to my head and I must >have had late-night delusions. I have heard many strange tales about cold >fusion and other weird science, but this one takes the cake. To make a long >story short, these people are not upset with Champion because he claims he can >do alchemy. They agree that he can. Again, I say: Fortunately for you, you had a lot of lead in your pencil. (Not to be confused with the lead that we transmute into Pt and Au!) >They endorse the data he has posted on his home page including the analysis by Perkin >Elmer showing missing isotopes from silver and platinum. They say that they have had >other independent studies of >the platinum done, and these confirm that there are only three isotopes where there >should be seven. I >questioned these people carefully and repeatedly, and they assured me that they have >full confidence that the >metals are being transmuted on a large scale and they make no accusations of fraud on >those grounds. >Furthermore, they are fully aware that such transmutations are a gigantic violation of >accepted scientific theory. Joe stands up and says: INDEED! Bravo, Bravo, BRAVO!!! Endorsements are good the truth is even better! Since you and I have talked (not to be confused with friendship, nor collaboration), I realize that you were told the truth. The lady that you spoke with is a chemist employed for several years with a DOE laboratory. A very intelligent lady, who even though lacks respect for me, she knows her business! Jed said: >One of these people is an old-fashioned miner who appears to know a great deal >about the hands-on aspects of mining, assaying, valuation of pay dirt and the >precious metals market. So what, I asked him in great bewilderment, are you so >angry about? Why do you want to put Champion in jail if his method works? Joe says: Hang in there folks, this is where the story become weird! >Because, the old miner explained, he ran out on us, he is in violation of his >contract, and nobody can ever make a red cent on his process. NOW, NOW, NOW!!!! Here is the facts gang (vortexer's)! In the latter part of 1995, I embodied certain folks around the United States to produce precious metals from lead (No Jed, not your pencil lead), we are talking real lead as in Number 8 shot from your local sporting goods store! Now we mixed this lead with a secret sauce from Home Depot and placed it in ball mills. Now what would this accomplish? If you are a believer, a lot. From this matrix gold and platinum was produced at rates up to 5.0% by weight (Gang, we are talking about hundres of kilo's)!!!!! On January 13, 1996, I provided (and paid for) a big party at a resort hotel in Phoenix. At this party, we find the entire group that Jed speaks of. At that time they were people who wanted to believe. At this party, we find a refiner from New Mexico who shows them a block of lead laced with platinum that they produced from a bird shot. At this time, a new government is forming (the Republicans are losing this one). They said to HELL with Champion we will use our new platinum ruler!!!!! They quickly forgot there commitment to pay royalties for my research and forgot the documents and contracts signed and said good-bye... At no time did anyone singularly, or collectively pay me $200,000.00. Of course Jed did not ask them to supply that information..... Jed reported (and I have shortened this one): >It ain't cost effective! The raw materials cost too much; you can mine natural platinum >cheaper. And there is no market for 3-isotope platinum! Nobody will touch the >stuff with a 10-foot pole! We sent samples to Handy and Harmon, a cartel that >controls 80% of the market for platinum, and they told us they will not touch >it because it has only three isotopes. [snip...] >I demanded to know if this was some kind of late night practical joke, but his tone convinced me it was not. >He was serious. He said, in essence, that Handy and Harmon, Johnson Matthews and other precious metal >dealers are well aware that you can produce platinum and other metals by transmutation. They are determined >to prevent anyone from doing that by blacklisting people who try to sell metals with unnatural isotopic >ratios. The universities and others who have analyzed the metals and observed weird isotopes disavow their >results, claim there must be an error, refuse to discuss the matter, and ultimately break off contact. AGAIN I SAY, HERE IS THE TRUTH!!!!! I developed the science, I love my research, but I will be damned if anyone takes advantage of me. After they decided to circumvent me, I did the most logical thing, I notified the precious metal buying industry that there was a dispute over rights to the product they were producing. Returning to the Attorney General -- did they contact me? Yes.. How did I survive? Simple! I produced the truth. The people that Jed talked to produced precious metals. I presented the facts! The people that Jed talked to sold precious metals that they have produced. I presented copies of sale receipts! Furthermore, I have tried (successfully I might say) to block any attempt of allowing their metals to enter the market place until I receive my royalty. HEY GUYS, if you want to produce precious metals or heat, the reality is you don't have to be a brain surgeon, just remove the lead from your ####(pencil) and put it in your reactor. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 1 23:39:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA24213; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 23:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 23:33:03 -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: HV PULSE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: [snip] The device was designed for dielectric testing, so my load >is very capacitive (<500pF). I can get a good risetime on the voltage across >the load, but when I stop applying voltage to the load its decay rate is >limited by a load resistor of very high impedance (ie, no sharp cutoff). > I would like to know of a moderately simple way of draining up to several >kilovolts of charge from a 500pf load in less than say 2us. We have triggered >spark gaps, but they do not work well for a range of 500 to 15KV. [snip] > -Brian > > QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu >. A General Electric triggered vacuum gap (TVG) device will operate well within these parameters. Sorry, I don't know about cost or part numbers. I would call GE. A trigger current of 10 A will cause a 30 KV gap to break down in under 100 nsec. Trigger voltage can go down to 50 V but it takes the gap longer to break down. A TVG with gap size of .086 in. will operate over a 300 V to 30 KV range. If gap voltage to be triggered is below 1000 V then breakdown time can be up to 1 usec. This may be overkill. You might find a HV thyristor that will work, or group of thyristors that will work in series. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 01:41:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05994; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608020718.RAA12717@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: CETI replications. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Hi everyone, now that we've had a number of unsuccessful attempts to replicate CETI technology some thoughts have occurred to me about the reported effect and what might be causing it. One possibility is gross incompetence on the part of Cravens and Miley, the two people we have most data from. This seems unlikely given the reports of Mark Hugo who saw "Heat after death" and Jed who observed an 8 - 16 degree temperature rise across a cell with a rapid fluid flow. What a pity that Mark's observations ere made in a system full of cross talk! It's just enough to leave you wondering. What an even greater pity that the POWERGEN demo was not fully exploited! Unfortunately one is left with the uneasy feeling that the reason it wasn't was because there was some fatal flaw in the setup. Given Jed's detailed description I can't imagine what it could be. Never-the-less CETI had a golden opportunity to convince the world they really had something but didn't. The standard explanation is that they don't actually WANT to convince everybody they've got something. Just a few people with big bucks. It appears that the effect is not caused by some trivial chemical reaction. It would have shown up immediately in one of the calorimeters if it had. So the mystery remains. It's an effect that is not easily duplicated by putting Nickel onto substrates in LiOH solutions. Something about what Patterson does makes it work. I don't have enough information to know if the effect is really new and interesting Science. Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 05:39:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA23615; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 05:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 05:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3204bd1d.16214817@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: Free C program (fusion-fission) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This program has just been altered slightly to allow compilation under DOS rather than OS2, for those interested. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 05:40:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA23722; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 05:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 05:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3205c487.18113008@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 Thu, 1 Aug 1996 12:25:30 -0700 (PDT), Francis J. Stenger wrote: [snip] >For a circle between the two conductors, we only have i going THRU the >loop, so B =3D (mu-sub-zero)*i/(2*pi*r). Notice that the current in >the outer conductor goes AROUND the circle loop and not THRU it so, >no contribution to the field. THE SPACE INSIDE THE OUTER CONDUCTOR >DOES NOT KNOW THE OUTER CONDUCTOR CURRENT EXISTS!!!! >Please - check this out in any good college physics book. This is why I didn't want you to tell anyone. Sorry, but I still suspect that the books are wrong. I would like to see what pattern (if any), that iron filing would take, spread on a cardboard spacer inside a hollow conductor carrying a sizeable 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. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 05:46:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA23811; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 05:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 05:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3207e5ea.26661671@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: O X-Status: On Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:07:46 -0700 (PDT), Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >I see this as very interesting, potentially important from the point of >understanding the aether. But not an ou mechanism at this time. If you >could alter the device to create a very large beam directed into space, >perhaps you could induce lightning strikes or some other mechanism to = get >large effects. =20 > >Later, Ross Tessien > > I think the original idea was to create a UFO ("Sorry about that chief!" -(Maxwell Smart)). I.e. some form of anti-gravity device. It seems to me that using your theory, the logical approach to this would be to attempt to counteract the filtering effect that the Earth has on the QVF, by imposing an even stronger artificial filter above the object one wants to get "airborne", such that the waves passing through the Earth push one up despite their filtered condition. I thought perhaps the powerful asymmetric dielectric field within the capacitor might constitute such an artificial filter. 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 Aug 2 06:22:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA00767; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 06:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 06:17:26 -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: CETI replications ... some science. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Some comments, below: On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Martin Edmund Sevior wrote: > Hi everyone, > now that we've had a number of unsuccessful attempts to replicate > CETI technology some thoughts have occurred to me about the reported > effect and what might be causing it. > > One possibility is gross incompetence on the part of Cravens and Miley, > the two people we have most data from. This seems unlikely given the > reports of Mark Hugo who saw "Heat after death" and Jed who observed an > 8 - 16 degree temperature rise across a cell with a rapid fluid flow. > What a pity that Mark's observations ere made in a system full of cross > talk! It may be worth while to us all if cross talk is defined .... in terms of context and the experiment. It's just enough to leave you wondering. What an even greater pity > that the POWERGEN demo was not fully exploited! Unclear as to what POWERGEN is .... can this be defined? Unfortunately one is left > with the uneasy feeling that the reason it wasn't was because there was some > fatal flaw in the setup. Given Jed's detailed description I can't imagine > what it could be. Never-the-less CETI had a golden opportunity to convince > the world they really had something but didn't. The standard explanation is > that they don't actually WANT to convince everybody they've got something. > Just a few people with big bucks. > The main comment and interest comes from the following. I am not, per se, commenting on the author of the text .... but the concept. NOTE > It appears that the effect is not caused by some trivial chemical reaction. I feel there has been much loss of ground and mis understanding for all memebers of the community. If there is fusion as is understood by [and there is no good term here, so I will use the term 'regular'] regular science ... then, supposedly, certain predicted events follow, ie., radiation, and "predicted" by products. ******If any new effect ( in the CF arena ) does not follow the accepted or regular science or predicted paths .... then; THE PREDICTED EFFECT DID NOT OCCUR **** there in lies the bind; the predicted effect did not occur ... so there is a hoax ... or error or other Where do trivial and non trivial chemical reactions begin and end?? Are nuclear chemical reactions non trivial? Why? Are electro chmical reacions trivial ? Why? BE CLEAR: I am flaming the concept started by some members of the press and the scientific .... which is the process [in this case CF] did not fit : an expected/acepted/predicted/easily explained/"didn't-rock-my-power-base-or-vested-authority/ .... and because the "effect" [CF in this case] did not fit .... it did not occur. So let us all begin by trying to track down whis IS happening, as opposed to what we think might be happening ..... There is nothing wrong with accurate metrics .... but if not combined with open minds, where are we going? SO: Q: was heat after death CF? Was it the-most-efficient-bar-none electrolysis of water combined with an integral exothermic recombintion of elemental oxygen and hydrogen in a manner possibly resembling some type of "mono-layer" fuel cell or catalytic effect? The glove is out in the ring .... the questions are NOT is it or is it not CF...... The question is What is it [ > It would have shown up immediately in one of the calorimeters if it had. > So the mystery remains. It's an effect that is not easily duplicated by > putting Nickel onto substrates in LiOH solutions. Something about what > Patterson does makes it work. ????? I don't have enough information to know if > the effect is really new and interesting Science. > ??????? > Martin Sevior > > > > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 06:29:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA02182; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 06:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 06:24:59 -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: Re: HV PULSE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Brian, At 10KV and 100 pF .... you do not have a huge amount of energy stored. You need only to do a simple two step circuit process: 1) break-before-make .... between source and target load] 2) after break [above], shunt LOAD [not supply] to ground This can be done with tubes, FET or IGBT..... J On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Brian wrote: > > > Fellow Vortexians: > > I would like to solicit opinions to a problem I am having with a high > voltage pulse generator. This beast is of my own design, the idea for which was > spawned from the dreams of my professors. I was asked to design a pulse > generator with a variable amplitude from 500V to 10KV and a variable pulse > width from 1us to 100us (if this were nanoseconds I would have used a coaxial > Blumlein). To top off the spec's, it was to generate a square pulse with a > VERY flat top portion... > Well, here I am about two months later, with most of the specs achieved. > I have used a high voltage triode, storage cap, and HV flyback from a TV set > to build a neat and compact dreambox. The problem that I am having is how to > truncate my pulse. The device was designed for dielectric testing, so my load > is very capacitive (<500pF). I can get a good risetime on the voltage across > the load, but when I stop applying voltage to the load its decay rate is > limited by a load resistor of very high impedance (ie, no sharp cutoff). > I would like to know of a moderately simple way of draining up to several > kilovolts of charge from a 500pf load in less than say 2us. We have triggered > spark gaps, but they do not work well for a range of 500 to 15KV. A prof. made > a suggestion to me today about using a cryotron (no heater, nuclear charge, > very fast, mucho $$$) but I have no experience with these. > Any suggestions you guys have would be appreciated. BTW, I was also told > that the reason these cryotrons were so pricy is that they are a national > security item and can be used for triggering nuclear reactions. Is this true? > (about triggering nuke stuff?) If so, how? > Thanks for the bandwidth!!! > > -Brian > > QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu > . > From herman@college.antioch.edu Fri Aug 2 06:41:40 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 GAA05059 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 06:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by college.antioch.edu (SMI-8.6/1.63) id JAA20706; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:40:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:40:47 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Horace Heffner , William Beaty , "MHUGO@EPRI" cc: John Schnurer Subject: Champion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Hey, ?? In a brief, what is J. Champion's work? J Thanks From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 08:01:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA17944; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:48:58 -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: Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Somebody sent me the experiment below, apparantly from Wayne Green's CF rag. Anyone try it? Wonderful if something so simple can demonstrate the effect. But it sounds suspiciously simple to me because nothing is said about monitoring the supply current. This is a glaring omission, no? If the electrolyte changes and cell resistance drops, the heat is not anomalous. > SIMPLE COLD FUSION EXPERIMENT > > 1. Mix 2-3 tablespoons of potassium chloride in a 16-oz glass of water > (distilled recommended) > 2. Attach leads with alligator clips to two U.S. nickels. > 3. Fasten the nickels so they dip into the solution, but the alligator > clips & leads remain dry. > 4. Attach the leads to a 30 volt DC battery source. > 5. Insert thermometer in solution to measure temperature. > > After a couple of days, the solution will bubble with excess heat energy, > much more heat energy than what the battery is capable of producing. Then > you have to replenish the water and figure out how to harness the excess > heat! ....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 09:46:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA08797; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608021607.JAA00256@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: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > I think the original idea was to create a UFO ("Sorry about that > chief!" -(Maxwell Smart)). I.e. some form of anti-gravity device. It > seems to me that using your theory, the logical approach to this would > be to attempt to counteract the filtering effect that the Earth has on > the QVF, by imposing an even stronger artificial filter above the > object one wants to get "airborne" And one might keep in mind that the ability to "shield" a gravitational field, is also likely to result in production a non-conservative field. If a non-conservative field can be generated via "static" sources, you have the makings of a free energy machine. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 10:18:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA15838; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: HV PULSE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Brian You could use two triodes in series with the capacitor connected to ground from the junction between them. Similar circuits are used all the time for servo motor control, usually in an H bridge configuration with the motor coil in the middle leg. Hank. ---------- From: Brian To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: HV PULSE Date: Thursday, August 01, 1996 7:49PM Fellow Vortexians: I would like to solicit opinions to a problem I am having with a high voltage pulse generator. This beast is of my own design, the idea for which was spawned from the dreams of my professors. I was asked to design a pulse generator with a variable amplitude from 500V to 10KV and a variable pulse width from 1us to 100us (if this were nanoseconds I would have used a coaxial Blumlein). To top off the spec's, it was to generate a square pulse with a VERY flat top portion... Well, here I am about two months later, with most of the specs achieved. I have used a high voltage triode, storage cap, and HV flyback from a TV set to build a neat and compact dreambox. The problem that I am having is how to truncate my pulse. The device was designed for dielectric testing, so my load is very capacitive (<500pF). I can get a good risetime on the voltage across the load, but when I stop applying voltage to the load its decay rate is limited by a load resistor of very high impedance (ie, no sharp cutoff). I would like to know of a moderately simple way of draining up to several kilovolts of charge from a 500pf load in less than say 2us. We have triggered spark gaps, but they do not work well for a range of 500 to 15KV. A prof. made a suggestion to me today about using a cryotron (no heater, nuclear charge, very fast, mucho $$$) but I have no experience with these. Any suggestions you guys have would be appreciated. BTW, I was also told that the reason these cryotrons were so pricy is that they are a national security item and can be used for triggering nuclear reactions. Is this true? (about triggering nuke stuff?) If so, how? Thanks for the bandwidth!!! -Brian QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu . From hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com Fri Aug 2 10:45:55 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 KAA25509; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com by rocket.rdyne.rockwell.com (4.1/1.34) id AA19972; Fri, 2 Aug 96 10:46:38 PDT Received: by rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5) id <01BB8060.2B5950B0@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:48:41 -0700 Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: William Beaty Cc: Vortex-L Subject: RE: Wayne Green "nickles" experiment Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:43:00 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: A Bill I will try this experiment after I get my calorimeter finished and run Mark Hugo's experiment. Maybe Scott Little can get to it sooner. I had been planning something similar, since the coinning operation should tightly close up the Nickels surface which seems to be important, at least for Paladium. I have tried several times to download June's archive from the web page, and never get anywhere. Is there a password or something? I left the computer trying to acess it all last night, and nothing happened. http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/vortex606.txt Hank ---------- From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Wayne Green "nickles" experiment Date: Friday, August 02, 1996 7:49AM From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 11:33:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA02828; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608021726.KAA12135@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: Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: For the experiment below, make sure you use known, pure materials. After getting indications that something happened, take the nickel into a lab which can do plasma mass spec. You will experience the T word, if the analysis is very accurately expertly done. At 07:48 AM 8/2/96 -0700, you wrote: > >Somebody sent me the experiment below, apparantly from Wayne Green's CF >rag. Anyone try it? Wonderful if something so simple can demonstrate the >effect. But it sounds suspiciously simple to me because nothing is said >about monitoring the supply current. This is a glaring omission, no? >If the electrolyte changes and cell resistance drops, the heat is not >anomalous. > >> SIMPLE COLD FUSION EXPERIMENT >> >> 1. Mix 2-3 tablespoons of potassium chloride in a 16-oz glass of water >> (distilled recommended) >> 2. Attach leads with alligator clips to two U.S. nickels. >> 3. Fasten the nickels so they dip into the solution, but the alligator >> clips & leads remain dry. >> 4. Attach the leads to a 30 volt DC battery source. >> 5. Insert thermometer in solution to measure temperature. >> >> After a couple of days, the solution will bubble with excess heat energy, >> much more heat energy than what the battery is capable of producing. Then >> you have to replenish the water and figure out how to harness the excess >> heat! > >....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. >William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 >EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ >Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page > > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 11:33:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA03228; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:24:15 -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: Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill I will try this experiment after I get my calorimeter finished and run Mark Hugo's experiment. Maybe Scott Little can get to it sooner. I had been planning something similar, since the coinning operation should tightly close up the Nickels surface which seems to be important, at least for Paladium. I have tried several times to download June's archive from the web page, and never get anywhere. Is there a password or something? I left the computer trying to acess it all last night, and nothing happened. http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/vortex606.txt Hank ---------- From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Wayne Green "nickles" experiment Date: Friday, August 02, 1996 7:49AM From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 11:44:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA03521; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:25:53 -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: Longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >On Thu, 1 Aug 1996 12:25:30 -0700 (PDT), Francis J. Stenger wrote: >[snip] >>For a circle between the two conductors, we only have i going THRU the >>loop, so B =3D (mu-sub-zero)*i/(2*pi*r). Notice that the current in >>the outer conductor goes AROUND the circle loop and not THRU it so, >>no contribution to the field. THE SPACE INSIDE THE OUTER CONDUCTOR >>DOES NOT KNOW THE OUTER CONDUCTOR CURRENT EXISTS!!!! >>Please - check this out in any good college physics book. > >This is why I didn't want you to tell anyone. Sorry, but I still >suspect that the books are wrong. I would like to see what pattern (if >any), that iron filing would take, spread on a cardboard spacer inside >a hollow conductor carrying a sizeable current. >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk OK, Robin fooled me about the rings. I had the longitudinal force mindset on. That is the aspect that is so confusing about all this. Yes, the above formula applies to an ideal coaxial cable with current i inside and outside in oposite directions, but it also applies to the central conductor with current i, so there can be no internal magnetic field contribution from the outer sheath. Therefore if you integrate B over 2pi radians it comes out zero, using the Biot law for long conductor and field at a point, i.e. B = (2.0 x10-7 Wb/A*m) i/r, then the force comes out zero. But this is where the longitudinal force and energy consideration comes in. If you integrate the longitudinal force component (wherever that comes from) it is all additive so can not sum to zero. This either implies nonconservation of energy or possibly the existence of Robin's circular field lines. Further, assuming such a longitudinal force exits it is reasonable (is anything reasonable when it comes to longitudinal force?) to assume it's strength follows Biot's law, i.e. at a point at distance r is proportional to 1/r for a long conductor. This is why I suggested two tests using coaxial conductors of two different radii. If there is no change in longitudinal results then it is known that the longitudinal effects are generated completely within the central conductor. The strange thing is, to conserve energy everywhere, the B field should be maximum in the center of a hollow conductor. However, this need not be true if the longitudinal force only is present when a charged particle is in the field. The energy and distribution of the B field should then be normal (zero) when there is a vacuum, but then there is no way to test the B field to find out. Funny how nonsense leads to more nonsense. I just can't seem to find a college physics book that deals with the longitudinal force to help me clear my muddled brain. :) All this makes me think it's all a just a lot of nonsense and time is better spent elsewhere. There are too many other hot prospects around for energy. There is no good way to design an experiment. But then, it occurs to me what if there *are* longitudinal effects observed in a coaxial experimment? My muddled brain just starts spinning again. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 11:42:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA03659; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:26:28 -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: Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote: > I have tried several times to download June's archive from the web > page, and never get anywhere. Is there a password or something? > I left the computer trying to acess it all last night, and nothing > happened. > http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/vortex606.txt > Hank I have two accounts, bilb and billb. The above archive is bilb, not billb. If you went through the wvort.html web page and it STILL took forever, it may have been because eskimo.com is abysmally slow at night (Pacific Standard Time), try again in the AM? That file is 1.1Meg. ....................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 Aug 2 12:36:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA14685; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608021856.NAA24760@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: Merriman's CETI replication effort X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Barry, I am most impressed by your report. Congratulations on a well-written, detailed account of your work. It is a crying shame that we don't have a similar report from someone who has gotten a large positive result from the Patterson Power Cell. Maybe then we could get our replication efforts off the ground! 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 Aug 2 13:02:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA19658; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608021942.MAA31343@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: CETI replications. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 01:15 AM 8/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >Hi everyone, > now that we've had a number of unsuccessful attempts to replicate >CETI technology some thoughts have occurred to me about the reported >effect and what might be causing it. > >One possibility is gross incompetence on the part of Cravens and Miley, >the two people we have most data from. This seems unlikely given the >reports of Mark Hugo who saw "Heat after death" and Jed who observed an >8 - 16 degree temperature rise across a cell with a rapid fluid flow. >What a pity that Mark's observations ere made in a system full of cross >talk! It's just enough to leave you wondering. What an even greater pity >that the POWERGEN demo was not fully exploited! Unfortunately one is left >with the uneasy feeling that the reason it wasn't was because there was some >fatal flaw in the setup. Given Jed's detailed description I can't imagine >what it could be. Never-the-less CETI had a golden opportunity to convince >the world they really had something but didn't. The standard explanation is >that they don't actually WANT to convince everybody they've got something. >Just a few people with big bucks. > >It appears that the effect is not caused by some trivial chemical reaction. >It would have shown up immediately in one of the calorimeters if it had. >So the mystery remains. It's an effect that is not easily duplicated by >putting Nickel onto substrates in LiOH solutions. Something about what >Patterson does makes it work. I don't have enough information to know if >the effect is really new and interesting Science. > >Martin Sevior > Here are some hints: Haven't you found the obscure silence of Pons & Fleishmann awfully weird? Ditto CETI. Why are they so obscure with their stupid beebees? Why won't anyone who suspects let the experimenters on Vortex know what's going on? Why are the Scott Little's left wallowing around without the keys to making those stupid little beebees work? My answer is there is something much bigger hidden just beneath the surface which took them all for a ride. If you read between the lines of Champion with real squinty eyes and start talking to him on the phone, you will start to get the drift in fits and starts. The big story: "Cold fusion" boils down to incidences of transmutations of catalytic metals. The data converges at this conclusion. All of the so-called "cold fusion" phenomenon are effects of transmutations of catalytic metals. And the biggest story in cold fusion right now is Joe Champion. I personally believe that it is all electro-plasma-chemistry with an unsuspected magnetic component. I personally think that Walter Russell approximately explained part of it nearly 65 years ago. You really ought to check that out...as if you didn't already have enough to do. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 12:58:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA14730; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608021856.NAA24749@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: Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:48 8/2/96 -0700, BillB wrote: > >Somebody sent me the experiment below, apparantly from Wayne Green's CF >rag. Anyone try it?.... I tried something quite similar that appeared in late 1994. Here is my "report", which I posted to spf at the time: Preliminary Data From Calorimetric Study of Double-Nickel Cell Scott Little EarthTech Int'l In the August 1994 issue of New Energy News, on page 7, there is a description of a particularly simple CF cell built and tested by Malcolm Ogle. Ogle reported seeing 20-40% excess heat reliably. I constructed a pair of virtually identical cells following his description closely. Each cell consists of a 100ml beaker fitted with a rubber stopper through which passes four wires. Two of the wires lead to ordinary nickels (U.S. 5 cent coins which are made of a cupronickel alloy that is 80% Cu and 20% Ni). The connection between the wires and the nickels is completely covered in epoxy as well as the portion of the wire that is submerged in the electrolyte, leaving only the nickels in contact with the electrolyte. The other pair of wires lead to a string of five 11 ohm 1/4 watt resistors connected in series, arranged near the bottom of the cell and enclosed in a double layer of heat-shrink tubing that extends well above the level of the electrolyte in the cell. In addition to the wires, a 1.5 mm OD thin-walled TFE tube was inserted through the rubber stopper to provide a path for gases to escape from the cell. Unlike Ogle's cell, my cells were not fitted with thermistors or stirrers. I used a KCO3 solution made by adding 64g of KCO3 to 190g of distilled water. Into each cell, I placed approximately 70ml of this solution. By the way, being naive about electrochemistry, I did not deliberately clean anything that went into my cells. There was no obvious contamination but there were certainly fingerprints on everything. Ogle did not mention any cleaning requirements in the aforementioned article. The calorimeter employed was designed to provide accurate measurement of heat evolved from a variety of experiments, especially those requiring electrical input power. It is a computer-based system with complete data logging capabilities. The term "differential" refers to the fact that this calorimeter operates by sensing the difference between the temperature of the device under test and the temperature of a thermally similar control device. At the heart of the calorimeter are two insulated chambers, one for the device being tested (called the HOT box) and the other for the control device (called the COLD box). These chambers are equipped with thermistor sensors which monitor the air temperature inside the chambers. The chambers are fitted with thin wires that pass through the insulating wall to feed power to the device under test and bring the thermistor signals out. Also, the small TFE tubing passes through the insulated walls to convey the gases out. The two chambers are contained in a larger insulated, heated chamber which serves to provide a nearly constant temperature environment. The purpose of this arrangement is to provide a sensitive means of detecting the rise in temperature resulting from heat power liberated by the device under test. The temperature sensors in the two inner chambers are connected to a bridge circuit whose output represents the difference in the temperatures of the two chambers (HOT minus COLD, which normally yields a positive result). This difference should only be affected by heat liberated by the device under test. Provided the thermal masses of the two chambers are identical, changes in the ambient temperature surrounding the chambers should not affect this difference. This immunity to ambient variations is perfect in theory only. In practice, it is necessary to minimize ambient variations. Our building air- conditioner meets this requirement reasonably well. A computer monitors the outer chamber temperature and modulates the duty cycle of the heater to keep this temperature constant. The system typically achieves +/- 0.02 C regulation of this temperature. The computer also monitors the output of the bridge circuit and converts the measured temperature difference into a heat power value using a calibration established empirically with resistors running at known DC power levels. This heat power is integrated over time by the computer to yield the total heat energy released by the device under test (this quantity is called Eout). The computer also monitors voltage and current being delivered to the device under test. Voltage is monitored directly with or without a suitable voltage divider depending upon the operating voltage of the device under test and current is monitored as a voltage drop across a known shunt resistor in the circuit. The analog-to-digital converters used are 12-bit with a range of 0 to 5 volts. The electrical power (instantaneous voltage*current) is computer and integrated over time by the computer to yield the total electrical energy delivered to the device under test (this quantity is called Ein). In addition, the current is integrated over time to yield the total charge pumped through the device under test (this quantity is called Qin). In a typical run, the calorimeter system is first opened up and the active device and the control device are placed in their respective inner chambers. The calorimeter is closed up and the computer program is started (a unique file name is given by the user for storage of the results). The computer begins regulating the temperature in the outer chamber and monitoring the sensors in the inner chambers. Since the calorimeter has just been opened, there is considerable thermal disequilibrium. The thermal time constant of this calorimeter is about 1 hour. The computer waits for 3 hours to achieve near-equilibrium and then begins computing the slope of the DT signal with respect to time. When this signal is flat enough (i.e. not changing with time), thermal equilibrium has been reached and the actual run can begin. The computer automatically detects this condition and resets the heat energy integrator to zero, records the starting time of the run on disk, turns on the electrical power to the device under test, and establishes a fresh value for the offset (zero error) in the delta-T signal. The last action can be thought of as an automatic zeroing that is performed at the beginning of every run. During the run, all parameters are read every 10 seconds and all raw data is written to disk. The run continues until a preset number of joules have been delivered to the device under test. When that condition is detected, the computer turns off electrical power to the device under test but continues collecting data until virtually all the heat has evolved from the device under test and thermal equilibrium has again been reached (the same delta-T/time slope criteria used at the start of the run is applied). At this point, the quantity Eout represents the total heat evolved from the device as a result of the electrical energy Ein that was delivered to the device. In the interest of brevity...if I have any hope of that left by now...I will present only the data from one run here. I made four runs interspersed with several recalibrations of the thermal sensitivity of the calorimeter and the results on all four runs were similar. I have the greatest confidence in the calibration used for the last run so it is that data that is presented below. Initial cell weight: 219.45g Final cell weight: 217.82g These weights were determined with a precision analytical balance and are presumed to be accurate to 0.01g. The difference between them is the amount of electrolyte that was lost during the run: 1.63g . Qin for this run was 15618.5 coulombs. Since it takes two electrons moving through the cell to release one O atom and 2 H atoms, it can be shown that 1 coulomb of charge passing through such a cell will dissociate 5.184*10^-6 moles of H2O. Using the heat of formation of liquid water at 25 degrees C (68.315 kcal/mole), we can calculate that 1 coulomb of charge passing through the cell frees up a quantity of H2 and O2 which, when reacted and cooled back to ambient temperature, would yield 1.483 joules. Therefore, the 15618.5 coulombs pushed through the cell in this run should have liberated gases with potential energy of 23162.2 joules. NOTE: This assumes that the only mechanism for electron transport through the cell is via dissociation of H2O. There is certainly some electrolytic action taking place that involves the KCO3 in the solution but I believe that it does not contribute to the movement of electrons through the cell. If someone knows otherwise, please inform me. Also from the Qin value, one can calculate the total weight of H2O dissociated in the cell. This comes out to 1.457g...leaving 0.173g of lost H2O unaccounted for. A fairly careful measurement of the rate of gas evolution from the cell during operation yielded a result 1.08 times higher than the rate expected from the H2 and O2 alone (using the current through the cell to predict the H2+O2 flow rate). If the 0.173g of lost water is all evaporated in the cell, it would augment the gas flow rate by 7.9%. Therefore I assumed that the 0.173g was indeed evaporated and calculated the associated heat loss (.173g * 511 cal/g (heat of vaporization)) which yields 370 joules. The calorimeter yielded a final Eout value of 23867 joules. For the time being, I ask that this value be taken for granted as accurate to approximately 1% relative. This is based on my operating experience with the calorimeter and the two calibrations (using the resistor in the cell) that immediately preceded this run in which the calorimeter measured Eout/Ein ratios of 1.001 and 1.000 (these results are unusually close...typically I see a +/- 1% variation in this ratio on calibration runs). The computer monitoring system measured a total Ein of 50015 joules for this run (the extra 15 joules come out of capacitors in the power supply after the computer turns its power off). Adding up the various parts of the output energy: 23867 joules heat output as measured by calorimeter 23162 joules gas potential energy calculated from Qin 370 joules evaporated water energy calculated from cell weight losses 47399 joules total output energy (sum of the above three values) Ratio this output to the 50015 joule input energy and you get 0.948. There are 2616 joules missing somewhere, which amount to about 5% of the input energy. As support for this result, I measured Eout/Ein at 0.90, 0.93, and 0.96 on the earlier runs. I made some changes to the calorimeter calibration between these runs and am therefore not sure whether there is a significant trend here (i.e. increasing Eout/Ein ratio as time goes on). I am well aware that this preliminary report does not contain sufficient information, especially with regard to errors, to permit a rigorous analysis of these results. I am interested at this point in seeing if someone can quickly point out the reason for my 5% low results. Tom Droege mentioned that energy is stored in the electrodes as metal hydrides. Can anyone offer an estimate of the amount of energy storable in a nickel (coin) as hydrides? A nickel weighs 5.0g and presumably only one of the nickels in my cell would have absorbed hydrogen. Moreover, does anyone know anything about the hydrogen affinity of the 80-20 cupronickel alloy? 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 Aug 2 13:15:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA22022; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608021952.MAA32756@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: Champion Follies!!!!! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Check out Champion's home page at http://www.netzone.com/~discpub/ On that page is a pix with steam pouring off the top of one of Champion's transmutation "reactors". That is from a 70 watt input, as described by Champion. That's cold fusion. Just a different version of Ceti's beads. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 13:30:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA26078; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:18:01 -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: Dear Vortex, I am sorry if I have given incorrect data on CF reaction. I still should discuss in many details with the physicist this reaction (a way, or a path of the reaction suggested by that person). While our first meeting, we discussed only the difference between possible CF reaction in the cavitation bubbles and in deiterium gas. The idea of that person is the following: De + De --> De + (Ne+Pr) --> ((Ne+Pr)+Ne) + Pr --> ((Ne+Pr+Pr)+e) + Pr -> -> Tr + e + Pr Due to my poor English I cannot explain all details. I don't know the conditions of the above reaction. I only would like to note that there is no neutron radiation (maybe like in Yusmar). I know that tritium is detected after the reaction (the corresponding analysis has been performed independently at one research institute). Volodya From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 13:32:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA26167; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608022002.NAA20714@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: O X-Status: >I think the original idea was to create a UFO ("Sorry about that >chief!" -(Maxwell Smart)). I.e. some form of anti-gravity device. It >seems to me that using your theory, the logical approach to this would >be to attempt to counteract the filtering effect that the Earth has on >the QVF, by imposing an even stronger artificial filter above the >object one wants to get "airborne", such that the waves passing >through the Earth push one up despite their filtered condition. >I thought perhaps the powerful asymmetric dielectric field within the >capacitor might constitute such an artificial filter. >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk I look at it like this. When a person is first set out on ice with ice skates, what do they do? They shuffle their feet forward and backward, causing them to slip, but they go no where. That is what we do with the vacuum QVF. We don't need to particularly block one origin or pass another per se. The arriving energy from above is a melange from many different galaxies at many different red shifts. You will never be able to pass that energy. The energy departing the earth is much more regular, and much more frequency matched to our local resonances. You will never be able to create a simple shield that preferentially catches that stuff by using matter that owes its very existence to those precise arrivals of acoustic energy in the aether. If this theory is correct, then these are just simple facts of the form of the QVF and one must deal with them. But, what you should be able to do, is to interfere with the entire lattice nodal structure of both forms of energy. How? Well, quit shuffling and skate. Can we think of ways to do this? Maybe, and maybe the Biefield Brown and or the Unruh effects are trivial forms. I think it is possible to greatly amplify this effect. I did this calc a long time ago and may be off a bit, but the amount of energy in the tip of your pinky finger, if completely converted to energy is about that of a hydrogen bomb. (I didn't do this calc recently and may be off a few orders of magnitude, but the thing is, we are full of a lot of energy to say the very least) Now here is the rub. we are used to thinking of ourselves as being made up of stable particles in a vacuum. If I am correct, then we are continuously exploding and imploding via all of our standing waves. In other words, the energy emissions emanating from our bodies and our devices are tremendously powerful. But since they are balanced, there is no net and we take this to mean there is nothing there, ie particles are attractively held together and stable in and unto themselves. If my concepts are correct, then nothing is stable unto itself but rather matter consists of intense standing waves. In a more convential manner (but not a lot more convential) you might think of electric fields not to cancel, but rather exist simultaneously in the volume of space around the matter. This means that the intensity of the positive field due to nuclei and the negative fields due to the electron clouds in their valences due to our matter and to the matter in the earth etc., is tremendous but balanced. To see this as not totally outlandish, consider that the pressure of the atmosphere on an average person is around 10,000 pounds of force on the front and the rear. And yet we are not crushed because that pressure is the same all around us and is balanced. But if you expose just one side of your body to that pressure, you would go flying. That is why airplane and space movies with bombs are so dramatic in showing depressurization. Imagine what the depressurization of the universe would look like. The aether contained in all of the standing waves would find some way of exploding all or part of their contents if the quantum vacuum really became a vacuum of zero pressure. This indeed is taking place due to the expansion of the universe. And the quantum vacuum is reducing in pressure. You can tell this if you look at what the standing waves due in response. The combine together, and they release some of their confined aether and in so doing they are accelerated and they are reduced in mass. We call this fusion, or in general, exothermic reactions. And stars are the result of this depressurization of the universe. And the solar coronal heating and coronal mass ejections are the result of that aether boiling up and out of our stars and our sun. And the slowing of that expansion leads to our believing there exists dark matter that is increasing the effectiveness of gravitation when all the while, we were just ignorant of the expansion of the aether. A simple fluid dynamic process in a super fluid with a bunch of acoustic waves at ~E45 Hz, the Planck scale. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 13:36:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA26319; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608022002.NAA20716@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: Origin of Force (incl. longitudinal), was Biefield-Brown... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: By the way, if the model I am working with is correct, then the origin of all "force" effects is the interference of one standing wave with another. This seems at first complicated to discuss, but there are a few simple rules that seem to be falling out of my thoughts on this. To understand these concepts a refresher of the manner in which phased array emissions of energy interfere would be helpful. In any case, two oscillators, both in a uniform frequency nodal structure driven by external sources of wave energy (two particles in the QVF) interact in a few simple ways. first, if their wave energies are 180 degrees out of phase, there is a break down in their mutual repulsion which allows the incoming external energy to push them together. Second, if they are both at the same frequency without a phase angle shift, ie 0 and 0 or 180 and 180, (++ or --), then they will repulse each other due to a build up of the energy density between them. But now we must consider the Doppler shifts of one particle relative to another as a superposed interference. Even if the two particles are moving relative to each other, there will be no more or less interference (non relativistic velocities) than if they were not. What there will be is simple a shift in the frequency at which they resonate. JJ's (Josephsons Junctions) are frequency standards if combined in series and they manifest this frequency locking phenomena as do adjacent pendulum clocks as discovered by Huygens while sick. The point then should come clear. Frequency shifting in a local field tends to all cancel out and be random (the exception to this is the uniform frequency shifted energy coming from the distant universe which induces gravitation). So here we find the answer to the origin of all forces. 1) either a static interference with incoming wave energy with which the particle cannot phase and frequency match. 2) Or, a *change* in the local frequency of resonance relative to the particle. This occurs during accelerations only. In other words, in phenomena like longitudinal forces, if one looks at the manner in which the energy coupled from one particle to another one has a rate of change of Doppler shift, then the particle should experience a force that opposes that rate of change. The particle will respond in part by accelerating in the direction of minimum change, and in part by altering its internal resonant frequency. thus, part of the energy goes into actual velocity, and part goes into a resonant momentum. That resonant momentum is what we call inertia, ie, a resistance to change velocity without the input of a force. It is really not much different from the concepts of a flywheel or a spring mass system (ignoring any potential damping here). If you look at the nodal construction inside of a coil due to these emissions, the form is of rotating nodes. If you look at the constructive interference in the case of charge accelerating longitudinally down a conductor, there is a Doppler shifting of the energy emissions of the accelerating charge with respect to the emissions of the conductor. It seems to me there should be an acceleration force involved, but not necessarily on the conductor itself except due to relativistic effects when they become important. I still do not understand that longitudinal force construction as there are a lot of emissions to consider from the wire atoms and the accelerating electrons and from space itself, ie the QVF. The last being the strongest of the group. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 13:58:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA01908; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608022021.NAA21218@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: Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Unlike Ogle's cell, my cells were not fitted with thermistors or >stirrers. I used a KCO3 solution made by adding 64g of KCO3 to 190g of >distilled water. Into each cell, I placed approximately 70ml of this >solution. Right there is energy crossing the barrier. Both the mechanical stirring and the fields generated to induce the stirring have the potential of dumping some heat into the system. Both could be eliminated, one would think, by running the thing blind without the nickels and measuring the heat gain from those sources and then subtracting them from the output measured in the experiment. But be careful, there are ions moving during the electrolysis that are not moving otherwise. those moving ions in the changing fields could induce some more heating. I didn't read the experiment real closely as it seems bogus outright to me. But if others think it is real, go for it and show me where I didn't look close enough. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 14:00:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA02088; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608022021.NAA21220@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: O X-Status: >> I think the original idea was to create a UFO ("Sorry about that >> chief!" -(Maxwell Smart)). I.e. some form of anti-gravity device. It >> seems to me that using your theory, the logical approach to this would >> be to attempt to counteract the filtering effect that the Earth has on >> the QVF, by imposing an even stronger artificial filter above the >> object one wants to get "airborne" > >And one might keep in mind that the ability to "shield" a >gravitational field, is also likely to result in production >a non-conservative field. If a non-conservative field can be >generated via "static" sources, you have the makings of a >free energy machine. > >Regards, >Robert Stirniman Good observation. Another point of fact is that even if you create a stronger filter above the object, then that object would just be pushed downward harder. So, you might fly your UFO in a little room, but don't expect to visit the stars in that manner as your shield would be larger than the solar system. A "dynamic" interaction should be able to get you to the stars, but I don't think you will get there for free. In other words, you will spend energy diverting the incident energy just like a UFO we see all the time, the helicopter. Of course if a static QVF deflector is possible, (and it may be), then one would be able to put some vanes into the "breeze" so to speak. This would be non conservative of the "field", but it would be conservative of the energy. In essence this would just be rotating the direction of the field, or more accurately, the direction of propogation of the QVF. If this is possible, then it explains how "pilot" waves come into being in devices which lead to paradoxes like Bells and to the two slit results. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 13:59:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA02480; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:47:53 -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: Champion Follies!!!!! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/02/96 13:15 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Champion Follies!!!!! Champion is very cautious in what he claims. Look closely at his write up. He's aware that he's got to look at the CHEMICAL energy contents and try to assess if he's getting the energy from chemical reactions versus any "Cold Fusion" or "transmutation". He's struggling with quantification on the energy front, as his concern/belief is on the elemental transmutation front. We'll see if there is anything to it. In the mean time I've not heard Joe C wanting $1million to "develop" his processes. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 14:54:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13490; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960802173726_376082924@emout18.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: Merriman's CETI replication effort X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I spoke with Quinton Bowles of the Univ of Kansas he got positive results. I met with Geroge Miley..he got positive results. I spoke with Chuck Ross of Kansis City Power and Light he got postive results. The CETI cells works..believe it....I do...that is not a question...I saw the thing myself... The problem is at $20,000 / 100 watts test device thats $200,000 /KW no one is going to buy any. I spoke with CETI about this. They need to lower the price to $2,000 / KW and start selling. Instead of looking for high flyers with extra cash they should be looing for someone who can do this for them. I tried to help them. I can't do anything at these prices. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 15:02:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13572; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960802213908_72240.1256_EHB188-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: CETI replications. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Martin Edmund Sevior writes: Never-the-less CETI had a golden opportunity to convince the world they really had something but didn't. The standard explanation is that they don't actually WANT to convince everybody they've got something. Just a few people with big bucks. That is more than the standard explanation. We have it from the horse's mouth. Jim Patterson, Jim Reding and Dennis Cravens have told me that in no uncertain terms many times, most recently the day before the MIT conference at which I lambasted them for this strategy. Politely lambasted them, I hope. See I.E. #5 & 6, p. 18. The phrases I used in that talk to describe their strategy, like: "keep this project managable" and "maintaining control over the R&D process" (by limiting the number of participating institutions to five) were direct quotes from my conversations with Reding. He and Cravens told me repeatedly that they are delighted with the status quo, and they hope that "nobody pays attention to CF" for another 3 or 4 years, because they will get that much further ahead, and they will "carve out a larger share of the market." They want to "prevent competition" while they secretly close a big deal with a big company for big money. They are delighted that recent replication attempts reported here have failed. At IFNE, Cravens was practically crowing about the failures as he described CETI's technical expertise: . . . a flat plate, if you were to layer it, [the layers] will pop off the plate. Unless there is a certain radius of curvature, and other things like that. So the sizes and dimensions are critical to things, or appear to be so far. We've had people trying to end-play around and guess the patents, and all this kind of stuff, and sputtering on glass instead of plastic, and getting the wrong kind of plastic, and all kinds of things like that. It is a mechanical, structural type thing on these beads. And how difficult it is to fabricate the beads: You can go back through and look at the patents and all, and see how that's done. But there is some finesse in it. Some methods work better than others, and there is variation just from one technician to another we find. Temperatures, time, whether you go drop drop drop or squirt squirt squirt, you know -- things like that make a difference in some of these. He also strongly disagreed with my ideas: People who say we should be already selling these things at Wall Mart or Kmart red special -- red light? Blue light special -- and stuff like that, don't really understand the real world and what it takes to get there. It takes a lot of people. We are getting crackerjack electrical engineers, polymer scientists, we are doing . . . it would amaze you how many board tables we have done demonstrations on: major utilities and major Fortune 500 companies and that sort of stuff. So that sort of stuff is going on, so people who say 'why aren't they doing this?' -- they don't know what's going on. CETI is deliberately keeping a low profile. They are holding secret, closed meetings with corporations. They are releasing just enough public information to keep the pot boiling and to maintain a reasonable level of credibility with companies like Motorola. Their strategy is working in some ways: they have prevented a burst of public interest; they have kept the field in obscurity; they do have credibility. Big companies come to their meetings. EPRI and MITI take them seriously. Unfortunately for CETI, the other half of the strategy has not worked: they have not attracted any big investment money as far as I know. They stiffed me for 150 bucks, so I doubt they have millions of dollars burning a hole in their pocket. As I said at MIT, in my opinion as a businessman, this is a poor R&D strategy. I said: "Perhaps CETI will succeed in a big way, and they will go down in history and change the rules. If so, I will say that they succeeded in spite of their strategy, not because of it." I do not know of a single historical precident for this method of developing a radical new technology. In every case I have studied, the technology has been patented and then released to the general public at an early stage, long before it becomes practical for most applications. Then it is developed by the massive, uncontrolled, uncordinated simultaneous efforts at hundreds of different corporations. This is how the steam engine, the airplane, the transistor and the personal computer were brought to market. This free market competition produces *many orders of magnitude* more progress in less time than any other system devised by man. Suppose that after they invented the transistor, AT&T had secretly hired the finest geniuses money can buy and attempted to devise a perfect R&D program. It would not have produced even one percent of the new products the silicon revolution wrought. No single institution can be that inventive. No single group of people under the direction of one leader has the imagination to explore the potentials. No executive would know where to find those "crackerjack electrical engineers" Cravens talks about. Think about that! Suppose this was 1975, and the microcomputer revolution was just around the corner. How would Dennis Cravens or Jim Reding know where to find Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, Gordon Cambell, or John Warner? Gates was still in high school! In 1975, Gates and Cambell never dreamed they would be leading a microcomputer revolution in a few years. Even an omniscient God could not have have known, if the theology of free will is correct. Cravens would have hired the wrong people back in 1975, and his microcomputer venture would have failed. How do I know that? Because most microcomputer ventures failed. In high technology and basic R&D, failure is the rule, success is the rare exception. In 1975 the leading crackerjack expert geniuses at places like IBM and Data General who had mastered the previous technology make astounding mistakes, and went down blind alleys, and failed. There were no experts in microcomputers in 1975, and there can be no experts in cold fusion today. We are all stumbing, blind, ignorant beginners, and most of what we think we know is mistaken. Stroll through an industry trade show like PowerGen, or the annual computer shows in Atlanta, or the furniture making machine exhibitions my brother-in-law attends. A trade show tells you about business, the economy, technology. (And about anthropology, society, biology and history! You can see a lot when you have the eyes to look). It does not matter how prosaic or stodgy the industry is. At every turn, in every booth, you see the flowering of imagination and skill far beyond anything one person could achieve. The details, the ramifications, the sheer overwhelming complexity boggle the mind. Nobody could plan this effusion of new ideas. Nobody could be stupid enough to come up with all the bad designs and mismarketed products, nor smart enough to think up all the neat stuff. No individual can grasp more than a fraction of the trade show, or predict where it will go next year. It is a reflection of the biological diversity of the human mind and the individual backgrounds and experiences of the product designers. It is, in a sense, as diverse as a rain forest or an ocean reef. This incredible trade-show diversity occurs even though each exhibit adresses a narrow technical problem, and the basic ideas behind every solution is common knowledge to everyone in the industry. At a computer show you see dozens of new ways to make Yet Another PC Compatible; at the furniture show you see 50 ways to glue veneer to wood. The problems are narrowly defined, but the solutions are infinitely varied. Exposure to this innovation inspires more innovation and cross-fertilization (or plagiarism, depending on how you look at it). The designers who attend this year's trade show absorb new ideas. They come back next year and contribute more than they could have devised working alone, cut off from one another. People are social, tribal animals. We build things in groups, like ants. Cold fusion will never be developed without something like a trade show. We must have competition and the free exchange of ideas and inspiration. Perhaps more academic conferences would suffice. It would be better by far to have a booming market of actual machines sold competitively. That would also generate the capital and the incentive to do the research. CETI, the Correas, and many other CF inventors seem to be unaware of the history of technology. They do not appear to understand the dynamics of free market competition. They think they have God-like abilities to control events, and to select the right crackerjack people out of all the millions who will work on CF. They think they can predict the future of cold fusion, which is the most complex, profound and revolutionary discovery in history. No human being could have predicted the future of even the humblest inventions, like the zipper or DTMF dialing, yet Reding and Cravens think they have mastered the Biggest Thing Since Fire. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 16:19:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA28698; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9608022300.AA01870@saticoy.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: Merriman's CETI replication effort X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > CETI cells works..believe it....I do...that is not > a question...I saw the thing myself... > Frank Znidarsic Well, two things: First, the CETI cell may work, but their patents *don't* work---i.e. one can follow their patents quite closely and get zip. This is not a trivial point. There is not sufficient info in their detailed patents to produce their effect. Second---I don;t dispute that the device probably ``works'' as demoed. But what is it doing? As of yet, NOONE has published a detailed report on a succeful experiment, even at the level of detail of my web report. That is simply too little evidence to conclude that it releases excess energy or transmutes metal. Merely poking at the demo device onself, or hearing rumors about what results will be released ``real soon now'' does not constitute any sort of scientific proof. Believe it if you like, but recognize that there is a substantial jump in scientific logic in your belief. Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 16:46:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01096; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960802191328_448195392@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: believe X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I really believe that CETI's lunch is going to be eaten by the emerging cavitation technologies. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 17:26:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA14457; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9608022320.AA01883@saticoy.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: CETI replications. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thanks to Jed for outlining in more detail CETI/Patterson/Redding/Cravens business strategy, which we might call the ``boy who cried wolf'' strategy. By getting a jolt of attention and then backing off, they simply loose public and scientific credibility---so I hope they are getting some big payoff from their backroom demos to make up for it. I doubt it though---I have heard figures like a few million dollars from Motorola, which is chicken feed if they really had anything like what they claim to have. Hell, the Nobel prize would net you a million, with no strings attached. Anyway, they seem to think there is no down side to their present strategy---that those of us who have carefully tried to duplicate their work are expendible and ignorable. This, however, is not so true. First, it seems that their patents do not actually refer to their real device and beads---this could easily be the basis for some future challenge to the validity of their patents regarding CF devices, say by some motivated party such as P&F, Storms or Fox. Second, they are driving motivated people such as me, Scott Little, and Storms, Fox, etc, to look for alternatives to their process. They may get bypassed by the improvements any of us happen to discover due to the inadequacy of their exisitng patents. By refusing to cooperate, they are simply making a growing opposition and field of hostile competitors. If they were smart, they would get all interested parties on their side. Not only would this protect and bolster their intellectual rights, it might actually find them some money. I know individuals worth upwards of 100 million dollars, who I would tap if I really believed there were a new power source. But I don't, yet, since their stuff cannot be replicated fom their patents. Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 17:17:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA14512; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960802232615_100433.1541_BHG48-3@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: Gnorts, guys. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: One possible further advantage of this List is that somewhere out there there may be a person who needs to know what Jed says about innovation, and has the sense to listen. But then I always was an optimist (except after visiting the desolate wastes of the Compuserve Science Forum). Since it's the weekend (well, in a few minutes, over here at least) has anybody realised the arcane - nay, occult - signioficance of the name "Neil Armstrong"? Played backwards it becomes - drum roll - "Gnorts, Mr Alien." Gnorts, Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 17:23:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA14596; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960803000820_76216.2421_HHB64-2@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: Biefeld-Brown (Was "Re: Wings by Ross...") X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross, Robin, & All - As to testing the nature of the "force" moving the disc assembly as described, what do you think of this idea: If there's an appreciable gap between the electrodes that wouldn't be arc-shorted by the insertion of an object, say 1" or so at least, (video I've seen of some of Brown's experiments show several inches between the uneven electrodes), then test objects could be placed in this focused or shaped beam or field with the electrode assembly held fixed. I thought of hanging various small objects of different composition but similar size and shape, as in small spheres of lead, steel, copper, plastic, glass, etc., from long threads inside a long glass tube for ion-induced and general air current shielding. If there really is an acceleration field being produced, each of the different test objects should be moved by roughly the same amount, as such a field (gravity) should automagically adjust the "force" to the mass of each individual object. The only difference should be that force component which arises from their induced charge accumulation trying to pull them to one side or the other, or possibly eddy magnetism if the charges on the electrode are varying, as they probably would be from my apparatus when completed. If it's all just electrostatic and such, the massive objects should tend to move far less than the lighter ones, or the electically conductive ones, etc. and so on. Any major flaws to this testing principle you can think of, comments, ideas, improvements? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 17:35:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA18001; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:27:50 -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: HV PULSE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Brian writes... >The problem that I am having is how to >truncate my pulse. The device was designed for dielectric testing, so my load >is very capacitive (<500pF). I can get a good risetime on the voltage across >the load, but when I stop applying voltage to the load its decay rate is >limited by a load resistor of very high impedance (ie, no sharp cutoff). I suggest using a second triode, placed across the load. Trigger the second triode to drain off the charge when you want to terminate the pulse. Of course, this triode's cathode goes to the first's anode, so you need a high voltage, low capacitance isolation transformer for the heater power. > Any suggestions you guys have would be appreciated. BTW, I was also told >that the reason these cryotrons were so pricy is that they are a national >security item and can be used for triggering nuclear reactions. Is this true? >(about triggering nuke stuff?) If so, how? Actually, I thought they were "Krytrons". They are (or used to be) made by EG&G. Anyway, they are small, gas discharge trigger tubes. Their main usefulness is unusually low jitter. This makes a bank of them useful to trigger the conventional explosive surrounding a fission core simultaneously at a large number of places, so that the resulting implosion is very symmetrical. This makes for a more compact and efficient fission explosive device. The krytron itself is non-nuclear. 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 Aug 2 17:57:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA20708; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:43:24 -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: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts Vortexians! Well, you old experienced pros have been befuddeling and confusing poor old amateur novices like yours truly for quite a while, so here's a poser for you. You build a rail gun with a cylindrical barrel "###" which (hopefully) shoots a shell "XXX" with a hole down the middle for central rod "===". The gun is powered by connection of the central rod to power supply "P" which, for the sake of symmetry, is connected via both DB and EC to the barrel: ---------------- | | | | | | | | | | | |B | #################################### |D XXXXXXXXX |----P------A--==================================== |E XXXXXXXXX | #################################### | |C | | | | | | | | | | | | ---------------- Now, assuming the projectile starts a ways down the barrel, what happens in the barrel is isolated from the surroundings, so from the circuit point of view, the gun simply represents a short circuit from B to C. The force on the two loops APDBA and APECA is an outward directed force everywhere resulting in no translational force on the circuit. It is assuming the elements of the circuit are sufficiently strong or supported structurally to resist relative movement. Inside the gun the only magnetic field is that of from the rod, which increases in strength at distance r from the central axis outward to edge of the rod of radius R as B = k*i*r/R^2, and then decreases linearly from there to the outer casing. So, there seems to be some contradictory situations. Current runs through the projectile purpendicularly to the magnetic field of the rod, so there should be a force on the projectile. Is the force between the rod and the projectile? Is there a force on the rod? If so which direction? If not in opposition to the projectile, where is the reaction force demanded by Newton's second law? Does the gun shoot at all? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 18:44:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA00639; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608030131.SAA07828@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: CETI replications. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 05:10 PM 8/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >Thanks to Jed for outlining in more detail >CETI/Patterson/Redding/Cravens business strategy, >which we might call the ``boy who cried wolf'' strategy. > >By getting a jolt of attention and then backing off, >they simply loose public and scientific credibility---so >I hope they are getting some big payoff from their backroom >demos to make up for it. I doubt it though---I have heard >figures like a few million dollars from Motorola, which >is chicken feed if they really had anything like what they >claim to have. Hell, the Nobel prize would net you a million, >with no strings attached. > >Anyway, they seem to think there is no down side to their >present strategy---that those of us who have carefully >tried to duplicate their work are expendible and ignorable. >This, however, is not so true. > Ah,Ah, Mr. Chris, your humble student would like to ask if your presumption that they simply regard you as expendable is what is really going on? Mayhaps there is an x factor which they discovered after going "public", which gave them enough pause they decided to get right inscrutable till they figured it out. Maybe they are still trying to figure it out. I hope you are getting squinty eyed and reading between the hints, hint hint. >First, it seems that their patents do not actually >refer to their real device and beads---this could easily >be the basis for some future challenge to the validity >of their patents regarding CF devices, say by some >motivated party such as P&F, Storms or Fox. > or others... >Second, they are driving motivated people such as me, Scott Little, >and Storms, Fox, etc, to look for alternatives to their process. >They may get bypassed by the improvements any of us happen >to discover due to the inadequacy of their exisitng patents. By >refusing to cooperate, they are simply making a growing >opposition and field of hostile competitors. > maybe they don't have what you think they convinced you they had... @#%*!!! you COLD FUSION RESULTS ARE INCIDENCES OF TRANSMUTATION OF CATALYTIC METALS. LURKERS THERE BE HERE WHO ARE LAUGHING THEIR ASSES OFF. >If they were smart, they would get all interested parties >on their side. Not only would this protect and bolster their >intellectual rights, it might actually find them some money. >I know individuals worth upwards of 100 million dollars, who >I would tap if I really believed there were a new power source. >But I don't, yet, since their stuff cannot be replicated fom their >patents. > >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu >web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 19:35:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA08203; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608030218.TAA07228@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: Thanks! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Folks! I want to thank all of you for responding to my request for assistance concerning the HV pulse generator. I definately have more leads to follow! BTW, while I have you reading, I would like to make a comment about the Cold Fusion tread. Has anyone considered the possibility that CETI may be keeping a low profile because perhaps the "cell" can never be an economically feasible producer of heat/electricity? Just wandering.... -Brian QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 19:47:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA10903; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960803023513_72240.1256_EHB98-1@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: Merriman's CETI replication effort X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry wrote: "First, the CETI cell may work, but their patents *don't* work---i.e. one can follow their patents quite closely and get zip." I think this statement is totally incorrect and unwarranted. I do not know of any attempt to follow the patents quite closely. They were not even followed at a respectful distance. The beads used in Barry's experiment were quite different in many obvious respects, as pointed out in the paper. Nobody contributing to this forum has the expertise to say with any certainty that the use of glass instead of plastic in the core is an unimportant change; it might be critical for all we know. Furthermore, this statement is literally untrue, because Scott Little told me that the man who fabricated those beads *did not read the patents*, for political reasons I gather. It was a "black- room code-virgin replication" as we would say in the computer biz. I regard the Merriman experiment as interesting preliminary step, a learning experience, and nothing more. I am happy with it as such. I suggested to Barry that as a next step, he might want to contact Ed Storms and see if Ed will lend him one of his tested & certified bulk Pd cathodes. In any case, the present work is no sense a careful, serious patent replication and to describe it as such is to make a mockery of the professional knowledge of people like Patterson and the experts at the University of Illinois who fabricated the thin film cathodes. I remind all readers of what Patterson has told me repeatedly. He has been an acknowledged world class expert in beads and catalysis for over 40 years, and he has many patents in this area. Yet he had to work hard for *years* before he mastered the technique of fabricating these beads. I am reminded of the French scientists, engineers and military officers who attempted to "replicate" the Wright Brothers from 1903 to 1908, after reading their published papers and the 1906 patent. Some of them dismissed the idea of using chambered wings and declared that flat wings should work just as well. Others dispensed with the wing warping control system and the vertical tail, which were two of the most critical contributions the Wrights made to aeronautics. These self-appointed experts had no idea which aspects of the patent were was critical, and what role each component played. They had no sense of the design and no grasp of the physics. They did not know about the wind tunnel analyses that formed the basis of the invention -- they did not even realize the Wrights had done extensive physical modeling. The propellers they used had, in some cases, five times more engine power behind them yet they developed only one-third the thrust of the 1903 Wright propellers. Today, anyone familiar with basic aeronautics can glance at photos of the French machines and point to fatal errors in design (literally fatal, in some cases) and gigantic differences between these machines and the 1906 patent they were supposedly based upon. Yet these French scientists had the temerity to dismiss the Wrights and declare their airplane unworkable! I am not suggesting that Merriman's replication is as misguided as those attempts, but then . . . I don't know. I cannot tell. Perhaps future experts will say that *is* that bad! They might say that glass in the core of a CF gadget is absurd, like an attempt to substitute glass for polished pure silicon in a transistor. If I could reach into the future and buy a Time-Life book on early cold fusion published in the year 2050, like the books I have on early aviation, perhaps I could spell out exactly how and why Merriman's device differs from Patterson's, and why it failed. With the benefit of hindsight, and now that we are used to working with PCs, I'll bet most readers here could explain why the 1984 Radio Shack PC compatible wasn't compatible, and why it didn't sell. Unfortunately, cold fusion is terra incognito. There are no textbooks yet. We are still as blind to technical errors as those Frenchmen were in 1908, or those Radio Shack design engineers in 1984. In any case, Merriman's attitude is much better than the French aeronaut's. He does not suffer from their hubris, but he should not portray himself as one who has done a careful replication. "There is not sufficient info in their detailed patents to produce their effect." We cannot judge that. We are not Persons Skilled In the Art. If many experts in catalysis work on the thing for as many years as Patterson himself did, and if they all fail, then the courts might declare the patent insufficiently detailed. But if one out of a hundred of those experts succeeds, then the judgment would be that the other ninety-nine are not sufficiently Skilled In The Art, and their failures do not count. That is how the patent system works. How else could it work? Modern technology is complex and takes years to master. If we are going to have patents for things like drugs that require dozens of precise steps to synthesize, our patent laws must accommodate inventions that only a handful of experts can deal with. "I don't dispute that the device probably ``works'' as demoed. But what is it doing? As of yet, NOONE has published a detailed report on a successful experiment, even at the level of detail of my web report." I disagree. I think that the patents combined with the ICCF5 calorimetry paper we published in I.E. together constitute a far more detailed report than the Web page report. What the device is doing is producing massive, easily detected excess heat without any chemical changes. The quality of the published reports may not be acceptable by the standards of professional academic science. In industry however, we must often depend upon such fragmentary, limited descriptions of competitive products demonstrated in trade shows, or described in trade magazines and advertisements. These reports are seldom as complete or as detailed as the descriptions I have published about CETI, and they are *never* as good as a patent. If a computer RAM manufacturer saw this kind of detailed report about an advanced product under development by a competitor, he *would take action*. He would institute serious R&D immediately. Merriman refers to some of these reports as "rumors" but that is the wrong word. Everything that I have reported here I got in direct conversations with people like Miley, or from things like the photograph we published showing the Motorola data. That may not be the kind of "industry intelligence" that an academic scientist likes to depend on, but it is the bread and butter of any high tech industry decision maker. It is the best you can hope to get out of Motorola for a product still under development. Actually, a snapshot of a performance data viewgraph at a conference is *better* than you can usually hope for, and it is a million miles away from a rumor. Business is analogous to war. You cannot expect the enemy to deliver a detailed map showing where his troops are positioned. All you get are a few hints, or a grainy satellite photo showing tank tracks heading northeast. Academic science is supposedly based on openness and cooperation; you *do* expect a nice map of troop dispositions, and when you don't get it, you call off the battle. We do not have that luxury in business. If we call off the battle the other side massacrers us. "That is simply too little evidence to conclude that it releases excess energy or transmutes metal." I disagree again. The evidence is overwhelming. It is not as accessible as I would like it to be, but it is there. I have not seen any critique of my reports on Power-Gen that causes me to have any doubts that the device was producing hundreds and probably thousands of time more energy out than input. Even with the crude & inadequate (polite expression for "crappy") instrumentation there, and even though there might have been a 10 or 20% error I suppose, there can be no rational doubt about the results. As I demonstrated here, it is impossible for a 5 watt Radio Shack DC power supply to produce a 17 deg C Delta T temperature over the distance the temperature probes were placed, or even a 5 deg C difference. You can assume any flow rate from one liter per minute down to zero -- it does not matter; you could never get such a high Delta T. "Merely poking at the demo device oneself . . ." I did far more that "merely poke." Furthermore, my descriptions published here were quite detailed, although not well organized, since they were published piecemeal in response to questions and comments. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 20:31:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA17453; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3202C471.5236@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: Gnorts, guys. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: Gnorts Take a long weekend, Chris! Sirhc Yelsnit, I come in pieces---------Frank Stenger (AKA Yekup Tugtor) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 20:46:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA19574; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960803032730_72240.1256_EHB20-1@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 replications. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry writes: "Anyway, they [CETI] seem to think there is no down side to their present strategy---that those of us who have carefully tried to duplicate their work are expendable and ignorable. This, however, is not so true." You misunderstand their attitude completely. They do not consider you expendable and they are paying close attention to your work. They consider you a damn nuisance and a competitive threat, and they very much hope that you fail, and go away. They consider you commercial rivals. If you succeed, they have publicly threatened to harass you for patent violations, at the INFE meeting I quoted earlier. I might add, getting back to history, that the Wrights had exactly the same negative attitude towards their French rivals, as demonstrated in a letter they wrote that I just happened to fax to Chris Tinsley today. Indeed, I think it is safe to say that any corporation would feel that way towards anyone who attempts to replicate their patents. Relations between competitive business rivals may be polite and correct, but they are *never* friendly, helpful or cooperative. CETI is not a university! No business wants to encourage competition. "First, it seems that their patents do not actually refer to their real device and beads . . . " As I explained earlier, you have no basis for jumping to that conclusion. "Second, they are driving motivated people such as me, Scott Little, and Storms, Fox, etc, to look for alternatives to their process." That is a threat they are willing to live with. They think they are so far ahead that Little, Storms et al. represent no serious threat to them. "If they were smart, they would get all interested parties on their side." In business, that would be impossible. It would also be a gross violation of anti-trust laws, and a violation of business ethics and common sense. You are not allowed to cooperate "all on the same side" without special dispensation from the Justice Department or an act of Congress to establish something like SEMETECH. Any other cooperation must be limited, under contract, with secrecy, etcetera. Of course, it would hardly matter in a tiny field like CF, but rules are rules. (It would matter a great deal in an industry the size of, say, pizza makers.) You must try to be sensitive to cultural differences between academic science and business. "I know individuals worth upwards of 100 million dollars, who I would tap if I really believed there were a new power source. But I don't, yet, since their stuff cannot be replicated from their patents." What, MONEY?!? That's a different story!!! Why didn't you say so before? I suggest you package that comment in a nice letter to CETI. Tell them about that money. Tell them that your Mr. Moneybags will only move when you, Barry, report a successful replication. And tell them who this Mr. Moneybags is. Don't play any cute games by hiding the name. (Or if I were them, I would dismiss you.) If they believe you, they might come running with a secrecy agreement for you to sign and beads for you to test. Money is the purpose of this. It is the life-blood of business. Not learning, not the advancement of science: money. If you can contribute to some scheme for getting them money, they might play ball with you. They couldn't care less about the other things you listed, like public and scientific credibility, except insofar as those things affect the bottom line. At least, I hope that is the case. I hope that their main focus is money. I have never heard of a businessman who was focussed on anything else. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 21:10:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA23220; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 21:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 21:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3202CE82.6F0E@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: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > Gnorts Vortexians! > > Well, you old experienced pros have been befuddeling and confusing poor old > amateur novices like yours truly for quite a while, so here's a poser for > you. > > You build a rail gun with a cylindrical barrel "###" which (hopefully) > shoots a shell "XXX" with a hole down the middle for central rod "===". The > gun is powered by connection of the central rod to power supply "P" which, > for the sake of symmetry, is connected via both DB and EC to the barrel: > > ---------------- > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | |B > | #################################### > |D XXXXXXXXX > |----P------A--==================================== > |E XXXXXXXXX > | #################################### > | |C > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > ---------------- > > Now, assuming the projectile starts a ways down the barrel, what happens in > the barrel is isolated from the surroundings, so from the circuit point of > view, the gun simply represents a short circuit from B to C. The force on > the two loops APDBA and APECA is an outward directed force everywhere > resulting in no translational force on the circuit. It is assuming the > elements of the circuit are sufficiently strong or supported structurally > to resist relative movement. Inside the gun the only magnetic field is > that of from the rod, which increases in strength at distance r from the > central axis outward to edge of the rod of radius R as B = k*i*r/R^2, and > then decreases linearly from there to the outer casing. So, there seems to > be some contradictory situations. Current runs through the projectile > purpendicularly to the magnetic field of the rod, so there should be a > force on the projectile. Is the force between the rod and the projectile? > Is there a force on the rod? If so which direction? If not in opposition > to the projectile, where is the reaction force demanded by Newton's second > law? Does the gun shoot at all? > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 OK, Horace, you've done it again! You sucked me into another coaxial- railgun-longitudinal force kind of thing! Project the circle of your rail gun barrel to the left wall of your circuit in the D-E area. This portion of the circuit "wall" will experience a leftward directed force equal to the rightward directed force on your projectile. This is your reaction force. The rest of your walls in the "big" left part of the circuit experence canceling outward forces. This is much like a powder gun with the bottled-up magnetic field acting like the hot gas. There will be a left directed recoil force on your circuit and THE GUN WILL SHOOT. The hooker with designing a real rail gun like this is (if you want a long gun) the poor mechanical status of a long, cantilevered center electrode. I think the forces in the center electrode are mainly radial pinch forces. Frank Z. and I fired a very stubby version of this gun - but having an expanding arc in place of the center conductor. The Al disk serving as the projectile (with a short center electrode) went like !%&$#@ into our stack of old newspapers (as a catcher). In this rig, plasma pressure played an important roll in moving the projectile. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 23:46:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA15954; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3207e5c5.10296340@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: Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:49:01 -0700 (PDT), William Beaty wrote: > >Somebody sent me the experiment below, apparantly from Wayne Green's CF >rag. Anyone try it? Wonderful if something so simple can demonstrate = the >effect. But it sounds suspiciously simple to me because nothing is said >about monitoring the supply current. This is a glaring omission, no? >If the electrolyte changes and cell resistance drops, the heat is not >anomalous. > >> SIMPLE COLD FUSION EXPERIMENT >>=20 >> 1. Mix 2-3 tablespoons of potassium chloride in a 16-oz glass of water >> (distilled recommended) If this reaction goes anything like the electrolysis of sodium chloride, then one should get chlorine gas being developed, along with some chlorine-oxygen compounds in solution (hypochlorite?). So I wouldn't do this one indoors. Perhaps a better bet would be potassium carbonate, or sulphate (or don't these work?) >> 2. Attach leads with alligator clips to two U.S. nickels. >> 3. Fasten the nickels so they dip into the solution, but the alligator >> clips & leads remain dry. >> 4. Attach the leads to a 30 volt DC battery source. >> 5. Insert thermometer in solution to measure temperature. >>=20 >> After a couple of days, the solution will bubble with excess heat = energy, >> much more heat energy than what the battery is capable of producing. = Then >> you have to replenish the water and figure out how to harness the = excess >> heat! The only energy producing reactions of protium with potassium are: 1H1 + 19K39 -> 2He4 + 18Ar36 + 1.289000 MeV 1H1 + 19K40 -> 0n1 + 20Ca40 + 0.530000 MeV 1H1 + 19K40 -> 2He4 + 18Ar37 + 2.279000 MeV 1H1 + 19K41 -> 2He4 + 18Ar38 + 4.022001 MeV 19K40 is only present in very small amounts in natural potassium, and furthermore the second reaction with this isotope produces much more energy (making it more likely to happen). Thus one can easily see why this reaction would only create alpha particles. Perhaps the Nickel plays a catalytic role, by ensuring the presence of H+ and K+ ions at close quarters on the surface of the metal. Even the deuterium reactions: 1H2 + 19K39 -> 0n1 + 20Ca40 + 6.105000 MeV 1H2 + 19K39 -> 1H1 + 19K40 + 5.575000 MeV 1H2 + 19K39 -> 2He4 + 18Ar37 + 7.854000 MeV 1H2 + 19K40 -> 0n1 + 20Ca41 + 6.668000 MeV 1H2 + 19K40 -> 1H1 + 19K41 + 7.870998 MeV 1H2 + 19K40 -> 2He4 + 18Ar38 + 11.893000 MeV 1H2 + 19K41 -> 0n1 + 20Ca42 + 8.054002 MeV 1H2 + 19K41 -> 1H1 + 19K42 + 5.309001 MeV 1H2 + 19K41 -> 2He4 + 18Ar39 + 8.395002 MeV are less likely to produce neutrons than they are to produce alphas. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 2 23:47:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA15992; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3208e8d4.11079745@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: Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Michael Mandeville wrote: >For the experiment below, make sure you use known, pure materials. = After >getting indications that something happened, take the nickel into a lab >which can do plasma mass spec. You will experience the T word, if the >analysis is very accurately expertly done. > If you do experience the T word, then please note that NO combination of stable isotopes of potassium, fusing with the stable isotopes of nickel produces neutrons. However many energy producing reactions do result in various different metals (covering the whole range between potassium and nickel in the periodic table). 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 Aug 2 23:52:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA16035; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3209f28f.13570746@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: Merriman's CETI replication effort X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:19:06 -0700 (PDT), Scott Little wrote: >Barry, I am most impressed by your report. Congratulations on a >well-written, detailed account of your work. > >It is a crying shame that we don't have a similar report from someone = who >has gotten a large positive result from the Patterson Power Cell. Maybe >then we could get our replication efforts off the ground! I agree. However I was surprised when I looked at the photomicrograph of JL's page. Are the metal layers really that separate, or is this an artifact of the preparation? If the latter, then perhaps holding a bead partially submerged in a strong acid to remove all the metal from part of the bead, would produce a less damaged model for the "camera". 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 Aug 3 01:07:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA25937; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 00:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 00:57:59 -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: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Project the circle of your rail gun barrel to the left wall of your >circuit in the D-E area. This portion of the circuit "wall" will >experience a leftward directed force equal to the rightward directed >force on your projectile. This is your reaction force. The rest of >your walls in the "big" left part of the circuit experence canceling >outward forces. This is much like a powder gun with the bottled-up >magnetic field acting like the hot gas. There will be a left directed >recoil force on your circuit and THE GUN WILL SHOOT. The hooker with >designing a real rail gun like this is (if you want a long gun) the >poor mechanical status of a long, cantilevered center electrode. >I think the forces in the center electrode are mainly radial pinch >forces. Frank Z. and I fired a very stubby version of this gun - but >having an expanding arc in place of the center conductor. The Al disk >serving as the projectile (with a short center electrode) went like >!%&$#@ into our stack of old newspapers (as a catcher). In this rig, >plasma pressure played an important roll in moving the projectile. > >Frank Stenger I saw a video of your BL test Frank. I saw the swirls on the central conical aluminum electrode. I saw you run into the garage to put out the fire. Really enjoyed the tape. I even believe there is a force on the sugggested projectile and the gun will shoot. However, how is it a circular magnetic field which might be a long ways away from the power loops, and with an axis purpendicular to the segments you mention, exerts a force on the loops? Wouldn't you get exactly the same force if the shell were still, stuck in the barrel? How does the fact the shell is moving or not translate into a force on the system? Or maybe we have finally isolated two current elements to which the Biot-Savart law applies? Is there a force on the barrel as well? It just doesn't seem to add up in regards to Newton's second and third laws. Somehow what is going on in the barrel gets translated back to the power loop, no matter how big a distance, how long the barrel. Suppose the barrel is 1 mile long and the projectile is near the end of the barrel and held against the current, but then suddenly released. How does the force get translated back to the back of the loop? The back end of the gun is open. Why doesn't the "magnetic pressure" fly out? All these are questions that might be answered by saying all the forces are already "there" releasing the projectile ends the force on one section of the loop, just like a regular rail gun, resulting on a net recoil force on the system. However, the above explanation, coupled with the prior analysis of the coaxial cable, all seems to put an end to Biot-Savart (Ampere force between current segments) as a "real" law, in that the current elements of the armature and rod were "isolated", yet there was no net force on them, unless you want to consider the force on the rod or sheath in the (wrong) direction of the projectile motion caused by the current taking a turn to/from the projectile in the rod or sheath at the brush contact points with the projectile. So Biot-Savart is dead as a "real law", or maybe something is wrong with the analysis of the coax to begin with, but that was all based on Biot-Savart as well. So what remains of the longitudinal force? It must act on a charge, thus it must act on opposite charges oppositely. Any balanced charge conductor has matched pairs of charges, so should experience a net translational force of zero from the longitudinal force. Thus the tendancy to make neutral atom dipoles and maybe even shear on crystal planes. However, the nucleii are locked in place, so if there is a longitudinal force, it should generate an electron current in a conductor. There has been no evidence of such currents that I have seen, but there has been evidence to the contrary. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 05:48:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13790; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 05:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 05:45:36 -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: Super conductor, non conservation :Bi-Brn Wings by Ross.. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Robert Stirniman wrote: > > I think the original idea was to create a UFO ("Sorry about that > > chief!" -(Maxwell Smart)). I.e. some form of anti-gravity device. It > > seems to me that using your theory, the logical approach to this would > > be to attempt to counteract the filtering effect that the Earth has on > > the QVF, by imposing an even stronger artificial filter above the > > object one wants to get "airborne" > > And one might keep in mind that the ability to "shield" a > gravitational field, is also likely to result in production > a non-conservative field. Q: What is meant by non-conservative please? If a non-conservative field can be > generated via "static" sources, you have the makings of a > free energy machine. > > Regards, > Robert Stirniman > NOTE: A superconductor can be thought of, in certain context, as roughly analogous to a "shield" for magnetism. A prime mover or "motor" based of this exists .... it is actually a spinning membr in a field .... but it "motors" ..... Does this fit any of the qualification of non-conservation and or energy device? BTW: The spinning of the rotor is not "free energy". J From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 06:59:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA19568; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 06:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 06:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Frank Stenger wrote: >>Project the circle of your rail gun barrel to the left wall of your >>circuit in the D-E area. This portion of the circuit "wall" will >>experience a leftward directed force equal to the rightward directed >>force on your projectile. This is your reaction force. The rest of >>your walls in the "big" left part of the circuit experence canceling >>outward forces. This is much like a powder gun with the bottled-up >>magnetic field acting like the hot gas. There will be a left directed >>recoil force on your circuit and THE GUN WILL SHOOT. The hooker with >>designing a real rail gun like this is (if you want a long gun) the >>poor mechanical status of a long, cantilevered center electrode. >>I think the forces in the center electrode are mainly radial pinch >>forces. Frank Z. and I fired a very stubby version of this gun - but >>having an expanding arc in place of the center conductor. The Al disk >>serving as the projectile (with a short center electrode) went like >>!%&$#@ into our stack of old newspapers (as a catcher). In this rig, >>plasma pressure played an important roll in moving the projectile. >> >>Frank Stenger > ---------------- > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | |B > | #################################### > |D XXXXXXXXX > |----P------A--==================================== > |E XXXXXXXXX > | #################################### > | |C > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > ---------------- > As to the practicality of the central rod I would like to point out that (a) rail guns can be very short and still very effective and (b) the central rod can be part of the projectile with a brush at (a) which also permits putting a spin on the projectile with a motor between P and A. But these are practical considerations and this problem is meant to get to the bottom of the longitudinal force issue. There was an earlier description of a configuration where the gun is 1 mile long the current running, the shell held in place and then suddenly released. One can use the argument that the forces were all "in place" at the time of the shell release, so when the release occurred there would be a recoil. This would be analagous to exploding a charge but holding the shell while the gas was still in the barrel. However, this pressure must be distributed around a planar loop. The pressure in the loops is a function of the area of the loop. Also, from the loop's point of view, say loop APDBA the gun is merely the segment BA which has a short. The "pressure already there assumption", combined with a "no Biot force between the barrel and projectile" assumption limits the pressure on the projectile to length(AB)/length(APDB)*pressure_on(APDBA). This implies that making the loop APBDA and APECA bigger reduces the force between the projectile and the rest of the system, because the length(AB) remains fixed. Do I have a mistake here? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 07:06:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA20689; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960803095912_376498856@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: Thanks! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Brian I spoke with Miley and his graduate student Micheal Williams about this. They both told me that they have found a way to make the beads very cheeply. A production cell should cost about as much as a catalytic converter in a car. The technology is similar. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 07:19:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA21673; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:15:16 -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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Folks, I will ask you to read the original of this text and refet to it. My are basic and intended to be just that .... basic questions. JHS On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Scott Little wrote: > At 07:48 8/2/96 -0700, BillB wrote: > > > >Somebody sent me the experiment below, apparantly from Wayne Green's CF > > I tried something quite similar that appeared in late 1994. Here is my > "report", which I posted to spf at the time: > > > Preliminary Data From Calorimetric Study > of Double-Nickel Cell > > Scott Little EarthTech Int'l > > Unlike Ogle's cell, my cells were not fitted with thermistors or > stirrers. I used a KCO3 solution made by adding 64g of KCO3 to 190g of Q: Why not KCl ??? > > The electrical power (instantaneous voltage*current) is computer and > integrated over time by the computer to yield the total electrical > energy delivered to the device under test (this quantity is called > Ein). In addition, the current is integrated over time to yield the > total charge pumped through the device under test (this quantity is > called Qin) Q: Can you or did you plot V or i, or both ... over time? This is important. During the run, all parameters are read > every 10 seconds and all raw data is written to disk. > There is a good chance of losing dynamic information at this slow rate. > > Initial cell weight: 219.45g > Final cell weight: 217.82g > > These weights were determined with a precision analytical balance and > are presumed to be accurate to 0.01g. The difference between them is > the amount of electrolyte that was lost during the run: 1.63g . Q: Was the electrolyte weighed separately? Or is the accurae term here loss of total cell weight? > Qin for this run was 15618.5 coulombs. OK BIG Question SERIES # 1 Since it takes two electrons > moving through the cell to release one O atom and 2 H atoms, it can be > shown that 1 coulomb of charge passing through such a cell will > dissociate 5.184*10^-6 moles of H2O. Q: In your cell, what was resistance? Q: Is it plotted over time? Q: What are resistance heat losses? QQQ: If there is a time dependent as-yet-to-be-determined type of reaction, be it fusion, electro chemical, chemical, other or combination[s], is it not almost REQUIRED to log change vs time to try to ascertain the five Ws [who,what,when,why,where] and H ...[how] regarding what obtains? Big Q series # 2 Using the heat of formation of > liquid water at 25 degrees C (68.315 kcal/mole), we can calculate that 1 > coulomb of charge passing through the cell frees up a quantity of H2 and > O2 which, when reacted and cooled back to ambient temperature, would > yield 1.483 joules. QQQQQ: What reacted? Q Are you talking about burning the H2 and O ? Did you do this? Why would you do this? NOTE: and if not burning ... then Q: What reacting ??? Q: This " reacting " how does it fit? Where did it come from? Q: Why did you cool it? q: did you cool it? q: How did you cool it? q: Why did you have to cool it? q:When did you cool it? q: Where did the heat go? q: How much was this heat? Therefore, the 15618.5 coulombs pushed through the > cell in this run should have liberated gases with potential energy of > 23162.2 joules. NOTE: This assumes that the only mechanism for > electron transport through the cell is via dissociation of H2O. There > is certainly some electrolytic action taking place that involves the > KCO3 in the solution but I believe that it does not contribute to the > movement of electrons through the cell. Comment: Water is a good dielectric. Almost always salts are added to lower the resistance of the elecro chemical cell, usually as a participant in the desired reaction[s]. VERY IMPORTANT .... Affects may things such as I sq. R effects. If someone knows otherwise, > please inform me. > > Also from the Qin value, one can calculate the total weight of H2O > dissociated in the cell. This comes out to 1.457g...leaving 0.173g of > lost H2O unaccounted for. > BIG Q SERIES A # 55 > A fairly careful measurement of the rate of gas evolution from the cell > during operation yielded a result 1.08 times higher than the rate > expected from the H2 and O2 alone (using the current through the cell to > predict the H2+O2 flow rate). Q: Is this important to you? NOTE: At his point if I knew little or nothing about electro chmistry I would be saying to myself "Well, lookie, lookie, lookie ... who found a cookie" ... and " now let's see ... nearly 10% extra hydrox .. than that which conventional wisdom [according to this account ... remember I know nothing about electro chemistry] dictates ... and that means a) I have discovered a better electrolysis process b) I could burn the fuel c) I might even be able to run the hydrox through a fuel cell, get electricity .... wonder how much it would be?? d) How would it fit into the total energy equaions of the experiment e) 0.08 times is a significant figure f) wonder what the time vs resistance/current/voltage plots look like ... and is this a real cool negative resistance curve and when did this nearly 10% exra bizzz start to happen ??? If the 0.173g of lost water is all > evaporated in the cell, it would augment the gas flow rate by 7.9%. MORE TO COME > See installment # 2 JHS > The calorimeter yielded a final Eout value of 23867 joules. ??? What about the 0.8 times extra hydrox ??? > The computer monitoring system measured a total Ein of 50015 joules for > this run (the extra 15 joules come out of capacitors in the power supply > after the computer turns its power off). What capacitors? > 23867 joules heat output as measured by calorimeter > 23162 joules gas potential energy calculated from Qin > 370 joules evaporated water energy calculated from cell weight > losses > 47399 joules total output energy (sum of the above three > values) > > Ratio this output to the 50015 joule input energy and you get 0.948. > There are 2616 joules missing somewhere, which amount to about 5% of the > input energy. > Hydrox energy? Extra 0.08 times hydrox as well? > Tom Droege mentioned that energy is stored in the electrodes as metal > hydrides. Can anyone offer an estimate of the amount of energy storable > in a nickel (coin) as hydrides? A nickel weighs 5.0g and presumably > only one of the nickels in my cell would have absorbed hydrogen. > Moreover, does anyone know anything about the hydrogen affinity of the > 80-20 cupronickel alloy? > > 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 Sat Aug 3 07:25:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA22258; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:21:49 -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: Merriman's CETI replication effort X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: This is how much excess heat? On Fri, 2 Aug 1996 FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > I spoke with Quinton Bowles of the Univ of Kansas > he got positive results. > > I met with Geroge Miley..he got positive results. > > I spoke with Chuck Ross of Kansis City Power and Light he got postive > results. > > The CETI cells works..believe it....I do...that is not a question...I saw the > thing myself... > > The problem is at $20,000 / 100 watts test device > > thats $200,000 /KW no one is going to buy any. > > I spoke with CETI about this. They need to lower the price to $2,000 / KW > and start selling. Instead of looking for high flyers with extra cash they > should be looing for someone who can do this for them. > > I tried to help them. I can't do anything at these prices. > > Frank Znidarsic > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 07:33:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA22858; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960803102448_376507876@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: movie X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Michael Williams The movie Chain Reaction is about a graduate student working at the University of Chicago on cold fusion. Michael, that's you !!!!! Is your real name, by chance, Eddie Kasalavich??? This stuff really happened to you, didn't it????? The world wants to know: How did you find your way through the ductwork in the tunnel??? Who blew up the lab. Was is you??? What kind of computor do you have to get license numbers??? Can you check some out for me??? How did you know which buttons to push so the bad guys get hit with steam. Who got burned with the steam?? Was is Jed R, Gene M, of George HM??? I hope not. How did you escape the CIA sharp shooters??? Who was the bad guy??? Was it me??? Michael I find the real story more interesting than the Hollywood version. What do you think??? The real story as it stands now is quite enough. Frank Znidarsic Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 07:54:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA25660; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:50:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 07:50:17 -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: Thanks! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Brian I spoke with Miley and his graduate student Micheal Williams about >this. They both told me that they have found a way to make the beads very >cheeply. A production cell should cost about as much as a catalytic >converter in a car. The technology is similar. > > >Frank Znidarsic How about a them selling some to us? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 08:55:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA02812; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 08:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 08:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <32037464.50B0@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: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > the barrel. Suppose the barrel is 1 mile long and the projectile is near > the end of the barrel and held against the current, but then suddenly > released. How does the force get translated back to the back of the loop? Horace, when I try to understand a physical happening I always look for the simple models first. Thats why I drew that coaxial line with the capacitors and switch inline in the center conductor. I was trying to get simple symmetry. First, the forces exist AT ONCE in all circuit elements. They do not need to be translated 1 mile back to anywhere! If you block the projectile at the end of the barrel, the forces will all be there. The pulse current will decay to zero (if the circuit is "critically damped") with all energy going into circuit heat. Isolate the circuit + projectile as a free-body diagram and it remains stationary. If you let the projectile fly, it gets more complicated. If the projectile (P from now on!) is accelerating down the barrel, the inductance of the line is increasing, so I*(dL/dt) gives a counter EMF to absorb work to accelerate the P. If you release the P from rest at the end of the barrel, the opposite wall one mile away ( I am assuming the pulse time is long enough to ignore the speed of light!) is feeling the force at the same time. As P pops out of the barrel - let's say at current peak for the circuit - the inductive energy stored in the coaxial line will continue the current thru an arc at the end of the barrel, make a lot of heat, and try to reverse-charge the capacitor bank if the circuit is under damped. P will have much less velocity/momentum and the circuit (gun) will have less recoil. The way P moves or not controls the current profile in the circuit, but the local forces in a region of the circuit are MAINLY determined by the local currents and resultant fields. The P does not have to push on any distant circuit elements. The current is already doing that! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 09:07:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA04053; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 09:03:39 -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 (by way of hheffner@anc.ak.net) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: FTL phase propagation experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Take spool of std coax, like RG-59. Run it out the door and around the building ... measure the lenght..... make it some useful number like 500 meters ... or something. Connect one end to simple phase shifter [RC network, series C of maybe 0.01 uF .... two series resistors to ground .... one resistor is 510 ohms .... and the other is, say, 2.2k ohms. put the 2.2 K ohm resistor closest to ground and bridge it with a normally open spring loaded momentary contact switch. The resistors to ground are on the side AWAY from signal source. This is a standard AC coupling network.] Pushing the switch causes a phase shift. SO: Signal generator to scope AND to PS network. Then to coax. Coax around building. Coax free end into OTHER channel of scope. Fast swwep, signal generator at 6 to 10 megacycles per second. You are now comparing the goes into and the comes outa .... when you do the phase shift .... the SHIFT will appear at the end faster than light could travel that distance. Post if you want. I could put this up into kits and sell them if you think anyone would want them. J On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > John Schnurer writes: > [snip] > > BTW: have you tried the FTL phase propagation experiemnt? > > > > Oldie but goodie. > > > What is the FTL phase propagation experiment? > > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 09:25:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA05155; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608031608.JAA00200@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: Ampere, Biefeld, and Brown X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Our friend Ampere did a few experiments in the 1830s relating to electrostatics as well as experiments with electric currents. One of his electrostatic experiments was called the electric mill -- in French he called it something like "moullinet electrique." Ampere's electric mill is similar in some respects to the Biefeld Brown effect. Curiously, an elaborate crop circle - yes, there you have it, a crop circle -- showed up this week in England that looks like one of Ampere's electric mill experiments. You can find a great photo of it on Art Bell's webpage (www.artbell.com), labelled "windmill". If you take a copper sheet and cut it roughly in the shape of this crop circle (integrate out and make a solid copper shape around the circles used to make the image), and mount this disk to a conductive pivot, balanced and able to spin like the needle of a handheld magnetic compass, and then energize it with high voltage AC, it will rotate. In air, in a vacuum, in the aether. Is it possible that Ampere, Biefeld, and Brown are having a good laugh about this. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 09:23:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA05227; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 09:16:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 09:16:24 -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: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Amended post: > ---------------- > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | |B > | #################################### > |D XXXXXXXXX > |----P------A--==================================== > |E XXXXXXXXX > | #################################### > | |C > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > ---------------- > As to the practicality of the central rod I would like to point out that (a) rail guns can be very short and still very effective and (b) the central rod can be part of the projectile with a brush at A which also permits putting a spin on the projectile with a motor between P and A. But these are practical considerations and this problem is meant to get to the bottom of the longitudinal force issue. There was an earlier description of a configuration where the gun is 1 mile long the current running, the shell held in place and then suddenly released. One can use the argument that the forces were all "in place" at the time of the shell release, so when the release occurred there would be a recoil. This would be analagous to exploding a charge but holding the shell while the gas was still in the barrel. However, this pressure must be distributed around a planar loop. The pressure in the loops is a function of the area of the loop. Also, from the loop's point of view, say loop APDBA the gun is merely the segment BA which has a short. The "pressure already there assumption", combined with a "no Biot force between the barrel and projectile" assumption limits the pressure on the projectile to length(AB)/length(APDB)*pressure_on(APDBA). This implies that making the loop APBDA and APECA bigger reduces the force between the projectile and the rest of the system, because the length(AB) remains fixed. Do I have a mistake here? Partially, there is a mistake. There should be a force on the loop at points B and C due to the repulsion between the currents at B and C and the current down the sheath near B and C. However, this should be matched where the current takes a turn into the projectile from the sheath. These two forces stretch the sheath. There is a similar set of balanced stretching forces in the rod at DE and at the projectile. So, to make the problem more clear, the constraint needs to be added that the current is cut off before the shell leaves the barrel. This makes the question of recoil more interresting. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 10:50:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA19678; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608031738.KAA00258@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: Forwarded From Volodya X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Robert, My friend Robert Bishop resent me from the message of Michael Schaffer on 'Longitudinal force logic'. Yes, he is absolutely right in conclusion that, for the closed current circuits, there is no difference in consequences of the Grassman and Ampere laws. However, one may imagine the situation where the current circuit is unclosed. I realize that the experiments with ultra short pulses require very precise, and therefore, expensive, equipment. I read in Russian financial magazine that according to the report of the US Military Air Forces dated January 31 1996 the especial attention is being paid to development of 'electronic weapon' so I suspect such an equipment is under big secret. We are going to perform the similar experiment this October, however, maybe one could repeat Nikolaev-Shil'nikov experiment before this time? I explain how to design unclosed current circuit. While I was at St.Pete conference last June I wrote to Chris about so called Avramenko plug allowing for the current to flow in one wire only. It is close to Tesla 1/4 wavelength coil, however, in Tesla's high frequency experiments, the earth ground played a role of the second wire. Avramenko used 50 Hz current and, therefore, the earth ground cannot be considered as such a wire (via capacitance connection). The scheme of the experiment is similar to previous one, i.e. s G--A---|||||-Plug s Where G is 50 Hz AC source, s the solenoids, A the oscilloscope type amperemeter and 'Plug' is an Avramenko (or 1/4 Tesla) plug. Using oscilloscope type device, it will be not so difficult to distinguish purely sine signal and sine signal deformed by one sign voltage applied to the ends of the sample. Strictly speaking, such an voltage will be applied to the whole wire. In the above experiment, the current flows only along the line of symmetry. It is diserable to place the plug between the solenoids to form the current circuit to be nonsymmetryc with respect to vertical axis (s-s in the scheme) because on the right side from s-s axis the voltage (as I assume due to @A/@r) changes it sign and an expected effect reduces to zero. Maybe you put this my proposal to the Vortex_l list for discussion? From my email, I cannot make it. Of course, with your and Horace's comments and my replies on the design of the soleniod. And if my English is incorrect, please, correct it. With warm regard, Volodya From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 11:00:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA20402; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320391AE.314C@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: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: So, to make the > problem more clear, the constraint needs to be added that the current is > cut off before the shell leaves the barrel. This makes the question of > recoil more interresting. Horace, if you cut the CURRENT to zero, you cut all forces to zero. Recoil force stops - projectile acceleration stops - the projectile coasts out of the barrel - what's so interesting? One whose head is so clear, you can see the fish swimming inside, ------- Frank Stenger. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 11:07:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA21815; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:04:16 -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: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Gnorts! > -----------------------------|<|------------------ > | | > |-----|>|------| | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | |B | > | #################################### > |D XXXXXXXXX > |----P------A--==================================== > |E XXXXXXXXX > | #################################### > | |C | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > |-----|>|------- | > | | > -----------------------------|<|------------------ The coaxial railgun problem has much more significance than application to railguns. If there is anything non-conservative about this process then perhaps it can be utilized with efficiency. That is because the process is reversable and highly repeatable. If P is an alternating current source with sufficient frequency then the projectile becomes a piston. If the piston can be accelerated without a full recoil then it can be hammered into a physical barrier at the end of the gun, i.e. channeled into a kinetic action, then accelerated without recoil backwards and then forwards to repeat the action. Every cycle a fixed net momentum, relative to the system reference frame, and thus a delta v, is then added to the system as a whole regardless of its velocity. This has implication to the limits of velocity as well as implications of free energy. The piston need not be solid. It could be a liquid or plasma. Of course there are much better circuits to achieve the subject questioned results, but this one shows a clear relationship of the posed coaxial rail gun problem to generating energy. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 11:15:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22601; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:10:56 -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: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Gnorts! > -----------------------------|<|------------------ > | | > |-----|>|------| | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | |B | > | #################################### > |D XXXXXXXXX > |----P------A--==================================== > |E XXXXXXXXX > | #################################### > | |C | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > |-----|>|------- | > | | > -----------------------------|<|------------------ The coaxial railgun problem has much more significance than application to railguns. If there is anything non-conservative about this process then perhaps it can be utilized with efficiency. That is because the process is reversable and highly repeatable. If P is an alternating current source with sufficient frequency then the projectile becomes a piston. If the piston can be accelerated without a full recoil then it can be hammered into a physical barrier at the end of the gun, i.e. channeled into a kinetic action, then accelerated without recoil backwards and then forwards to repeat the action. Every cycle a fixed net momentum, relative to the system reference frame, and thus a delta v, is then added to the system as a whole regardless of its velocity. This has implication to the limits of velocity as well as implications of free energy. The piston need not be solid. It could be a liquid or plasma. Of course there are much better circuits to achieve the subject questioned results, but this one shows a clear relationship of the posed coaxial rail gun problem to generating energy. PS - I am too lazy to draw the rail portion of the circuit over on the right hand side. It might be assumed to "come out of the page". Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 11:46:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25932; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <32032071.BFE@loc100.tandem.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Bob Horst To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Merriman's CETI replication effort X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > Barry, I am most impressed by your report. Congratulations on a > well-written, detailed account of your work. > I agree. It would be great if more experiments were documented this well. A few weeks ago, I visited Miley and spoke with him for a few hours. I was especially interested in his opinions on why Scott's beads might not be showing excess heat. (I was careful to make sure to stay away from anything that would have required a NDA from CETI.) Miley has been concentating on the reaction products, rather than increasing the heat output. He was previously working on mulitlayer beads, with many alternating Ni and Pd layers, but has simplified the experiment now to look for transmutations. Now he is plating a single thin layer of metal (around 100 A) on glass or plastic substrates and looking for the transmutations. He has tried many different metals and substrates. In some experiments, he has seen over 50% of the Ni transmuted into other elements. He could not share the list of products, but said that he was getting results similar to Mizuno, except that he could not capture the gasses and therefore could not look for Xe. He is analyzing the reaction products through several methods, and said he is > 99% sure that it is transutation, not contamination. He also said that the analysis is very difficult to do correctly, and that only a few labs around the world, include the one at Illinois, have the latest equipment to be able to make these claims with much certainty. He is preparing a paper on this work for ICCF-6. One of the curious things he said was that the reaction products change substantially when switching between glass and plastic substrates. He sees transmutations with both, but the ratio of exothermic reactions may change. He believes that the heat output is the difference between some big numbers: the energy producing and consuming transmuations. Miley's work may indicate that the substrate, or the thin copper layer, may actively participate in the reactions in the CETI beads. Getting back to Scott's beads, there are substantial differences from CETIs beads -- the first batch had glass substrates, and I believe that the Kirk Shananan beads do not have the copper layer that CETI has. Given Miley's latest work, this could be the reason no one has been able to make any of these beads work. -- Bob Horst From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 11:58:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA27630; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608031850.LAA06274@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: >Ross, Robin, & All - > >As to testing the nature of the "force" moving the disc assembly as described, >what do you think of this idea: > >If there's an appreciable gap between the electrodes that wouldn't be >arc-shorted by the insertion of an object, say 1" or so at least, (video I've >seen of some of Brown's experiments show several inches between the uneven >electrodes), then test objects could be placed in this focused or shaped beam >or field with the electrode assembly held fixed. I thought of hanging various >small objects of different composition but similar size and shape, as in small >spheres of lead, steel, copper, plastic, glass, etc., from long threads inside >a long glass tube for ion-induced and general air current shielding. snip There are an awful lot of compicating factors in this experiment. You have a huge voltage in the system that can induce voltages in secondary devices that are not trivial. Those effects would likely be much larger (at least the potential, so to speak, is there that these effects would be large) than the thrust effect of the B-B device. In other words, you are putting into the system secondary devices that can be thrust for completely diffirent reasons. I think that just building a B-B device that shows the effect, and then putting it in a vacuum chamber would establish whether or not there were a relation to ions in the air due to the corona that must be present at those voltages. The question that was interesting to me was that the thrust did not reverse when the voltage was reversed. But it later occured to me that even if one were accelerting the atoms in one case and the electrons in the other case, you still have the same voltage potential for each to move through. Thus, the kinetic energy would be the same, although the velocities would differ by their mass ratios. What this may mean is that the geometry somehow creates an assymetric ion acceleration. Not very hard to imagine even without studying it due to the geometry of the device. The whole crux is, is the effect due to ion acceleration, or is it due to QVF interaction? I honestly have no clue here. But if the vacuum experiment shows a decrease in the effect as the air pressure is dropped, then you know what I am going to think. Finally, I can think of stretches of my imagination where this effect would be due to an interaction with the QVF due to the geometry despite the static nature of the field. This is because I consider the field not to be static in the sense that at the Planck scale it seems to me to be essentially a phased array radar beam collimated along the axis. This should "harvest" energy from the vacuum in kind with the emissions. But there is the key, "in kind". This implies no net thrust. All devices I can imagine that interact with the quantum vacuum do so via accelerations. Even our bodies interact in this manner and we call this effect, inertia. This is why I am more interested in what might be learned from the Unruh effect as it was described to me a while back and as I have posted here recently. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 11:58:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA27736; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608031850.LAA06277@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: Bogus: Re: FTL phase propagation experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Take spool of std coax, like RG-59. Run it out the door and >around the building ... measure the lenght..... make it some useful >number like 500 meters ... or something. Connect one end to simple >phase shifter [RC network, series C of maybe 0.01 uF .... two series >resistors to ground .... one resistor is 510 ohms .... and the other is, >say, 2.2k ohms. put the 2.2 K ohm resistor closest to ground and bridge >it with a normally open spring loaded momentary contact switch. The >resistors to ground are on the side AWAY from signal source. This is a >standard AC coupling network.] Pushing the switch causes a phase shift. > > SO: Signal generator to scope AND to PS network. Then to coax. >Coax around building. Coax free end into OTHER channel of scope. Fast >swwep, signal generator at 6 to 10 megacycles per second. > You are now comparing the goes into and the comes outa .... when >you do the phase shift .... the SHIFT will appear at the end faster than >light could travel that distance. This is comparing the goes inna with one circuit with the goes outa with a different circuit where you are interjecting an RC phase shift. Try the experiment with two lengths of cable, one short and one long. Then, measure the phase angle for each of the outputs and calculate the velocity of propogation. You will find that it has been reduced to below c by the factor of the square root of the effective dielectric constant of the insulation of the coax. I used to test cables all day long for propogation velocity, electric length, and attenuation of 25 ps signals using Time Delay Reflectometry. I was easily able to resolve minor variances in the impedance of the coax or transmission line down to 0.10 inches. The concept of phase shifting to get the wave front to move faster than light is bogus in a coax. All that has happened here is that the signal launched was time shifted from before and after pressing the switch. This is easy to do, but has nothing to do with the cable. However, if your cable length is large enough and your frequency high enough, you could wind up with virtually any phase relationship you wanted by just snipping the length of the cable. ie, there are multiple sinusoids in that long of a cable. Round numbers, 10 inches per ns. 1500m ~= 5400 ns >~ 185 KHz. So, you have lots of waves in that cable. Put another way, at 10 Mhz, the length of the wave is just 100 ns long, or 0.1 us long and at 10 inches per ns, we get 100 feet per wave. So, your 1500 meters has about 45 full sinusoids in it. Thus, without accurately measuring the electrical length of your cable, you cannot even make a measurement of the propogation velocity because you don't know if there are 43 or 45 or 47, etc. cycles from one end to the other. Bogus alert. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 12:19:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01067; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608031913.OAA24444@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: Merriman's CETI replication effort X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 11:43 PM 8/2/96 -0700, Robin wrote: >...I was surprised when I looked at the photomicrograph >of JL's page. Are the metal layers really that separate, or is this an >artifact of the preparation? The bead maker assures me that the GRINDING process used to section the bead for the SEM caused the layers to separate like that. Indeen, a more gentle prep would have been nice. - 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 Aug 3 12:30:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01670; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:22:24 -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: Back up ... loading term "bogus" Bogus: Re: FTL phase propagation experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Ross Tessien wrote: > > Take spool of std coax, like RG-59. Run it out the door and > >around the building ... measure the lenght..... make it some useful > >number like 500 meters ... or something. Connect one end to simple > >phase shifter [RC network, series C of maybe 0.01 uF .... two series > >resistors to ground .... one resistor is 510 ohms .... and the other is, > >say, 2.2k ohms. put the 2.2 K ohm resistor closest to ground and bridge > >it with a normally open spring loaded momentary contact switch. The > >resistors to ground are on the side AWAY from signal source. This is a > >standard AC coupling network.] Pushing the switch causes a phase shift. > > > > SO: Signal generator to scope AND to PS network. Then to coax. > >Coax around building. Coax free end into OTHER channel of scope. Fast > >swwep, signal generator at 6 to 10 megacycles per second. > > You are now comparing the goes into and the comes outa .... when > >you do the phase shift .... the SHIFT will appear at the end faster than > >light could travel that distance. > > This is comparing the goes inna with one circuit with the goes outa with a > different circuit where you are interjecting an RC phase shift. Try the > experiment with two lengths of cable, one short and one long. Then, measure > the phase angle for each of the outputs and calculate the velocity of > propogation. You will find that it has been reduced to below c by the > factor of the square root of the effective dielectric constant of the > insulation of the coax. > > I used to test cables all day long for propogation velocity, electric > length, and attenuation of 25 ps signals using Time Delay Reflectometry. I > was easily able to resolve minor variances in the impedance of the coax or > transmission line down to 0.10 inches. The concept of phase shifting to get > the wave front to move faster than light is bogus in a coax. All that has > happened here is that the signal launched was time shifted from before and > after pressing the switch. This is easy to do, but has nothing to do with > the cable. > > However, if your cable length is large enough and your frequency high > enough, you could wind up with virtually any phase relationship you wanted > by just snipping the length of the cable. ie, there are multiple sinusoids > in that long of a cable. Please perform this specific experiment. report results. Then claim if bogus or not. This experiment and TDR ... either EMRF or OTDR ....are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. > > Round numbers, 10 inches per ns. 1500m ~= 5400 ns >~ 185 KHz. So, you have > lots of waves in that cable. Put another way, at 10 Mhz, the length of the > wave is just 100 ns long, or 0.1 us long and at 10 inches per ns, we get 100 > feet per wave. This is not a propagation measurment .... and I have used the term propagation in accurately. When you switch the phase shifting ... which can be done electrically with bipolar or FET transistor .... you see the event on channel 1 ..... and can see effect of passage through cable on channel 2. No guesswork here. J So, your 1500 meters has about 45 full sinusoids in it. > Thus, without accurately measuring the electrical length of your cable, you > cannot even make a measurement of the propogation velocity because you don't > know if there are 43 or 45 or 47, etc. cycles from one end to the other. > > Bogus alert. > > Ross Tessien > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 12:55:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA04346; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608031941.OAA25796@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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:15 AM 8/3/96 -0700, John S wrote a lot of questions about my double-nickel experiment, which I will answer as briefly and concisely as possible to save bandwidth: > Q: Why not KCl ??? A: because Ogle used KCO3. > Q: Can you or did you plot V or i, or both ... over time? A: Yes that data is available in the disk file. > Q: Was the electrolyte weighed separately? A: No, just the entire cell. Before and after cell weights yielded electrolyte loss. > Q: In your cell, what was resistance? A: It varies somewhat, especially as temp changes > Q: Is it plotted over time? A: I suppose it could be...but I haven't done so. > Q: What are resistance heat losses? A: Well, all the power that does NOT go into separating H2O ends up being dissipated in the cell as heat....I think. > QQQ: If there is a time dependent as-yet-to-be-determined type >of reaction, be it fusion, electro chemical, chemical, other or >combination[s], is it not almost REQUIRED to log change vs time to try to >ascertain the five Ws [who,what,when,why,where] and H ...[how] regarding >what obtains? A: I do have all that data but, if the total heat output is not significantly larger than the total electrical energy input, is it really worth further study? > QQQQQ: What reacted? > Q Are you talking about burning the H2 and O ? > Did you do this? Why would you do this? > Q: What reacting ??? > Q: Why did you cool it? > q: did you cool it? > q: How did you cool it? > q: Why did you have to cool it? > q:When did you cool it? > q: Where did the heat go? > q: How much was this heat? A: You appear to misunderstand my rambling discussion of how to calculate the energy lost by the cell when the H2 and O2 gas produced by the electrolysis is allowed to escape as it did in my experiment. I didn't ever react the H2 and O2 back together...I just let the gas escape. > NOTE: This assumes that the only mechanism for >> electron transport through the cell is via dissociation of H2O. A: This, in fact, is the case (virtually). >> A fairly careful measurement of the rate of gas evolution from the cell >> during operation yielded a result 1.08 times higher than the rate >> expected from the H2 and O2 alone (using the current through the cell to >> predict the H2+O2 flow rate). > > Q: Is this important to you? A: Yes. You need to measure the gas evolved to see if any significant amount of recombination is occurring inside the cell. If it is, then you need to take that into account when calculating the heat value of the escaping gases. The 8% extra is almost certainly water vapor...not excess H2 and O2. > What capacitors? A: ordinary filter capacitors in a DC power supply, totally inconsequential, actually. Summary note: I never figured out why the energy balance came out 5% negative in this experiment. If it had happened only once, I'd dismiss it but I ran the thing several times and got similar results. It definitely could still have been some kind of calorimetric error. Calorimetry is NOT easy to do accurately. - 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 Aug 3 12:55:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA05662; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608031947.OAA26057@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: Merriman's CETI replication effort X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 11:41 AM 8/3/96 -0700, Bob Horst wrote: >A few weeks ago, I visited Miley and spoke with him for a few hours... >Miley has been concentating on the reaction products.... He is analyzing the reaction products through several >methods, and said he is > 99% sure that it is transutation, not >contamination. Bob, do you have any idea WHY he is 99% sure it's not contamination? I am concerned about this: The electolysis process tends to plate out every metallic ion in the electrolyte onto the catahode. Especially in the CETI-style experiments, there is a relatively large volume of electrolyte present, all of which is available as a source of ions. It wouldn't take a very high level of impurities in the original Li2SO4 to build up relatively high concs in/on the cathode. - 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 Aug 3 13:43:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA12726; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 13:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 13:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608032035.NAA10845@dfw-ix2.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: The Titanium/Deuterium Dewar Flask Trick X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: In the current spf newsgroup a posting by Doug Morgan, the main portion of which I copy here, appeared which I felt appropriate to respond to and post also on the Vortex. Doug Morgan wrote: >Subject: The Titanium/Deuterium Dewar Flask Trick > > >I understand that many years ago, scientists were intrigued by the >fact that one can get measurable neutron emission from Titanium bars >by simply exposing them to deuterium until they saturate and then >droping them in liquid nitrogen. > >Has anyone tried this? I think that repeating this experiment, would >confirm the existance of cold fusion. > >As for the reason for the slow progress, I would attribute it to the >Dr.Frankenstein effect. > >Doug Morgan >President >First Principle Controls >313 W Saulnier >Houston, Texas 77019 >713-521-3223 >http://www.netcom.com/~dmorgs/firstprin/analyzers.html >-- >Someday everything is going to be different when I paint my >masterpiece. >And that's what its all about! Very interesting! And I feel this to be very relevent to furthur validating the cold fusion effect, if true and accurate. Do yopu know of any written material of this to refer to? And why Titanium in the first place and not other materials? The effect should work doubly well for Palladium loaded with Deuterium (or Hydrogen too?). I would try Deuterium gas loaded into the Palladium lattice, then dipping the Pd into the liquid Nitrogen with appropriate instumentation surrounding the N bath. Then later assaying the Palladium and comparing it with the original assay. It looks like loading Palladium with Deuterium at some optimal higher temperature then chilling the loaded Palladium in liquid Nitrogen should serve as severe additional compression on the Deuterium loaded Palladium lattice to encourage the cold fusion effect. This may not cause the same effect as Titanium in producing detectable Neutrons (which may happen) but causing Palladium isotopic and elemental transmutations as the original material is affected by Dueterium fusion reactions. It does not look like the scientists nine years ago might have noticed (or were looking for) any Helium production but this might be the case for Titanium and Palladium treated in this manner. The other thing to look into would be those non-productive ersatz Patterson beads which might yet be loaded with Hydrogen/Deuterium. Perhaps dipping them into Liquid Nitrogen may cause some reactions to be detected. The effect could/should be easily tried out by any reasonably equipted laboratory such as Earth Tech, Hugo's, universities, and others. Me, I'm looking at a cluttered garage. How about it Scott, Martin, Mark, 'Gene, Russ, Joe, Jones, Jed, Peter, Chris, and others? -AK- ps: Maybe the compression effect on a fully loaded Palladium may be severe enough to cause an explosion ---!? Perhaps trying it first with different degrees of cooling or using a partially loaded Palladium sample might be better. Or using powdered Pd rather than a solid bar might be safer. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 16:09:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01020; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 16:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 16:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608032303.TAA29033@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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A I may be misinformed>but I am fairly sure that there is no nickel in a nickle. It is composed almost entirely of zinc. Jeff Fink > > Dear Folks, > > I will ask you to read the original of this text and refet to it. > > My are basic and intended to be just that .... basic questions. > > JHS > > >On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Scott Little wrote: > >> At 07:48 8/2/96 -0700, BillB wrote: >> > >> >Somebody sent me the experiment below, apparantly from Wayne Green's CF >> >> I tried something quite similar that appeared in late 1994. Here is my >> "report", which I posted to spf at the time: >> >> >> Preliminary Data From Calorimetric Study >> of Double-Nickel Cell >> >> Scott Little EarthTech Int'l >> >> Unlike Ogle's cell, my cells were not fitted with thermistors or >> stirrers. > > I used a KCO3 solution made by adding 64g of KCO3 to 190g of > > Q: Why not KCl ??? > >> >> The electrical power (instantaneous voltage*current) is computer and >> integrated over time by the computer to yield the total electrical >> energy delivered to the device under test (this quantity is called >> Ein). In addition, the current is integrated over time to yield the >> total charge pumped through the device under test (this quantity is >> called Qin) > > Q: Can you or did you plot V or i, or both ... over time? > > This is important. > > During the run, all parameters are read >> every 10 seconds and all raw data is written to disk. >> > > There is a good chance of losing dynamic information at this slow >rate. > >> >> Initial cell weight: 219.45g >> Final cell weight: 217.82g >> >> These weights were determined with a precision analytical balance and >> are presumed to be accurate to 0.01g. The difference between them is >> the amount of electrolyte that was lost during the run: 1.63g . > > Q: Was the electrolyte weighed separately? Or is the accurae >term here loss of total cell weight? > > >> Qin for this run was 15618.5 coulombs. > > > OK BIG Question SERIES # 1 > > > > Since it takes two electrons >> moving through the cell to release one O atom and 2 H atoms, it can be >> shown that 1 coulomb of charge passing through such a cell will >> dissociate 5.184*10^-6 moles of H2O. > > > Q: In your cell, what was resistance? > Q: Is it plotted over time? > Q: What are resistance heat losses? > > QQQ: If there is a time dependent as-yet-to-be-determined type >of reaction, be it fusion, electro chemical, chemical, other or >combination[s], is it not almost REQUIRED to log change vs time to try to >ascertain the five Ws [who,what,when,why,where] and H ...[how] regarding >what obtains? > > > Big Q series # 2 > > Using the heat of formation of >> liquid water at 25 degrees C (68.315 kcal/mole), we can calculate that 1 >> coulomb of charge passing through the cell frees up a quantity of H2 and >> O2 which, when reacted and cooled back to ambient temperature, would >> yield 1.483 joules. > > > QQQQQ: What reacted? > Q Are you talking about burning the H2 and O ? > > Did you do this? Why would you do this? > > NOTE: and if not burning ... then > > Q: What reacting ??? > > Q: This " reacting " how does it fit? Where did it come from? > > Q: Why did you cool it? > > q: did you cool it? > q: How did you cool it? > q: Why did you have to cool it? > q:When did you cool it? > q: Where did the heat go? > q: How much was this heat? > > Therefore, the 15618.5 coulombs pushed through the >> cell in this run should have liberated gases with potential energy of >> 23162.2 joules. > > NOTE: This assumes that the only mechanism for >> electron transport through the cell is via dissociation of H2O. There >> is certainly some electrolytic action taking place that involves the >> KCO3 in the solution but I believe that it does not contribute to the >> movement of electrons through the cell. > > > Comment: Water is a good dielectric. Almost always salts are >added to lower the resistance of the elecro chemical cell, usually as a >participant in the desired reaction[s]. > > VERY IMPORTANT .... > > Affects may things such as I sq. R effects. > > If someone knows otherwise, >> please inform me. >> >> Also from the Qin value, one can calculate the total weight of H2O >> dissociated in the cell. This comes out to 1.457g...leaving 0.173g of >> lost H2O unaccounted for. >> > > BIG Q SERIES A # 55 > >> A fairly careful measurement of the rate of gas evolution from the cell >> during operation yielded a result 1.08 times higher than the rate >> expected from the H2 and O2 alone (using the current through the cell to >> predict the H2+O2 flow rate). > > > Q: Is this important to you? > > NOTE: At his point if I knew little or nothing about electro >chmistry I would be saying to myself "Well, lookie, lookie, lookie ... >who found a cookie" ... and " now let's see ... nearly 10% extra hydrox >.. than that which conventional wisdom [according to this account ... >remember I know nothing about electro chemistry] dictates ... and that means >a) I have discovered a better electrolysis process >b) I could burn the fuel >c) I might even be able to run the hydrox through a fuel cell, get >electricity .... wonder how much it would be?? >d) How would it fit into the total energy equaions of the experiment >e) 0.08 times is a significant figure >f) wonder what the time vs resistance/current/voltage plots look like ... >and is this a real cool negative resistance curve and when did this >nearly 10% exra bizzz start to happen ??? > > > If the 0.173g of lost water is all >> evaporated in the cell, it would augment the gas flow rate by 7.9%. > > > MORE TO COME >> > >See installment # 2 > > > JHS > >> The calorimeter yielded a final Eout value of 23867 joules. > > ??? What about the 0.8 times extra hydrox ??? > >> The computer monitoring system measured a total Ein of 50015 joules for >> this run (the extra 15 joules come out of capacitors in the power supply >> after the computer turns its power off). > > > What capacitors? > >> 23867 joules heat output as measured by calorimeter >> 23162 joules gas potential energy calculated from Qin >> 370 joules evaporated water energy calculated from cell weight >> losses >> 47399 joules total output energy (sum of the above three >> values) >> >> Ratio this output to the 50015 joule input energy and you get 0.948. >> There are 2616 joules missing somewhere, which amount to about 5% of the >> input energy. >> > Hydrox energy? Extra 0.08 times hydrox as well? > >> Tom Droege mentioned that energy is stored in the electrodes as metal >> hydrides. Can anyone offer an estimate of the amount of energy storable >> in a nickel (coin) as hydrides? A nickel weighs 5.0g and presumably >> only one of the nickels in my cell would have absorbed hydrogen. >> Moreover, does anyone know anything about the hydrogen affinity of the >> 80-20 cupronickel alloy? >> >> 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 Sat Aug 3 16:35:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA04419; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 16:26:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 16:26:24 -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: FTL phase propagation experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: [snip] > > SO: Signal generator to scope AND to PS network. Then to coax. >Coax around building. Coax free end into OTHER channel of scope. Fast >swwep, signal generator at 6 to 10 megacycles per second. > You are now comparing the goes into and the comes outa .... when >you do the phase shift .... the SHIFT will appear at the end faster than >light could travel that distance. [snip] I think a complete test of the above should also include another length of cable, about 1/3 the length of the first, and doing the phase shifting in the middle of the two lengths. If you get the same results with channel A ind signal generator connected to the start of the short length as with signal generator connected to the start of the short length and channel A connected to the input to the PS network then the "goes into" is not being shifted simultaneously with the "comes outa". Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 16:44:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA05546; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 16:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 16:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608032334.QAA16217@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: Back up ... loading term "bogus" Bogus: Re: FTL phase propagation experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > This is not a propagation measurment .... and I have used the >term propagation in accurately. > > When you switch the phase shifting ... which can be done >electrically with bipolar or FET transistor .... you see the event on >channel 1 ..... and can see effect of passage through cable on channel 2. > > No guesswork here. OK, I will back up from bogus alert claim. But it still seems fishy. A coax is basically a distributed inductance balanced by a distributed capacitance. So when you start adding RC or LC or RLC components it seems pretty easy to me to wind up with a response of the circuit that is phase shifted from the input excitation voltages. This happens all the time in power transmission and other effects. Why do you not think you simply shifted the phase interaction between the lauch into the cable and the propogation down the length fo the cable? And how much of a difference did you meausure? Switching the cable in and out of the circuit if that is what was described, or conversely the circuit in and out of the cable path, seems like you are altering the composite circuit. Can you tap the channel 1 from a ways into the cable and then channel 2 at the end of the cable? Another simple change that would alter the effect (and may be what happened) is that if your circuit alters the frequency of the resonance slightly, then with all of the waves down the length of the cable, if you decreased the frequency slightly then the wavelength would be longer. that would then be multiplied by 45 due to the number of waves. And that would be your new phase relationship. Shifted by 45*dPhi where dPhi is the change to the wavelength. So, whatever percent frequency shift you have will result in that percent change to the location of the waveform at the end of the cable. Without something akin to a TDR shot you don't know how many standing waves are in the cable unless you perform a frequency sweep and note the resonances. HMMM? Did you carefully measure a large number of cycles on the screen to see if there was a frequency shift from one example to the other? Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 17:54:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA14113; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 17:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 17:50:37 -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: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Stenger wrote: > >First, the forces exist AT ONCE in all circuit elements. They do not >need to be translated 1 mile back to anywhere! If you block the >projectile at the end of the barrel, the forces will all be there. OK. However it is not yet shown exactly *where* the forces are, i.e. what they are between. >The pulse current will decay to zero (if the circuit is "critically >damped") with all energy going into circuit heat. Isolate the circuit >+ projectile as a free-body diagram and it remains stationary. >If you let the projectile fly, it gets more complicated. If the >projectile (P from now on!) is accelerating down the barrel, the OK, call the power supply S, the projectile P. (See diagram below) >inductance of the line is increasing, so I*(dL/dt) gives a counter EMF >to absorb work to accelerate the P. OK, I believe the railgun could be put into the circuit as a dynamic black box that changes impedence represents a work load, etc. See "equivalent Circuit" below. I believe the electric energy used even matches the kinetic energy transferred to P plus heat generated. What the gun does not do is have a magnetic field impact on the loop, other than through changing the current in the loop. Also, there are the effects of current bending at "straigtaway" entry points for the breach and the central rod, but these forces should be balanced at all times by the corresponding forces at the bends of the current from those elements into the projectile. If the current reaches zero before the projectile leaves the barrel then these forces are completely balanced throught the process. So, using the equivalent circuit diagram, the force associated with a conductor in the loop at, and of length, BC, is the limit of the force that can be put on the projectile, or that the projectile can put on the system. Is this true? I don't belive it is true because you can increase the area of the supply loop indefinitely. The force on a fixed segment of conductor bordering the loop at a fixed current drops with the area of the loop. The amount of force on the segment BC can be dropped as near to zero as you like (ignoring conductor resistance) while maintaining the same current. Area grows as perimeter sqared. The conductor lenght grows as the perimeter. The ratio can be made as small as you like. If the rection force to match the acceleration force of P can not be applied to the power supply circuit then there *must* be a force between the projectile and the central rod and/or the sheath, or Newton's laws are violated, and we have infinite energy available through other means metioned. If you release the P from rest at >the end of the barrel, the opposite wall one mile away ( I am assuming >the pulse time is long enough to ignore the speed of light!) is feeling >the force at the same time. YES, lets ignore the speed of light and associated dynamics. I just picked a mile because I wanted to emphasize the lack of *magnetic* linkage between action near P and action in the supply circuit. The linkage is purely through current. >As P pops out of the barrel - let's say >at current peak for the circuit - the inductive energy stored in the >coaxial line will continue the current thru an arc at the end of the >barrel, make a lot of heat, and try to reverse-charge the capacitor bank >if the circuit is under damped. P will have much less velocity/momentum >and the circuit (gun) will have less recoil. The way P moves or not >controls the current profile in the circuit, but the local forces in >a region of the circuit are MAINLY determined by the local currents and >resultant fields. The P does not have to push on any distant circuit >elements. The current is already doing that! > >Frank Stenger Here's what I consider the important point. Yes, "local forces in a region of the circuit are MAINLY determined by the local currents and resultant fields." Now if there is force between P and the central rod or even P and the Sheath, then the Biot-Savart force between current segments is a proven reality, Ampere is vindicated. The longitudinal component must exist, thus some form of energy machine is possible. We can jump for joy. As for the current pushing on the distant circuit elements, we have already seen that it can not push sufficiently hard so that the performance of the gun is proportional to the current supplied. Now, if the earlier coaxial cable analysis was correct, if the inner conductor (and therefore also projectile) do not "know the sheath exists", then a Biot-Savart current element type force must exist between the rod and P due to the isolation of the P and the rod as separate isolated current segments. The "impossible is achieved, Biot-Savart lives in reality. To summarize, the possible outcomes are: (a) The coaxial cable analysis is incorrect. (b) The performance of the gun can be made arbitrarily bad by increasing the area of the power supply loops while supplying the same current and power to the gun itself. (c) Momentum is not preserved (d) Biot-Savart is proven as a real phenomenon, longitudinal force exists. (e) The force of the current bending to enter the "starightaways" for the central ron and sheath do not balance the force of the current bending to go through the projectile. (f) There is a longitudinal force (not a new "FORCE", just some force like the micro-pich I suggested earlier) that resists current flow in a metal lattice. Of these, (a) and (b) look non-credible, (c), and (d), mean infinite energy, (f) doesn't resolve the other isssues, and that leaves (e) as a prospect to look at. Also (a) may be worth a look because the shielding of coaxial cabels drops significantly at about 50 Hz. I would like to suggest an experiment. Build such a railgun, but allow the central rod and/or barrel to slide freely, using an arc brush. If there is a significant force on the rod or sheath then that leaves (d), (e) and (f) for examination. In case (f) the rod will go one way while the sheath goes the other. However, this can not contribute to resolving (a) through (e) because the net result of the contrary motion could not be expected to balance the momentum supplied to the projectile, so we are back to one of (a) through (e) being true. Does this make any sense? The Coaxial Gun: ---------------- | | | | | | | | | |B | #################################### |D PPPPPPPPP |----S------A--==================================== |E PPPPPPPPP | #################################### | |C | | | | | | | | | | ---------------- Equivalent Circuit: ---------------- | | | | | |B | | |D | |----S------A--G |E | | | | |C | | | | ---------------- To summarize, the possible outcomes are: (a) The coaxial cable analysis is incorrect. (b) The performance of the gun can be made arbitrarily bad by increasing the area of the power supply loops. (c) Momentum is not preserved (d) Biot-Savrt is proven as a real phenomenon. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 18:12:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA15495; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 18:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 18:02:40 -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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Summary note: I never figured out why the energy balance came out 5% >negative in this experiment. If it had happened only once, I'd dismiss it >but I ran the thing several times and got similar results. It definitely >could still have been some kind of calorimetric error. Calorimetry is NOT >easy to do accurately. > > - Scott Little Maybe 5% of the current through the cell is directly via electrons. Remember the 10 meter long cell experiment I did? Maybe you are not getting 100% electrolysis efficiency, only 95 or so. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 3 19:44:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA26694; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 19:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 19:40:47 -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: is PAGD a 'pseudospark?' X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I can't find my copy of Inf. En. to check, but the work below sounds awfully close to the Pulsed Abnormal Glow device. Pseudospark page. http://www.ee.umd.edu/~rhee/pseudospark/ ....................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 Aug 3 23:59:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26878; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 23:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 23:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960804024426_171318367@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: costs X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I work at a large power plant. I would cost about $900 million or more to build such a plant today with scrubber. The plant produces 1,800 mega watts. It is as efficient as they come operating with 1000 deg F steam at 4,000 PSI. The capital cost per kilowatt is about = $900,000,000 / 1,800,000 KW = $500/KW At 12% return on investment the annual cost per KW is $60 Factoring in all costs the cost per KW is about 4 cents / KW - hr The capital cost for the CETI demo cell is $20,000 / .1 KW = $200,000 /KW The cell could make 360 days /year X 24 hrs/ day X .1 KW = 864 KW Hrs / year The annual cost with no fuel or maintenance is = .12 x $200,000 / 864 = $28 /KW-hr Comparing $28/KW-hr / $.04 /KW -hr = 700 times Keep in mind that the CETI cell only produces thermal energy not electrical energy. CETI is going to have to lower there costs by at least factor of 2,000 or more before they can begin to enter into the market. That's what they should be doing. Jed is correct. A similar analysis with the cavitation technologies shows that they are already competitive. Thats why I have focused my efforts onto the cavitation technologies. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 01:37:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05897; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 01:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 01:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960804082718_100060.173_JHB57-1@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: costs X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank: >> The capital cost for the CETI demo cell is $20,000 / .1 KW = $200,000 /KW << Surely CETI are just pricing their prototype unit as some kind of rich-man's-toy, in the hope that whoever buys it will be able to afford to plunge in with mega-bucks after validating the results with the model. If that is the case then any attempt at market price comparison with the present data is bound to be unrealistic and not valid. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 01:37:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05959; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 01:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 01:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960804082926_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: CF economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I have accidentally deleted Frank's interesting post on the economics of energy production. It looked very interesting and useful - a good reminder to us all. However - from memory - I would say it is seriously misconceived. If you are going to compare energy costs, you must compare them at the point of use, not at the point of production. Also, you must compare useability. On Frank's argument, nobody would ever buy a dry cell. I suggest that the costings of, for example, home or commercial space heating would come out rather differently. For that, we have the capital cost and depreciation and maintenance costs of the heat producer (the furnace/boiler), and the distribution system (warm air or hot water and radiators). Additionally, we have the fuel costs themselves. A separate but related study would give domestic/commercial electricity generation at point of use, and a wholly separate one would be needed for vehicular power generation. Since 'CF' development is essentially materials science and fabrication techniques - very similar in many ways to the 'silicon revolution' - then it is very safe to assume that a downward cost-spiral will occur. What is of course comical are the ideas of CETI that (a) the nickel bead electrochemical system will prevail over (for example) gas-phase nickel cells; (b) that no other significant technologies (Correa, o-u motors) can possibly be real; and that, most significantly, even if the Ni/water technique were to be the most practical, that no other group will run rings around their method. In the coarse and brutal world of practical economics, no such system will ever survive except if its sale costs are more than a small percentage greater than the basic materials costs. Three cheers for the C and B world. But then, stockbrokers and scientists are in general blissfully ignorant of real-world economics, aren't they? If I were CETI then I would sell whatever licences and products I could, while the going is good - which it most certainly will not be for long! The common-sense approach of Jim Griggs should be a model for all. In fact, I predict that unless CETI are amazingly fortunate they will end up with 100% of "sweet f***-all", just as others have done in similar circumstances. As a PS, I suggest strongly that the Green 'nickle' [sic] experiment is (politely) a gedanken one. If it wasn't, then some kind of record of it would exist somewhere. Sniff. (Brit derisive variety) Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 05:50:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA20478; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 05:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 05:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Earlier I wrote: To summarize, the possible outcomes are: (a) The coaxial cable analysis is incorrect. (b) The performance of the gun can be made arbitrarily bad by increasing the area of the power supply loops while supplying the same current and power to the gun itself. (c) Momentum is not preserved (d) Biot-Savart is proven as a real phenomenon, longitudinal force exists. (e) The force of the current bending to enter the "starightaways" for the central ron and sheath do not balance the force of the current bending to go through the projectile. (f) There is a longitudinal force (not a new "FORCE", just some force like the micro-pich I suggested earlier) that resists current flow in a metal lattice. Of these, (a) and (b) look non-credible, (c), and (d), mean infinite energy, (f) doesn't resolve the other isssues, and that leaves (e) as a prospect to look at. Also (a) may be worth a look because the shielding of coaxial cabels drops significantly at about 50 Hz. It seems to me fairly clear that (e) must be the best answer, the most significant forces are located within the central rod and within the sheath where the current turns corners at the four critical sites. It is interresting that (f) can be investigated by building a "motor" based on the effect. This can be done by placing uniform length segments of conductors around the rim of a wheel. Touching the rim, or in arc distance, should be (at least) two brushes separated by about half the length of the conductor segments. If the brushes carry DC current, then the wheel should turn in the direction of electron flow, if such a force exits. A straight line version consisting of two brushes against a movable rod could also be used. It does not seem likely any force could manifest except possibly with extreme currents. Since (e) is the answer, then straight rails, i.e. central rod and sheath, left free to move and connected stricly with brushes to both the power supply and the projectile will recoil. So, this raises some interresting questions. The coaxial design could be used to implement a magnet free MHD motor, for either liquid or gas (plasma) phase. In this case the "projectile" is continually replenished. The magnetic field is constant. There is no i*dL/dT. The forces where the electrons "turn the corner" in the rails should balance, yet the MHD force should propell the craft forward with such a motor due to Newton's third law. The fluid got a kick, so the craft should get a kick. How can this be? Gnorts! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 06:37:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23450; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 06:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 06:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608041330.IAA23580@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: Coaxial rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 05:50 PM 8/3/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >I would like to suggest an experiment. Build such a railgun... I've been half-heartedly following this thread and would like to ask a possibly ignorant question: Is is necessary to build a co-axial gun? Aren't the same issues at stake in the ordinary rail gun: >The Ordinary Rail Gun: > >---------------- >| | >| | >| |B >| #################################### >|E PPPPPPPPP >| #################################### >| |C >| | >| | >---------------- I too, have been thinking about building an experiment...mainly to settle the issue of where the reaction forces are located. I'd like to make a small gun that's on a low-friction wheeled cart. Connect it as pictured above with flexible leads running from the power supply to the cart. Then hold the projectile still and apply current to see if the rails push the cart backwards. How about using an arc welder to supply the current and some big carbon brushes to connect the projectile to the rails. The projectile could run on the rails on linear bearings...i.e. it doesn't need to "shoot" the projectile in order to serve as a useful experimental platform. - 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 Aug 4 06:45:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23822; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 06:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 06:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608041336.IAA23732@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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:02 PM 8/3/96 -0700, Horace wrote: > >Maybe 5% of the current through the cell is directly via electrons. >Remember the 10 meter long cell experiment I did? Maybe you are not >getting 100% electrolysis efficiency, only 95 or so. Maybe so, but the power required to push those electrons thru the cell would have been accounted for by my V*i input power measurement. Also, the heat generated in the cell by the passage of those electrons would have been measured by my calorimetry. What would have been missing is the gas that would have been generated by dissociation. In my calcs I assumed that all the electrons worked to dissociate H2O so, under yr scenario, I would have computed too large a value for the energy lost from the cell as gas. This value ends up being added to the output side of the energy balance so the expected result from yr scenario would be an apparent excess output energy...(I think). - 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 redi@pacific.net Mon Aug 5 13:34:49 1996 Received: from pacific.pacific.net (pacific.pacific.net [199.4.80.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA12991 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 13:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 206.184.7.29 (ts19-willits.pacific.net [206.184.7.29]) by pacific.pacific.net (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id NAA17450 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 13:38:17 -0700 Message-ID: <3204A8BD.53E@pacific.net> Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 13:42:22 +0000 From: Chris Reply-To: 383@pacific.pacific.net, S.Main@pacific.pacific.net, St.@pacific.pacific.net, #234@pacific.pacific.net, Willits@pacific.pacific.net, CA@pacific.pacific.net, 95490@pacific.pacific.net Organization: Renewable Energy Development Organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: billb@eskimo.com Subject: "Chain Reaction" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: Bill, Do you think you can add this to your web site? Review to Chain Reaction: If there was one common response to those exiting the theatre, it could be generalized as a "lame reaction". The begining of "Chain Reaction" immersed the viewer in some type of scientific experiment. The speed in which the plot was developed was so fast, even the most attentive audiences were left scrambling for a understanding. Unfortunatly, the explainations for what was happening in the scientific pursuit of clean energy, a.k.a. hydrogen production through the use of sound, was quickly overshadowed by uneventful acting, and poor directing. For those whom had two or more expressos before the show, some must of felt the excitement of the first 'explosion', which packed more punch than the rest of the movie. The following scenes progressed to more bad acting, time-consuming chase scenes ( where the chase seem all to phony ) and villians with no film presence at all, except for the leading villian / "best friend". The movie was all to predictable, all the way to the ending. Scientific Cons of this 'promotional film': If there was one idea presented in this film that the public will embrace, it was that hydrogen production was explosivly dangerous, simulating the power of atomics ( with no radiation ) For semi-intelligent people: This movie embraces the idea that hydrogen production can simply be unbalanced to create a dangerous, and potentally explosive mess. For hydrogen enthusiats: This movie creates the impression that advanced hydrogen production can not be accomplished without million dollar facilities, and a large budget for custom equiptment and accomplished scientists. For those whom are pursuit of this technology: This movie endangers the work that we are trying to accomplish. Those whom you have spoke with about the possibilities of this technology are apt to view your pursuit as dangerous. They may only become slightly paranoid at the possiblilities that may or may not exist. It will make your work more available for critique, and you better be ready for it. There may be great things that will become of this, but the areas in which we are discovering will be filled with trials and tribulations. We shall feel a gain in momentum for our cause. Please be aware of sympathatic ears, versus apathetic ones. Universal Question: What travels faster than the speed of light? Answer: Rumours. Good Luck to All, Chris Koveleski, independent writer From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 07:58:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA03514; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 07:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 07:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3204B802.1B1F@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: Coaxial rail gun-Scott X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: (Many good suggestions for rail gun experiments.) Aug 4 , 06:33:20 (PDT) Good points Scott! Along the same lines (regular 2-rail, rail gun), How about the following setup: 1. Two lengths of, say, 1/2 inch copper water pipe fixed to opposite edges of a 2 X 4 (wood). 2. Four old (or new, if available) ball bearings, attached to the lower 4 corners of the 2 X 4 for wheels (longitudinal direction). 3. For attachment cables, maybe use helical windings of heavy copper wire - sized to be springs - but deflected like cantilevered beam, not longitudinally. bring the copper springs in at 90 deg to the 2 X 4 centerline and attach to breech-end of copper pipes. Fix the copper springs to "ground" firmly so the spring-2 X 4 system can be calibrated as a force/movement gage. 4. For a projectile, use a short length of copper pipe, filled with lead for better contact weight. For projectile movement, the short pipe rolls along the parallel pipes and, hopefully, makes good electrical contact. I think a car battery could supply a few hundred amps to make this thing move. I'm not sure we would have a good test of anything here! I think the projectile would be pushed to the "right" (see recent rail-gun sketches from Horace & Scott), the circuit and battery and earth would be pushed to the left. If a slight tilt could be tolerated, maybe the 2 X 4 and rails could be set on a large styrofoam float in a kids wading pool? (It might tip as the weight shifts.) Would this rig show us anything? Horace? Scott? Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 11:01:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA26393; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 10:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 10:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608041753.MAA04963@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: uh oh...need BIG currents X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Stenger is on the right track for the apparatus but we may have a problem: I get for the nominal force on a rail gun projectile: mu*i^2 F = ------- ln((s-a)/a) pi or, in pseudo-code form: F = mu*i^2*ln((s-a)/a)/pi where a = rail radius s = rail separation i = current pi = 3.14159 mu = permeability of free space (4*pi*10^-7 henry/meter) This expression comes from integrating ilB over the "length" of the projectile from one rail to the other, and the assumption that the B thru the projectile is the same as that surrounding a two long rods carrying a current i (this is probably an over-estimate since the current stops flowing in the rail right where the projectile is located). With 1/2" diameter rails (a=.25"), spaced 2" apart (s=2"), it takes about 2400 amps to get 1 pound of force (a reasonable minimum value for a crude experiment)! The force gets bigger as the rail diameter goes down but not very rapidly: for .25" diameter rails, you get only 1.4 pounds of force for 2400 amps! Gnorts! - 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 Aug 4 13:08:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA13079; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:00:26 -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: Back up ... loading term "bogus" Bogus: Re: FTL phase propagation experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Dear Folk, This effect is basically the phase shift can be detected in the end of the wire faster than it could have gotten over the distnce if it were light in vacuum. I believe it was usualyy done CW at 50 or 100 mcps. There are a couple of articles on it that explains it better than I. I will try to dig up references ... but anyone else can too. I seem to remember the 1960 to maybe 74 time area ... in Electronics or similar mag. Might have been Wireless World, Radio TV Exp .. in any event is was a cut or so above Pop Electronics. On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Ross Tessien wrote: > > > This is not a propagation measurment .... and I have used the > >term propagation in accurately. > > > > When you switch the phase shifting ... which can be done > >electrically with bipolar or FET transistor .... you see the event on > >channel 1 ..... and can see effect of passage through cable on channel 2. > > > > No guesswork here. > > OK, I will back up from bogus alert claim. But it still seems fishy. A > coax is basically a distributed inductance balanced by a distributed > capacitance. So when you start adding RC or LC or RLC components it seems > pretty easy to me to wind up with a response of the circuit that is phase > shifted from the input excitation voltages. This happens all the time in > power transmission and other effects. > > Why do you not think you simply shifted the phase interaction between the > lauch into the cable and the propogation down the length fo the cable? And > how much of a difference did you meausure? Switching the cable in and out > of the circuit if that is what was described, or conversely the circuit in > and out of the cable path, seems like you are altering the composite circuit. > You can isolate or buffer all this stuff if you want .... still works. Don't remember the actual gain in "speed". .... I giving this to physics students .... Next time I do ... I'll do it this quarter ... we will get some numbers. > Can you tap the channel 1 from a ways into the cable and then channel 2 at > the end of the cable? > Sure. If you want. > Another simple change that would alter the effect (and may be what happened) > is that if your circuit alters the frequency of the resonance slightly, then > with all of the waves down the length of the cable, if you decreased the > frequency slightly then the wavelength would be longer. that would then be > multiplied by 45 due to the number of waves. And that would be your new > phase relationship. Shifted by 45*dPhi where dPhi is the change to the > wavelength. > Does not have anything to do with resonance. this is an old thing, well accepted .... I just threw it out from the collection because it is neat. > So, whatever percent frequency shift you have will result in that percent > change to the location of the waveform at the end of the cable. Without > something akin to a TDR shot you don't know how many standing waves are in > the cable unless you perform a frequency sweep and note the resonances. > > HMMM? Did you carefully measure a large number of cycles on the screen to > see if there was a frequency shift from one example to the other? > > Ross Tessien > > You can klink this thing as mny times as you want .... It is not a one time thing. Just a neat, stable effect. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 13:14:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA14391; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:09:20 -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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Scott Little wrote: > At 07:15 AM 8/3/96 -0700, John S wrote a lot of questions about my > double-nickel experiment, which I will answer as briefly and concisely as > possible to save bandwidth: > > > Q: Why not KCl ??? > A: because Ogle used KCO3. OK.. Thought it was carbonate. > > > Q: Can you or did you plot V or i, or both ... over time? > A: Yes that data is available in the disk file. > Cool. It is flat? > > Q: Was the electrolyte weighed separately? > A: No, just the entire cell. Before and after cell weights > yielded electrolyte loss. > > > Q: In your cell, what was resistance? > A: It varies somewhat, especially as temp changes > What does the time history/temp/i/V look like? > > Q: Is it plotted over time? > A: I suppose it could be...but I haven't done so. > Big piece of info for everyone ... may show the 5 Ws of loading. > > Q: What are resistance heat losses? > A: Well, all the power that does NOT go into separating H2O > ends up being dissipated in the cell as heat....I think. Or other! > > > QQQ: If there is a time dependent as-yet-to-be-determined type > >of reaction, be it fusion, electro chemical, chemical, other or > >combination[s], is it not almost REQUIRED to log change vs time to try to > >ascertain the five Ws [who,what,when,why,where] and H ...[how] regarding > >what obtains? > > A: I do have all that data but, if the total heat output is not > Are you not curious? significantly larger than the total electrical energy input, is it > really worth further study? > > > QQQQQ: What reacted? > > Q Are you talking about burning the H2 and O ? > > Did you do this? Why would you do this? > > Q: What reacting ??? > > Q: Why did you cool it? > > q: did you cool it? > > q: How did you cool it? > > q: Why did you have to cool it? > > q:When did you cool it? > > q: Where did the heat go? > > q: How much was this heat? > > A: You appear to misunderstand my rambling discussion of how to > calculate the energy lost by the cell when the H2 and O2 gas produced by the > electrolysis is allowed to escape as it did in my experiment. I didn't ever > react the H2 and O2 back together...I just let the gas escape. I am in no way eager to mis understand .... but I am looking at this from the outside. If we are doing an ebnergy budget ... and looking at possible o/u ... from ANY source ..... then the hydrox is important. > > > NOTE: This assumes that the only mechanism for > >> electron transport through the cell is via dissociation of H2O. > > A: This, in fact, is the case (virtually). > > > >> A fairly careful measurement of the rate of gas evolution from the cell > >> during operation yielded a result 1.08 times higher than the rate > >> expected from the H2 and O2 alone (using the current through the cell to > >> predict the H2+O2 flow rate). > > > > Q: Is this important to you? > A: Yes. You need to measure the gas evolved to see if any > significant amount of recombination is occurring inside the cell. Let us all look at this! If it is, > then you need to take that into account when calculating the heat value of > the escaping gases. > > The 8% extra is almost certainly water vapor...not excess H2 and O2. > > > What capacitors? > A: ordinary filter capacitors in a DC power supply, totally > inconsequential, actually. > > Summary note: I never figured out why the energy balance came out 5% > negative in this experiment. If it had happened only once, I'd dismiss it > but I ran the thing several times and got similar results. It definitely > could still have been some kind of calorimetric error. Calorimetry is NOT > easy to do accurately. > no beef about cal being hard to do ... we all owe you thanks. I just hate to leave stones unturned or presume ANYTHING about new reactions. J > - 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 Aug 4 13:48:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA18146; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <32050877.3768@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: uh oh...need BIG currents-Rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > With 1/2" diameter rails (a=.25"), spaced 2" apart (s=2"), it takes about > 2400 amps to get 1 pound of force (a reasonable minimum value for a crude > experiment)! OK, Scott, I was hoping for a few ounces of thrust, but your numbers are a bit scary! The i^2 term is a killer and ln((s-a)/a) makes a wider track not too much help. Say we drop the current to 600 amps - a factor of 4 - and try to live with an ounce (factor of 16) of thrust. I'm thinking of some type of suspension system (flex plates, 4 overhead suspension wires, liquid flotation, etc.) that would respond to that level of force. Even 600 amps may give a problem with rolling contact. You might get spot welding at that current! Maybe a coat of Hg along the contact point might help (Outdoors for toxic vapors!). Needs more cooking! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 14:02:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA21233; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608042049.NAA00400@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: Super conductor, non conservation :Bi-Brn Wings by Ross.. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer writes: > Q: What is meant by non-conservative please? Now that you've ask this, Two Dogs, I see there isn't an easy answer. What once seemed a simple idea from freshman physics, isn't. Here's a definition for now: Non-Conservative Field -- The set of all politicians lurking on the left, hoping that Hillary gets indicted, or Bill gets caught with his pants down. > NOTE: A superconductor can be thought of, in certain context, as >roughly analogous to a "shield" for magnetism. A prime mover or "motor" >based of this exists .... it is actually a spinning membr in a field .... >but it "motors" ..... > BTW: The spinning of the rotor is not "free energy". In the Tampere experiments, a gravitational shielding effect was found to exist above a levitating rotating superconductor disk. The extent of gravitational shielding was found to increase when the disk was rotated, but gravitational shielding was also found to exist to a lesser extent, even in the case of a stationary meissner levitated disk. In the second of the two published Tampere experiments, the gravitational shielding effect from a 6 inch diameter superconductor disk was found to extend in the vertical direction, at least as high as the second floor of the laboratory building. References available. Take Tessien's QVF paddle wheel, or if you prefer just take a simple flywheel, with one side positioned over the gravitationally shielded area. No matter what position the flywheel turns to, it is always lighter on one side, and heavier on the other. Spin spin spin. What goes around comes around. Incidentally, the Finnish scientists are reported to have been acquired by a large corporation affiliated with the Canadian government. Further published reports are not anticipated. We continue to be our own worst enemies. And the world keeps on turning. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 14:12:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA22873; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 14:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 14:05:51 -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: Rail motor experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >With 1/2" diameter rails (a=.25"), spaced 2" apart (s=2"), it takes about >2400 amps to get 1 pound of force (a reasonable minimum value for a crude >experiment)! The force gets bigger as the rail diameter goes down but not >very rapidly: for .25" diameter rails, you get only 1.4 pounds of force for >2400 amps! > >Gnorts! > - Scott Little The above clearly demonstrates why a pulsed power supply is usefull. I think it is especially neat that it doesn't matter about the polarity, only which end of the barrel the current comes from. A/C will work fine, and since you can get more current from bigger amperages then pulsed A/C should work even better for a given power, other practical considerations aside. First, let me state that I personally have almost no doubt that the significant recoil force must lie in the rails at the points where the current turns if the power supply loop (e.g. ASDBA below) is very large. The rails will still recoil and the gun will still be effective. Moreover, the rails are pulled in opposite directions untill the projectile moves, at which time the net force on the rails themselves must be in a direction opposite from the projectile's direction of motion (i.e. to the left in the diagram.) As Frank says, there is a change in inductance in the vicinity of the projectile, the curent must be used to replenish the field in the new space created behind the projectile as it moves. ---------------- | | | | | | | | | |B | #################################### |D PPPPPPPPP |----S------A--==================================== |E PPPPPPPPP | #################################### | |C | | | | | | | | | | ---------------- Something maybe of interest is the case where the central rod moves with the projectile. The movable rod would extend back to before A. A brush would be located at A. Now the forward pulling force in the rod where the current bends to approach the sheath adds to the projectile's forward impulse. The electron path at A would then create the retarding force. However, such a force should also be diminished as the projectile/rod speeds up, or am I not thinking right about this? In any event the MHD force on the projectile would remain as ever and the projectile should move. I have a suggestion to make experimentation less costly and maybe more precise. I suggest that instead of a gun, that a motor be built by warping the barrel into a circular form. In this way conventional ball berearings can provide a nearly frictionless platform for observing the motions and forces on the various components. Suppose a rod armature is made of an insulating wheel, say plastic or ceramic, with central bearings and shaft. On the perimeter of the wheel is mounted a series of conductors with sufficient spacing to prevent arc-overs. For experimental purposes only one conductor need be mounted. On both sides of the rod armature are projectile (or brush) armatures. Mounted on the peripheral of the projectile armatures are projectiles P which are semi-circular. This leaves a slot for connecting brushes and or rotational force from the outside to the rod armature. Mounted on the outside of, and wrapped around the projectile "P" and the central rod "=" are copper sheets (representing the sheath "#") bent into a toroidal form with a slot through which the armatures pass to the inside and which allows them to turn independently. There also might be a slot to the outside to allow brushes to connect to the inner armatures. The projectile brushes make contact with both the rod elements and the sheath elements. It is possible to also mount the sheaths on two armature wheels to the outside of the projectile armature wheels. Pins could be inserted through the axle to make any particular armature the "stator". Also the projectile armature could be fixed to the rod armature to simulate the rail gun where the rod is attached to the projectile. The brushes represented at A would have to be affixed to the sheath armature for the experiment where the rod and projectile move together.. Thus we have circular versions of the above rail gun implemented in segments on the peripheral of wheels. There are lots of ways to simplify this to do a particular experiment or build a particular variation of the motor. The variation that interests me the most is the simplest, i.e. where the rod and projectile are attached. That takes only one armature which contains the rod and the heispherical projectiles (permitting a groove on top for the brush A to pass "through" the top of the projectiles to get to the rod.) The stator then could consist of a couple sheets of copper. Alternately, the current could be supplied to the ends of the rods via wires run from the ends of the rods to the central rotor shaft, where a brush could be mounted. This permits the projectiles to be circular in cross section and the sheath to be made of a bent pipe with only a slit cut for the armature wheel to pass. This is getting to be pretty simple - down to my level. I was thinking of using a 7.5 kV 20 uF capacitor for a power supply for the test. That should provide the same kick as a small arm. That ought to spin the little critter, even with a small 1 msec jolt. I believe safety glasses are not adequate protection! Do you think a railgun with the rod connected to the projectile will work? If so, do you think the above motor design should work? Is this proving anything useful? Maybe a simple small railgun would be just as good? I would like to suggest graphite washers for the projectile/brush portion. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 15:15:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA02302; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608042203.RAA16566@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: uh oh...need BIG currents-Rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:36 PM 8/4/96 -0700, Frank S wrote: >Say we drop the current to 600 amps - a factor of 4 - and try to live >with an ounce (factor of 16) of thrust. I'm thinking of some type of >suspension system (flex plates, 4 overhead suspension wires, liquid >flotation, etc.) that would respond to that level of force. Sounds promising >Even 600 amps may give a problem with rolling contact. You might get >spot welding at that current! Maybe a coat of Hg along the contact >point might help (Outdoors for toxic vapors!). That might work just great, Frank. Yes, it'd be messy but that's never stopped me before. One possiblitity for 1000's of amps: Use a large variac core with winding as the primary of a home-made xfmr. Make the 2ndary from large welding cable...one or two turns thru the toroidal variac core. If the rail gun can be made with a low-enuf resistance, such a xfmr will supply large currents at 60Hz AC (which should still work fine to drive the rail gun). - 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 Aug 4 15:22:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA03388; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 15:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 15:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Ballistics pendulum rail gun mount X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Gnorts, Here's another thought: mount a small coaxial rail gun on a ballistics pendulum. Just a piece of plywood atached to vertical members supported as pendulums hanging from the ceiling. Just a four hinges and a few boards should do the job. The powering capacitor and all could be mounted on the pendulum, or just the gun with lose wire connections as Frank suggests. Compare the reaction in both cases. Should be about the same if the recoil force is mainly due to the current turning at points in the rail metal. I really like high voltage for amateur work. You don't have to worry about brush construction quality. The electrons just get there by themselves. However, low voltage should work for graphite washers inside a copper pipe if the central rod is free to move laterally. Gravity will hold rod in contact with the washers, and the washers in contact with the sheath long enough for good hot arcs to form. I still like the coaxial design. Eliminates lots of outside power draining influences like steel structural stuff. Just pure clean power directly to the projectile. Here is a simple coaxial gun. The projectile would consist of a copper rod with threads on one end. On the threaded end add a nut, an aluminum washer, graphite washers, another aluminum washer and then the final nut. The aluminum washers are just to add support to the graphite washers and should be of lesser diameter, or maybe are not even needed. The brush at location A would consist of graphite wasers connected to the power source, with their center aligned coaxially with the pipe. To shoot simply lay the projectile with the copper rod tail inside the brush at A and the head inside the pipe. Apply current to the pipe and the brush. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 16:01:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07110; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 15:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 15:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3204AD29.30D3@loc100.tandem.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Bob Horst To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Merriman's CETI replication effort X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > At 11:41 AM 8/3/96 -0700, Bob Horst wrote: > > >Miley said he is > 99% sure that it is transutation, not > >contamination. > > Bob, do you have any idea WHY he is 99% sure it's not contamination? > The electolysis process tends to plate out every > metallic ion in the electrolyte onto the catahode. Especially in the > CETI-style experiments, there is a relatively large volume of > electrolyte present, all of which is available as a source of ions. > It wouldn't take a very high level of impurities in the original > Li2SO4 to build up relatively high concs in/on the cathode. Miley has been trying to eliminate the possibility of contamination in several ways. I did not take extensive notes, but these are the things I remember. 1) They constructed some ultra-clean cells, but saw no difference in reaction products. 2) They tried different metals other than Ni, and found different products from each (how could that be due to the electrolyte?). 3) They have tried to find some good control cells. It sounded like the best was conductive sulphated beads (no metals plated). No products were seen. 4) Another mechanism would also have to explain why over half the Ni was gone -- Bob From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 16:16:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA10528; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:11:09 -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: Rail guns the simple way X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Gnorts again, Hows this for simplicity? ########################### ########################## PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP =============================================== PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP ########################### ########################## A B C D | | -----S----- Two pieces of pipe "#" longer than the above, central copper rod "=", and two graphite washers "P" are layed as shown. End of construction. Power connected to B and C should result in washers flying opposite directions. Force due to power supply loop BCS is now opposed to the reaction force of the sheaths - we get a genuine answer as to where the reaction occurs. The power loop should force B and C apart, jet a reaction force on the sheaths should force the copper pipes together. Other interresting variations: power to A and C, also, D and A. Another wrinkle to all of the above: attach one of the washers to the rod and repeat variations. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 19:05:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA08930; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960804210404.1b0f6f3a@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 11:10 AM 7/24/96 -0700, you wrote: >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 > > thanks to all in the group for past updates on this info, and the developing story. any news on the obtainment of the specialized equipment for the indep tests? or the acceptance of the equipment? or any serious data showing excess heat (that includes a baseline). Mitchell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 4 19:11:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA09252; Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3205553C.77AF@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: Rail motor-Scott-Horace X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: OK, some negative data on a long shot. Scott: I took the tip out of my 250 watt Wen soldering gun and used its output rods as short (~ 2.5 inches) AC, rail-motor rails. With rails level, I set a short round (1/4 in. dia) brass rod across the rails. I could not get ANY commutation unless I pushed down a pound or so. I measured open-circuit voltage of only 0.27 VAC - just not enough to even hint at rolling-contact commutation. The AC power is a good idea - but you probably need several volts for rolling contact. The Hg wetted rail and roller-armature may be the way to go. Horace, your balistic pendulum plus a fast BIG current surge may do the trick. I was trying to come up with a steady-state rig at modest currents and forces, but that might be tough. You also have a good point about high voltage making the commutation easy! Hmmmmmmmm, My Sprague electrolytics weigh about 3 lb, hold about 370 joules at 350 volts --------- Still needs more cooking, Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 21:57:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18126; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <32050FB3.437D@loc100.tandem.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Bob Horst To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Correa patents X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Recently I obtained copies of the three Correa patents and have been studying them over the weekend. Buried in the third ('354) patent I found the following gem in column 7 (quoted verbatim with typos corrected): "...the invention may be implemented with any tube capable of sustaining a stable PAGD discharge without rapid self destruction whether or not of a structure specifically disclosed. Thus we have been able to sustain PAGD utilizing tubes of diverse configuration; for example high voltage thermionic diodes with the anode connected as cathode, the cathode as anode, and the heater unused. Even fluorescent lighting tubes can be operated briefly in the PAGD regime although they are unsuitable for practical use and fail very rapidly since their electrodes cannot withstand the current densities involved. Even tubes having electrode structures that can withstand the currents involved will not be suitable if they become heated to a point at which thermionic emission promotes degeneration of a PAGD into a VAD." Wow. This implies that anyone could try to replicate the Correa work with off-the shelf vacuum tubes and some batteries (no need to learn glass blowing). Are any vortexians up to the challenge? Does anyone have recommendations on what tubes to try? This patent gives many details on preferred materials for the anode/cathode plates (aluminum, nickel, iron or zinc, not brass or copper), the preferred plate dimensions (.5 to 2 mm thick, 16-256 sqmm area, spaced 2-20 cm apart), and the vacuum (1 to 10E-6 Torr, Argon or other inert gas). -- Bob Horst From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 22:02:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18270; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608050706.AAA25903@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: Super conductor, non conservation :Bi-Brn Wings by Ross.. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >In the Tampere experiments, a gravitational shielding effect was >found to exist above a levitating rotating superconductor disk. >The extent of gravitational shielding was found to increase when >the disk was rotated, but gravitational shielding was also found >to exist to a lesser extent, even in the case of a stationary >meissner levitated disk. In the second of the two published >Tampere experiments, the gravitational shielding effect from a >6 inch diameter superconductor disk was found to extend in the >vertical direction, at least as high as the second floor of the >laboratory building. References available. Please post or email me with the References. I would like to read these as they pertain to the designs I spoke of in a crude sense. > >Take Tessien's QVF paddle wheel, or if you prefer just take a >simple flywheel, with one side positioned over the gravitationally >shielded area. No matter what position the flywheel turns to, >it is always lighter on one side, and heavier on the other. >Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) OK, who can fab some superconductive ceramic like the above. I have a design concept for you. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 21:53:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18327; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9608050730.AA25796@joshua.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: movie X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank wrote: ----------- Michael Williams The movie Chain Reaction is about a graduate student working at the University of Chicago on cold fusion. Michael, that's you !!!!! ----------- Hmmm....actually, thats _me_, not mike Williams. Mike is not a grad student, and is at U of Ill, Champaign-Urbana, about 100 miles from U of Chicago. In contrast, I was a grad student at math t U of C in 1989 when P&F made their big announcement.I was working on hot fusion at the time, and intrigued by their announcement, fellow graduate student Paul Burchard and I assembled what at the time we thought would be a CF reactor in the subbabsement of Eckhart hall, in what was the original lab Fermi used for his fission work, prior to moving to a lab beneath the football field to build his pile. Unfortunayrly, shortly before we wen't into operation, P&F began to fall out of favor, and Paul and I both got our Phd's and moved on. So, I guess I should be suing for royalties on my story now ... :-) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 21:59:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18368; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960805090454_100433.1541_BHG87-1@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: Super conductor, non conservation :B X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Robert, > Non-Conservative Field -- The set of all politicians lurking on > the left, hoping that Hillary gets indicted, or Bill gets caught > with his pants down. Perhaps those across the Pond are unaware that Paddy Ashdown, the leader of the UK Liberal Democrat (the word 'liberal' does NOT translate to the US meaning of the word!!) was caught having an affair with his secretary - and is now known as Paddy Pantsdown. On to more trivial matters..... > In the Tampere experiments, a gravitational shielding effect was > found to exist above a levitating rotating superconductor disk. > The extent of gravitational shielding was found to increase when > the disk was rotated, but gravitational shielding was also found > to exist to a lesser extent, even in the case of a stationary > meissner levitated disk. In the second of the two published > Tampere experiments, the gravitational shielding effect from a 6 > inch diameter superconductor disk was found to extend in the > vertical direction, at least as high as the second floor of the > laboratory building. References available. Y O U W H A A A T ! ! ! ! Ahem. References PLEASE!! I will admit that some while ago I had thought just how odd the Meissner effect really is - this ability to block a magnetic field. And that if gravity is electromagnetic in character maybe a superconductor might shield gravity. But are you saying - or even suggesting - that this is a real effect? I think we should be told. In fact, I think that somehow we should test it. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 21:52:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18429; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3205F5F9.2C48@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: Rail motor experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: untill the projectile moves, at > which time the net force on the rails themselves must be in a direction > opposite from the projectile's direction of motion (i.e. to the left in the > diagram.) Horace, I don't think the above statement need be true. Consider this: 1. Given a circular loop of conductor in the plane of this page. 2. Put a capacitor bank and a switch in a small section of the loop - say on its far left. 3. On the far right of the loop, cut a short section of the conductor loose, but leave it in place with good contact. We now have a rail-gun circuit with a rail length equal to only the thickness of the conductor - the cut length of conductor being the projectile. 4. Close the switch and I can tell you for sure that ALL elements of the loop will experience a radially outward force. The cut section will be ejected from the loop at modest velocity, as would ALL loop elements - were they free to move. If you add rails off to the right, sure, you improve the acceleration efficiency but not the basic force picture. 5. The reaction force you are looking for is there! It is, in this symmetrical model, 180 deg away from the projectile section - in the capacitor - switch area. If the circuit is free, it will kick to the left as the cut section moves to the right (I assume the rest of the loop is held in place on a mounting surface). Note that you can make any small section of the loop the projectile. The reaction force will always act on the opposite small section, 180 deg away. A magnetic field (also an electric field) is very similar to a gas in many ways: It has energy density - thus, mass density; and it can exert pressure on CURRENT CARRYING conductors. Your reaction force does not need to be transfered to the adjacent solid conductor in the loop (rails) - it can, in effect, be transfered through this "magnetic field gas" to the other side of the loop. Actually, as we have said before, the reaction force happens on the loop at the same time the projectile force happens. Horace, I'm starting to babble - I'm outta here! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 21:53:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18541; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:49:38 -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: Merriman's CETI replication effort X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: simple test for transmutations: 1) Take bead/plate/else that will be used in cell. Use spark of laser or micro probe AA. 2) Run cell. Reapeat (1) I know of a couple of labs that would probably do this once of twice. One their bill. J On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Bob Horst wrote: > Scott Little wrote: > > > > At 11:41 AM 8/3/96 -0700, Bob Horst wrote: > > > > >Miley said he is > 99% sure that it is transutation, not > > >contamination. > > > > Bob, do you have any idea WHY he is 99% sure it's not contamination? > > > The electolysis process tends to plate out every > > metallic ion in the electrolyte onto the catahode. Especially in the > > CETI-style experiments, there is a relatively large volume of > > electrolyte present, all of which is available as a source of ions. > > It wouldn't take a very high level of impurities in the original > > Li2SO4 to build up relatively high concs in/on the cathode. > > Miley has been trying to eliminate the possibility of contamination in > several ways. I did not take extensive notes, but these are the things > I remember. > > 1) They constructed some ultra-clean cells, but saw no difference in > reaction products. > > 2) They tried different metals other than Ni, and found different > products from each (how could that be due to the electrolyte?). > > 3) They have tried to find some good control cells. It sounded like the > best was conductive sulphated beads (no metals plated). No products > were seen. > > 4) Another mechanism would also have to explain why over half the Ni was > gone > > -- Bob > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 21:54:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18650; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:50:12 -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: Nikolaev's experiment (from Volodya) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Robert Stirniman posted Volodya's remarks on Nikolaev's experiment. Here is a synopsis of the correspondence preceeding that: Volodya writes: >Here, I tell about the experiment of Nikolaev. Who is Nikolaev? He is a >physicist from Thomsk city (in Siberia, Russia). I am not sure that his >papers have been published because the latters are in sharp contradiction >to mainstream electrodynamics. Maybe some of his papers can be published >in soviet scientific journal 'Izvestia Vusov, Fizika' ("Universities News, >The Physics") published by Thomsk University, Russia. >I am trying to connect with him via my friends in Siberia. > >Boyer stated his idea in Phys.Rev. D8, p 1679 (1973). For better >understanding, please, read the discussion on his idea in the book of >M.Peshkin & A.Tonomura 'The Aharonov-Bohm Effect' (Springer-Verlag, 1989). >I connected with Murray Peshkin via email and discussed the idea of Boyer >too. Prof.Peshkin rejects Boyer's idea because he thinks if Boyer is right >the Aharonov-Bohm effect must have another explanation (in frame of >classical electrodynamics). The physics establishment cannot accept such >an explanation because, in the opposite case, the electrodynamics must >change, for example, the principle of gauge invariance must be removed. > >So Marinov's experiment is especially worth for the physics. It is simple >and on macroscopic level. The paper of Marinov, with description of the >experiment, has been published in the proceeding of St.Pete conference >'The Space, the Time and the Gravity', 1995. > >Now about Nikolaev-Shil'nikov experiment. Shil'nikov is a physicist who >improved the design of the experiment. I hope it is interesting to Horace >and Chris because to detect the longitudinal EM force we don't need in >high frequency AC. > >Lets' assume two identical solenoids, besides the currents in their coils >are directed in opposition one to another. > x >---|||||--------- > x >The sign x means the solenoid, --- is the straight line which is the >symmetry axis where the magnetic field equals to zero (for identical >currents in the coils of the solenoids) - the magnetic field created by >the upper soleniod is directed to us and the magnetic field of the lower >solenoid is directed from the page. Since the magnitudes of the fields are >identical their sum is zero. It is correct at any point of the straight >line. >However, at the points of the line, the sum of the vector potentials does >not equal to zero. Using only ASCII symbols, it is difficult for me to >yield the calculations but everyone can check out it. Besides, the value >of the sum of the vector potentials is changing along the line, i.e. >there is @A/@r not = 0, @ is partial divergence with respect to coordinate >r of the line, and the resulting vector A is directed along the straight >line too. > >Now we should use semiconductor sample which is used for the Hall effect >measurements. It is known that the latter effect is caused by displacement >of the carriers in the semicomductor sample transversally to the current >direction (due to the force F = e*n*[vxB], n is concentration of free >carriers in the sample). However, Shil'nikov is going to use 'longitudinal >Hall effect' caused by the additional force >F(add) = e*n*v*@A/@r >The existence of this force can be easily proved: >Let's go to the frame linked with the carriers which are originally move >in the sample (signed as |||| in the scheme). In new frame, the solenoids >move to nonmoving carriers so the latters 'sense' the force >F' = - e*n*@A/@t >Formally, it is convenient electric force, however, in the lab frame that >force cannot exist from point of view of classical electrodynamics >because @A/@t transforms to @A/(@r/v) = v*@A/@r which is non-Lorentz one. > >New force can be easily detected by performing two repeating experiments, >with the currents in the solenoids and without them. One should measure >the current of the carriers under certain applied voltage U to the ends >of the sample (the contacts are on the line so the current flows along >the axis): >I = U/R, where R is the resistance of the sample. >Now the corrent in the coil switch on and the current in the sample is >measured again. >According to Nikolaev-Shilnikov, now the carriers 'sense', except the >voltage U additional voltage L*@A/@r, L is the length of the sample, >and I' = (U + L*@A/@r)/R > >Obviously, it is simple experiment and with DC only. >I know the design of simpier experiment which could be performed by the >equipment of times of Michael Faradey, however, to tell about it, I should >ask Shil'nikov before. > >With warm regard, >Volodya Cutting some of my typical muddled thinking my conclusion follows: The solution in the last email, a copy of which follows, represents the solution I finally found to provide a method to make line "O" have no flux. However, it is a very difficult method to implement, and I suspect, from your description, that this method was not implemented in Nikolaev's experiment. The prior qualitative analysis follows: "Looking down the proposed line of symmetry "O": N S | | | | i | | ^ | | O | | v | | i (both solenoids have i, opposite directions) | | | | Note that the current loops for the two i must complete. S N If the two i are part of the same current loop, then there will be a B parallel to the line "O". If the two i are in separate circuits completed to the outside, then, if they are not symmetric, there will be flux crossing "O" in opposite directions on opposite sides of the plane being depicted above. If the two outisde coils are symmetric and in the plane depicted then it should be possible to achieve zero flux on the line "O"." Note - the "outside coils" referred to above are the suggested power supply loops. Your diagram is correct and statement are correct, as far as they go, but they ignore the fact that the supplies for the currents i must also form closed loops. If they form a single loop, then by the right hand rule there will be a net B facing with North pole out of the page at "O" in the diagram above, or possibly crossing "O" at some points, depending on the geometry. Please ignore the B field from the loops of the solenoids. Look only at the current moving vertically through the solenoids. Think of the loops of the solenoid as all being parallel rings, each connected by a vertical connector. Then there two component B fields generated by the solenoid, the field which is veritcal in the core of the solenoid (created by the horizontal loops), and the field which circles each solenoid due to the vertical current component. It is only the second field which is important to what I am saying. The two vertical currents must be connected to either one common or two separate power supplies or batteries, so there is an unseen magnetic component to the picture. It is the magnetic effect of this unseen component, plus the veritcal currents, to which I refer. If the two current i are connected to the same power supply you have this: N...<- i.....S | | | | i | B | ^ | | North | | v | | i (both solenoids have i, opposite directions) | | |.....i->....| Note that the current loops for the two i must complete. S N The only way to avoid a central field is to have two power supply loops which are exactly symmetrical about the central axis, like this: ................N S................ . | | . . | | . . B i | | ^ B . . South | | O | | South . . v | | i . . | | . . | | . ................S N................ This means you have the problem of getting exactly the same physical symmetry and the same current in both of the independent current supply loops. This is difficult to do if you are deliberately trying to do it. It is very unlikely to happen if you are not aware you must do it. Volodya writes: >Dear Horace, > >First of all, sorry for the grammatical mistake ('Hear' instead of >'Dear'). >Now I try to explain that the magnetic field is too weak outside the >solenoids. Originally, in Nokolaev-Shil'nikov experiment there are two >loops instead of the solenoids, however, the result was too weak. To >get stronger the vector potential, we must use the solenoids. > >Let's consider your scheme. > > > N S > | | > | | >i | | ^ >| | O | | >v | | i (both solenoids have i, opposite directions) > | | > | | Note that the current loops for the two i must complete. > S N >Your write: >< Your diagram is correct and statement are correct, as far as they >
>The same arguments have been stated in critisizm of my paper on >A-potential. However, there is no necessary to use closed current loop. >One may use the solenoids made of soft magnetic materials (Shil'nikov just >is working for Domain - large St.Pete firm producing the ferrites of many >types). Such solenoids can have certain (and great) magnetic flux and can >be easily de-magnetized (their magnetic fluxes become equal to zero) > > >In the above scheme, there are no vertical currents in the solenoids. >Strictky speaking, such vertical currents present, however, as in the >Aharonov-Bohm experiments, these currents can be reduced to very small >magnitude by improving of the design of the solenoids. > >Moreover, the effects caused by the magnetic field which, in principle, >cannot be removed is being easily estimated and compared to the results >of the experiment. > >Tomorrow I read the book on radio physics Robert sent me and estimate >two (B- and A-caused) effects, using English scientific terms. > >With warm regard, >Volodya Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 21:54:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18813; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960805155705_100433.1541_BHG90-1@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: Homopolars and long. force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Thanks to Dr Puthoff for sending me a copy of the Das Gupta homopolar paper (Am J Phys 31, 428, 1963). It does a good job of demonstrating the basic Faraday experiments - the 'Faraday Disc'. It shows that the effect occurs when the disc rotor spins relative to the fixed circuit, and that the magnet takes no part in that it can be spinning or not spinning - and that the torque is between the disc and the fixed circuit. Basically, Das Gupta is producing a plot of torque versus current. One snag with the first experiment is that it uses a homopolar disc *motor*, which it presumes to be the same thing as a generator. But in this way torque is much more easily measured. The second experiment is much the same but with a generator, and shows that the voltage (25mV) produced is the same with the magnet spinning or not. He then refers to a cylindrical experiment, but unfortunately doesn't clearly describe its physical configuration. This made me go back through old notes, and I find that I have made some confusing (read, 'wrong') statements here. First, consider a simple homopolar motor (nod to Bill Beaty for this one). Get a short copper pipe and some high-power cylindrical magnets, poles on faces. Fix them inside the pipe, touching, like poles facing - and use very strong glue... Lay the pipe on a pair of rails which are about one magnet's length apart - that is, they are each in the middle of one magnet. Give the rails a good belt with a car battery. Whoosh - the cylinder rolls along (or, more likely, melts onto the rails). Now suspend the pipe with its axis vertical, and get a couple of big alkali cells with wire brushes leading off (as far apart as the rails were). Brush this against the cylinder - it spins. Now tape the batteries to the cylinder, with a switch. Switch on - no spinning. Go back to brushes, and if you look carefully you can see the brushes pushing back as the cylinder starts to spin. Of course you have to be careful where the brushes go, because it's easy to 'cut the wrong part of the field'. All a bit like a rail-gun, innit? So far, so hoopy. Conservation of forces, no magic involved. But there are other kinds of cylinder. One has the magnets plated onto the surface of a cylinder, like poles outward, and has an iron keeper cylinder inside and out. So the field runs radially through the cylindrical conductor. With this arrangement, it is very difficult to see any results at all - I think that is because you are cutting the wrong places in the field. Certainly the device described in Cullwick as a homopolar cylindrical generator just doesn't look to be right. He says the voltage generated will be proportional to the length of the cylinder - assuming a constant B. Maybe Norman Horwood, who built up a better device than I had, can comment further. But as far as I can see, Cullwick's whole approach to calculating the voltage produced is just wrong - the effect is an *ends* effect, and nothing to do with the length. The method of calculating V by multiplying the area by the velocity by B (V = v*l*B) is, I suggest, wrong. Anyway, a high-voltage homopolar generator is high on a lot of people's wish-list and we ain't none of us seen one, have we? I think that homopolars have no energy anomalies whatever, but should be checked out *properly*, in all configurations (I thought up many, and so has Bill Beaty) to get the physics straight once and for all. Next, this Ampere force thing. Did we ever decide whether there is a practical scheme for testing it, where the remainder of the circuit will be self-cancelling? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 22:03:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18983; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:51:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:51:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608051810.LAA00338@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: About Homopolar Generators X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi folks, Copied below is a message about homopolar generators. The following two references might help make sense out of it -- if there's any sense in it. S. Nasar, ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES & SYSTEMS, Prentice-Hall, 1970. (Acyclic/Homopolar Machines, Pages 124-130) T. Valone, THE HOMOPOLAR HANDBOOK, Integrity Research Institute, 1994 (1-800-295-7674) The book by Nasar is probably in your local university library. If the book is lost, or if you find that pages 124-130 are missing -- it wouldn't be the first time. Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) ----------------------------------------------------------- To: gravity137@delphi.com From: robert@skylink.net Date: August 1, 1996 Subject: More About HPGs Hi Ron. Some discussion of homopolar generators on the Vortex list got me thinking over the last few days. I took another look at some HPG info last night. Starting with Nasar, then Valone's book. The Nasar thing first got me hooked on this, so I began again at the beginning. You know how it intrigues me when interesting pages are torn from books. In Nasar's book, as you noticed right away, and marked on the copy you sent me, he seems to throw out something possibly important, but provides little or nothing in the way of an explanation. Take another look at figure 4-11, and at the comments in the last paragraph of section 4.9.1. "Armature reaction can be compensated for to a certain extent by using a compensating shield as shown in figure 4-11. The resultant field produced by the armature current and shield current is essentially zero. Because the shield is connected in series with the armature, the two carry the same current but in opposite directions." Here's an interpretation. Add another copper drum (shield) to the machine that Nasar illustrates in figure 4-10. The additional drum/shield does not rotate, but makes a slip ring or brush connection to the negative terminal of the rotating drum. The stationary drum/shield is completley and exactly symmetrical around the rotating drum/armature. The only thing that moves in figure 4-10, is the armature. In the magnetic circuit, the exact same flux passes through the stationary drum/shield and the rotating drum/armature. The shield and drum are in the same current loop, and from the perspective of the magnetic circuit, they carry equal and opposite currents. The external circuit (shield connection to the negative terminal of the armature) draws current from the rotating drum in a completely symmetrical fashion. Does this eliminate or reduce armature reaction, also known as back torque? I wonder. Let's look again at something from Valone's book. Quoting comments by Valone from the middle of page 42. "We note that Tesla refers to the 'external circuit' which is made to be 'perfectly symmetrical' to reduce the reaction to zero. This was a popular notion, which may still have profound significance. Adam Trombly, the builder of the most successful over- unity generator in recent history, also emphasized to me the symmetry of the external circuit in his design in order to reduce back torque." OK. Now Trombly. Trombly claimed his homopolar generator operated at over 250% efficiency. As you know, his US patent was classified by the Office of Naval Intelligence due to the "unique brush design", and he is under a gag order. In cases of national security, one must NEVER talk about brushes. Well, with apologizes to Naval Intelligence, this seems absurd to me. Unfortunately nowadays, when you see the words "protecting national security interests", you can sometimes do a quick translation to get the real meaning -- protecting big-money interests, and to hell with all the rest of the people who have to pay for it. Trombly's international patent is shown in Valone's book on pages 121-136. It's a very poor copy -- tough to read. Maybe worth the effort. Trombly's is an axial-flux disk-machine, whereas Nasar's is a radial-flux drum-machine. In Trombly's machine, current is drawn from the rotating copper disk, by a stationary slip ring "bushing" that completely surrounds the rotating disk. Diagram in Valone's book, page 132. The current path is completely symmetrical, and is contained in the magnetic circuit (flux return path). The function seems equivalent to Nasar's "shielded" machine. Except in Nasar's machine the current is equal and opposite and the flux linkage is the same direction, and in Trombly's machine the current flows in the same direction, and it is the flux linkage which is equal and opposite. Because the disk in Trombly's machine is spinning (or in Nasar's machine the drum is spinning), the current flow in the rotating conductor will form a spiral pattern. The current flow has a circumferencial component as well as a radial component (in Nasar's case a circumferencial component as well as an axial component). The component of the current in the circumferencial direction acts to reinforce the magnetic field which drives the radial (or axial) component. In this fashion, the machine becomes partly self-actualizing. For this to occur in an optimum fashion, the conductor must be spinning as rapidly as possible, and the current must be drawn from the rotating member in a symmetrical manner. Oddly enough, or as another way of viewing this, there is no way to draw current from the armature in a completely symmetrical fashion without creating what Nasar calls "a compensating shield". And also oddly enough, it is topologically impossible to make a completley symmetrical compensating shield which is not contained in the full magnetic circuit of the machine. In the early 20th century, Tesla described how it is possible to build a reactionless (over-unity) homopolar generator. Nasar wrote about it over 25 years ago. Fourteen years ago, Trombly got a patent for an implementation of essentially the same idea expressed by Tesla. Many others claim to have built such devices. Still, there is nothing on the market. Because it doesn't work, or because of something else? Fossil fuel is a dirty business. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 21:56:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19101; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608052032.QAA04486@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: FTL phase propagation experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Gee, I thought you were talking about the recent FTL propagation experiments... Create a "forbidden region" in a wave guide, so that the signal you are putting in has a narrower section several inches long that it must jump. The amount of energy propagated through the forbidden region decays exponentially with the length of the section, but the time to cross the gap is constant. So the longer the gap the faster the effective velocity. I don't have the references here, but about 80 picoseconds as the time to jump the gap, and effective measured speeds several times the speed of light were achieved. Of course to do this for any significant distance, you would need in-line maser amplifier sections, etc. Not very practical for long distance communications, but great for communicating backwards in time, if you can achieve effective velocities in the 100 c range. (Theoretically, any FTL communciation mechanism can be used to violate causality, but for practical results, you need either high velocities or long distances.) 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 Aug 6 22:00:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19186; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: "Chain Reaction" (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 13:42:22 +0000 From: Chris Reply-To: 383@pacific.pacific.net, S.Main@pacific.pacific.net, St.@pacific.pacific.net, #234@pacific.pacific.net, Willits@pacific.pacific.net, CA@pacific.pacific.net, 95490@pacific.pacific.net To: billb@eskimo.com Subject: "Chain Reaction" Bill, Do you think you can add this to your web site? Review to Chain Reaction: If there was one common response to those exiting the theatre, it could be generalized as a "lame reaction". The begining of "Chain Reaction" immersed the viewer in some type of scientific experiment. The speed in which the plot was developed was so fast, even the most attentive audiences were left scrambling for a understanding. Unfortunatly, the explainations for what was happening in the scientific pursuit of clean energy, a.k.a. hydrogen production through the use of sound, was quickly overshadowed by uneventful acting, and poor directing. For those whom had two or more expressos before the show, some must of felt the excitement of the first 'explosion', which packed more punch than the rest of the movie. The following scenes progressed to more bad acting, time-consuming chase scenes ( where the chase seem all to phony ) and villians with no film presence at all, except for the leading villian / "best friend". The movie was all to predictable, all the way to the ending. Scientific Cons of this 'promotional film': If there was one idea presented in this film that the public will embrace, it was that hydrogen production was explosivly dangerous, simulating the power of atomics ( with no radiation ) For semi-intelligent people: This movie embraces the idea that hydrogen production can simply be unbalanced to create a dangerous, and potentally explosive mess. For hydrogen enthusiats: This movie creates the impression that advanced hydrogen production can not be accomplished without million dollar facilities, and a large budget for custom equiptment and accomplished scientists. For those whom are pursuit of this technology: This movie endangers the work that we are trying to accomplish. Those whom you have spoke with about the possibilities of this technology are apt to view your pursuit as dangerous. They may only become slightly paranoid at the possiblilities that may or may not exist. It will make your work more available for critique, and you better be ready for it. There may be great things that will become of this, but the areas in which we are discovering will be filled with trials and tribulations. We shall feel a gain in momentum for our cause. Please be aware of sympathatic ears, versus apathetic ones. Universal Question: What travels faster than the speed of light? Answer: Rumours. Good Luck to All, Chris Koveleski, independent writer From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 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 VAA19350; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608052120.RAA04611@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: FTL phase propagation experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien said: > So, whatever percent frequency shift you have will result in that > percent change to the location of the waveform at the end of the > cable. Without something akin to a TDR shot you don't know how > many standing waves are in the cable unless you perform a > frequency sweep and note the resonances. > HMMM? Did you carefully measure a large number of cycles on the > screen to see if there was a frequency shift from one example to > the other? I think this is known as the Dirac phase shift effect, and doesn't violate causality, but appears to. No information can be extracted from the phase shift without the reference signal which travels at the speed of light. EPR on the other hand does violate causality, and the experiment I mentioned in the last posting is probably the most violent violation of causality possible... Incidently, there is some evidence that the twinkling of quasars is due to interference effects after gravitational lensing. If so you see an extreme example of this experiment. (Of course, the fact that photons interfere with themselves after going one way or the other around a galaxy has a lot to say about causality...) 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 Aug 6 21:58:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19442; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608052218.SAA04664@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: uh oh...need BIG currents-Rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > With 1/2" diameter rails (a=.25"), spaced 2" apart (s=2"), it takes about > 2400 amps to get 1 pound of force (a reasonable minimum value for a crude > experiment)! Frank Stenger wrote: > OK, Scott, I was hoping for a few ounces of thrust, but your > numbers are a bit scary! The i^2 term is a killer and ln((s-a)/a) > makes a wider track not too much help.... > Even 600 amps may give a problem with rolling contact. You might get > spot welding at that current! Maybe a coat of Hg along the contact > point might help (Outdoors for toxic vapors!). A 600 amp rail gun? You looking to put this in your pocket? You could get that out of NiCad or even lead acid batteries... But throw in a couple farads of capacitance and you can run a decent current, say 10,000 amps. Remember, if your gun works right, you will only need a few milliseconds of current. As for the problem of spot welding, make your contact brushes out of graphite. Liquid Hg is heavy, and is bad juju indoors or out, and especially in contact with sweaty skin. I recommend brass or copper rod stock for the rails. Clean with dilute HCl, then lubricate with graphite. If you make your entire projectile from graphite, you can get a reasonably robust projectile that weighs less than an ounce. The big problem is switching... I cheated. I used a relay rated at 600 amps, but with replacable contacts. When the contacts welded badly enough, I replaced them, otherwise I ran a fine emery paper over them every so often. Another trick is to use aluminum for one contact, and copper for the other. Should go without saying, but... One advantage of using a capacitor bank to fire the gun is that the contactor/relay is not required to open against large currents. But if you have the battery or transformer connected when you fire, have a second relay (or knife switch) in the circut to ensure you can open it if the projectile doesn't leave the gun. Oh, yes. Don't forget to brace the gun against recoil, even the first time you try it. I managed to lift one end of a lab bench a few inches off the floor. 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 Aug 6 22:08:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19602; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:54:41 -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: GOT h oh...need BIG currents X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Big current: 1) large laminated crude iron core 2) primary of 800 to 1000 turns std # 14 awg building wire 3) secondary of ONE TURN copper, multifilar [times 20, say] #12 awg std copper building wire. 4) charge cp stack to maybe 100 to 200 volts .... bigger the better ... up to a point. 5) mechaniclly dump caps across primary ... this should [if all ids done right] make a big bang .... like a 308 rifle. BE DARN CAREFUL! A charged cp stack can kill you. Easy. No second chance. A set of 600 VAC rated motor start caps .... at about 120 to 200 mfd will easy deliver the current. You will want heavy rails. J On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Scott Little wrote: > Frank Stenger is on the right track for the apparatus but we may have a problem: > > I get for the nominal force on a rail gun projectile: > > mu*i^2 > F = ------- ln((s-a)/a) > pi > > or, in pseudo-code form: > > F = mu*i^2*ln((s-a)/a)/pi > > where a = rail radius > s = rail separation > i = current > pi = 3.14159 > mu = permeability of free space (4*pi*10^-7 henry/meter) > > This expression comes from integrating ilB over the "length" of the > projectile from one rail to the other, and the assumption that the B thru > the projectile is the same as that surrounding a two long rods carrying a > current i (this is probably an over-estimate since the current stops flowing > in the rail right where the projectile is located). > > With 1/2" diameter rails (a=.25"), spaced 2" apart (s=2"), it takes about > 2400 amps to get 1 pound of force (a reasonable minimum value for a crude > experiment)! The force gets bigger as the rail diameter goes down but not > very rapidly: for .25" diameter rails, you get only 1.4 pounds of force for > 2400 amps! > > Gnorts! > > > > - 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 Aug 6 22:03:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19688; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:55:02 -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: GOT addendum...need BIG currents-Rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: RE: Got big currents ..... this is NOT for amateurs. On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > Scott Little wrote: > > > With 1/2" diameter rails (a=.25"), spaced 2" apart (s=2"), it takes about > > 2400 amps to get 1 pound of force (a reasonable minimum value for a crude > > experiment)! > > OK, Scott, I was hoping for a few ounces of thrust, but your > numbers are a bit scary! The i^2 term is a killer and ln((s-a)/a) > makes a wider track not too much help. > > Say we drop the current to 600 amps - a factor of 4 - and try to live > with an ounce (factor of 16) of thrust. I'm thinking of some type of > suspension system (flex plates, 4 overhead suspension wires, liquid > flotation, etc.) that would respond to that level of force. > > Even 600 amps may give a problem with rolling contact. You might get > spot welding at that current! Maybe a coat of Hg along the contact > point might help (Outdoors for toxic vapors!). > > Needs more cooking! Frank Stenger > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 22:04:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19877; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:55:52 -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: Rail guns the quantitative way X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I haven't seen anything from vortex since 5:00 PM yesterday, but I'll submit something anyway to see if it comes back. A more quantitative approach: ########################### ########################## I JPPPPPPPPPK LM NPPPPPPPPPO Q E==============================FG==============================H PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP ########################### ########################## A B C D | | -----S----- Two pieces of pipe "#" longer than the above, central copper rod "=", and two graphite tubes "P" are laid as shown. Four insulating spacers can be placed in the pipes in the spaces between I and J, K and L, M and N, O and Q. Strain guages can be then applied at the points A-Q to determine the forces on each member. The magnitude of the pulse from the supply is adjusted so it is large enough to get a good force reading yet not so large as to overrun or destroy the strain guages. Power connected to B and C should result in graphite projectiles P flying opposite and outward directions. Force due to power supply loop SBPFGPCS is now opposed to the reaction force of the sheaths - we get a genuine answer as to where the reaction occurs. The power loop should force B and C apart, yet a reaction force on the sheaths should force the copper pipes together at B and C. The two supply loop forces exerted laterally and outwardly at B and C, being in a loop, can readily be calculated using Biot-Savart or Grassman, as they agree. This force can be subtracted from the force measured on the pipes to determine the reaction force on the pipes due to direct action with the projectile and central rod. The force on the rod can be directly measured at F and G. The distance BC can be increased to cover a range of values to calculate and account for repulsion of the pipes due to like charge, inductive coupling of the pipes, change of forces from the supply loop, etc. Points F and G can be circled with jumpers between the rods to make room for the strain guages at F and G. Forces on the ords can be directly measured without concern for forces from the supply loop field as that field is purpendicular to the the rod near FG so should impose no longitudinal force on the rods. Any degree of friction in the supply loop to the rods, e.g. SCPG, should result in an outward force on the rods, as with the pipes, so should oppose any reaction force on the rods. Any reaction force (i.e. toward FG) on the rods should be a clear indication of direct interation between the rod and projectile which, from the Biot-Savart point of view, represent two sets of isolated and purpendicular current elements which have a repulsive force between them. The longitudinal force exits. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 22:06:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19956; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:56:16 -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 Carrel wrote... >In response of Michael Schaffer's comments, I have a further clarification >from Correa. The test circuit for the oscillograms at hand is the same as >shown on p 36, IE #7. The current pulse from the drive pack is 300 ma for 25 >ms, depressing the drive pack from some 570 V by about 12 V. The current >burst from the reactor charges C7a and C7b in about 20 ms; the capacitors >then transfer their charge in a current pulse to the charge pack which begins >at about 65 A and exponentially decays to about 5 A in 50 ms. > >In response to this kick in the lead, the charge pack voltage rises from >about 280 V to about 350 V in the 25 ms, then relaxes to a small incremental >increase by the next pulse, which in this case is 2 seconds later. > >The power from the drive pack is about 200 W and the peak power into the >charge pack is some 25 kW per pulse. These results are for a particular test >condition and may not apply to other operating modes, but they clearly show >the o/u performance. > >The diodes in the test circuit isolate the drive-pack/reactor loop from the >charge-pack/reactor loop, so the energy burst does not come from the drive >pack charging capacitors C3 and C5. The reactor is quiet and plasma-free >between bursts, and the current measurements at the drive pack show only >background levels. The main statement here is: during the 25 ms pulse, the charge power greatly exceeds the drive power, and that this is a demonstration of transient ou. However, I must point out that AC coupling capacitors C3 and C5, as well as the obvious smoothing capacitors C7a and C7b, are all energy storage elements. A more conventional explanation is that the drive battery pack charges C3 and C5 during the 2 sec or so between high power pulses, after which the power pulse is just the discharge of their energy into the load pack system. More specifically, when the tube is in its quiet, high resistance state, the drive pack charges C3 and C5 via the circuit consisting of D1, R1, C5, D3, D8, charge pack, D7, D5, C3, D4. Also note that C7a and C7b also get charged in parallel with the charge pack. When the tube suddenly switches on (conducting, low resistance), it lets C3 and C5 discharge through the circuit consisting of C5, C3, D6, C7b in series with C7a plus the charge pack in parallel, D2. With four energy-storing capacitors in the circuit, ou performance can only be determined from data spanning a complete cycle, not just a high power phase that is only about 1% of the cycle. The fact that 200 W average drive power / 25,000 W peak power = 0.8% is consistent with non-ou. BTW, the C7 center tap connection to one point of the bridge is not conventional for a bridge rectifier and will make unusual waveforms with respect to ground at some circuit nodes. This distortion could be a source of confusion if it is not appreciated and understood. 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 Aug 6 22:02:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA20004; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:56:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:56:29 -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: Re: Rail motor experiment] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace, this is the first time I've tried to forward an old post to >someone - so I hope this comes thru OK. This was my last Vortex post >with an idea for you! > >Frank Stenger > >Content-Type: message/rfc822 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline > >X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 >Message-ID: <3205F5F9.2C48@interlaced.net> >Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 09:24:09 -0400 >From: "Francis J. Stenger" >Organization: NASA (Retired) >X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: Rail motor experiment >References: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Horace Heffner wrote: > > untill the projectile moves, at >> which time the net force on the rails themselves must be in a direction >> opposite from the projectile's direction of motion (i.e. to the left in the >> diagram.) > >Horace, I don't think the above statement need be true. >Consider this: > 1. Given a circular loop of conductor in the plane of this page. > > 2. Put a capacitor bank and a switch in a small section of the > loop - say on its far left. > 3. On the far right of the loop, cut a short section of the > conductor loose, but leave it in place with good contact. > We now have a rail-gun circuit with a rail length equal to > only the thickness of the conductor - the cut length of > conductor being the projectile. > > 4. Close the switch and I can tell you for sure that ALL > elements of the loop will experience a radially outward > force. The cut section will be ejected from the loop at > modest velocity, as would ALL loop elements - were they > free to move. If you add rails off to the right, sure, you > improve the acceleration efficiency but not the basic force > picture. > 5. The reaction force you are looking for is there! It is, in > this symmetrical model, 180 deg away from the projectile > section - in the capacitor - switch area. If the circuit is > free, it will kick to the left as the cut section moves to > the right (I assume the rest of the loop is held in place > on a mounting surface). Note that you can make any small > section of the loop the projectile. The reaction force will > always act on the opposite small section, 180 deg away. > >A magnetic field (also an electric field) is very similar to a gas in >many ways: It has energy density - thus, mass density; and it can exert >pressure on CURRENT CARRYING conductors. Your reaction force does not >need to be transfered to the adjacent solid conductor in the loop >(rails) - it can, in effect, be transfered through this "magnetic field >gas" to the other side of the loop. Actually, as we have said before, >the reaction force happens on the loop at the same time the >projectile force happens. >Horace, I'm starting to babble - I'm outta here! > >Frank Stenger Frank, I must not be very good at communicating my thoughts. (Somehow I have the fealing they are so nonsensical and confused as to be unintelligible. Oh dear. Please bear with me, I am just learning these concepts.) ########################### ########################## I JPPPPPPPPPK LM NPPPPPPPPPO Q E==============================FG==============================H PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP ########################### ########################## A B C R D | | -----S----- I think I understand what you are saying completely. That is the *why* of the above design. The distance BC and loop BCS can be made arbitrarily large. As you do this the force on the loop from the pressure you discuss drops proportionally to circumference/area. The force you are talking about can be made arbitrarily small, or do I have a misunderstanding? Secondly, in the above design, if SC is attached at C then that force is exerted on the pipe CD at C in a right going direction. It *opposes* the recoil of the pipe. If the pipe recoils then some force *in the pipe* must be causing it to recoil. Assume C is a loose connection, a brush, and SC is fixed in place structurally. Same argument, except there is no forc between SC and the pipe. Should get even more recoil! Now, it appears to me that the current "turning the corner" inside the pipe metal at C will cause a recoil force. However, that force should be balanced (at least to some extent) by the current "turning a corner" in the pipe at the projectile. These forces can be seen in the manner you say, which is how I managed to visualize them in a railgun discussion long ago, maybe before you were on ther list, or they can be seen as forces between current elements via Biot-Savart. Either way, the force *inside the pipe metal* is to the rear (left) at C and forward (right) at P. Same thing happens in the rod. The current turning the corner indside the rod at P will exert a fore on the rod *in a forward direction*. The rod should tend to fly apart at FG! This is clearfly true if P is retarded from acceleration. Even if the projectile is free to move, such a force should pull the rod apart. Same with friction forces. The beauty of the above experimjental design is that it is *only* a force beteen the projectile and the rod that can possibly cause the rod to be stationary (no net force) or even to have a recoil. The rod does not know the sheath is there, true? Biot-Savart clearly shows this recoil force on the rod to be there. Same for the sheath. It might be interresting to also cut the pipe in two at R above. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 6 22:06:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA20103; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:56:55 -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: Weird electrostatic story X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here's an odd story. I heard it second-hand, so I'm not totally confident of its accuracy. I have a call in to the originator. A friend attended the 1995 ESD assn. symposium where a 3M engineer told of an interesting phenomenon at a factory in the south. The humidity was extremely high, yet when the guy entered the factory floor his electrometer measured many tens of KV just inside the doorway. As part of the production process they were taking two types of plastic film off an enormous roll many feet long and spooling it onto two other rolls. The dissimilar materials were generating opposite surface charges, so these two rolls were acting as charge accumulators. The enormous rolls were adjacent and oppositely charged throughout their volume, so the e-field between them was incredibly high. They should form a capacitor, but an unconventional one with non-conductive plates, and with the charges trapped inside the plastic. Here's the weird part. When workers tried to walk between the rolls, they experienced a strong repulsion force. Repulsion, not attraction. When the humidity was lower, they found that the field was so strong that they were unable to push their way through! Yet when one drops plastic fragments between oppositely charged parallel plates, the fragments are sucked into the gap, rotate to align with the field, and stick to one plate or the other. They are not *repelled!* Anyone have an explanation of the odd phenomenon in the factory? also: Charging a film and spooling it up would be a neat way to create a single-pole electret. After awhile it should "discharge" as opposite air ions were attracted to its surface. But then you could peel a couple of layers off and restore the original effect. I think VandeGraaff belts can take tens of of microcoulombs per cm^2, so it wouldn't be hard to accumulate a total charge in the millicoulomb range. I expect that air breakdowns would impose the major limit. If you made a positive and a negative "charge spool," the attractive force between them should be amazing! ....................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 Aug 6 22:09:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA20174; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:57:15 -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: CETI silence X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: It has been quite some time now that nothing has been heard from CETI. Various theories have been advanced to explain this silence. I will add now my theory. Following the Power Gen 95 demo I gave my suggestion that the cell could be inducing phase transformations or chemical reactions which could have a negative potential energy associated with them. The energy out would be the potential energy plus the kinetic energy. The temperature measurments would only give the kinetic energy out. No attempt in any of the experiments was made to measure the chemical potential energy difference accross the cell. This was a gross oversight and a graphic indication of the quality of the scientific work being done. I suggested a simple test to measure this effect. The cell outflow could be diverted into an insulated container (like a thermos jug) and then capped. Then the contents of the jug could be sloshed around and allowed to sit around an amount that would simulate the effects of the cell outflow in going through the path from cell outlit to cell inlit. Then the temperature could be taken. This is a very simple test and I made sure that it was widely distributed including direct E-mail to the principals involved. So my guess is that CETI knows about it and they have done it. If they did this test and found that the excess heat went away that would explain the current situation in which no additional claims of excess heat are being made and instead the thrust is on looking at transmutations. The inducing of phase transformations or chemical reactions by high electric fields is well established. For example see D. Wirtz and G.G. Fuller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 2236, (1993). The electric field within a Debye legnth of the cell cathode is high enough to induce such reactions and the cell flow could carry away the reaction products. The neglecting of this effect renders all the alleged excess heat output claims invalid. I consider it likely that this oversight has been corrected and that the CETI people now know that there is no excess heat output. That is not to say that the process is useless. I think that the data was good enough to indicate tha the Carnot cycle efficiency was being exceeded and that is of great importance. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 02:53:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA07178; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 02:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 02:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608070511.PAA28039@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: CETI silence X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Larry wharton wrote: > > The electric field within a Debye legnth of the cell cathode is high enough > to induce such reactions and the cell flow could carry away the reaction > products. The neglecting of this effect renders all the alleged excess > heat output claims invalid. I consider it likely that this oversight has > been corrected and that the CETI people now know that there is no excess > heat output. That is not to say that the process is useless. I think that > the data was good enough to indicate tha the Carnot cycle efficiency was > being exceeded and that is of great importance. > This would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and as such is an even bigger violation of the known principles of Physics than low energy nuclear reactions. To see why, imagine the CETI device connected to a 100% effcient carnot cycle heat engine and bingo, you've got energy forever! Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 02:53:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA07232; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 02:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 02:10:02 -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: Gravity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Gravity aside .... there are already designs ... that spin! Using superconductors' "perfect diamagnetism" effect. Not considered perpetual motion by patent office .... even though they spin on their own. J On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Ross Tessien wrote: > > >In the Tampere experiments, a gravitational shielding effect was > >found to exist above a levitating rotating superconductor disk. > >The extent of gravitational shielding was found to increase when > >the disk was rotated, but gravitational shielding was also found > >to exist to a lesser extent, even in the case of a stationary > >meissner levitated disk. In the second of the two published > >Tampere experiments, the gravitational shielding effect from a > >6 inch diameter superconductor disk was found to extend in the > >vertical direction, at least as high as the second floor of the > >laboratory building. References available. > > Please post or email me with the References. I would like to read these as > they pertain to the designs I spoke of in a crude sense. > > > > >Take Tessien's QVF paddle wheel, or if you prefer just take a > >simple flywheel, with one side positioned over the gravitationally > >shielded area. No matter what position the flywheel turns to, > >it is always lighter on one side, and heavier on the other. > > >Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) > > OK, who can fab some superconductive ceramic like the above. I have a > design concept for you. > > Ross Tessien > > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 03:04:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA07296; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 02:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 02:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Extract infor FTL phase propagation experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Robert, Of course you can extrat information. Just use phase shift detector. you do not need reference to extract info .... if you did non of the tachs in Corvetts basesd on the LM 2907/LM2917 F-V would work ... On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > Ross Tessien said: > > > So, whatever percent frequency shift you have will result in that > > percent change to the location of the waveform at the end of the > > cable. Without something akin to a TDR shot you don't know how > > many standing waves are in the cable unless you perform a > > frequency sweep and note the resonances. > > > HMMM? Did you carefully measure a large number of cycles on the > > screen to see if there was a frequency shift from one example to > > the other? > > I think this is known as the Dirac phase shift effect, and doesn't > violate causality, but appears to. No information can be extracted > from the phase shift without the reference signal which travels at the > speed of light. a) clock recovery circuit b) phase sensitive detector c) PLL d) FM discriminator All of the above will extract the phase shift info without the need of the reference .... the only thing you MIGHT need the rference for is to prove the rate of "shift getting from here to there" J EPR on the other hand does violate causality, and the > experiment I mentioned in the last posting is probably the most > violent violation of causality possible... > > Incidently, there is some evidence that the twinkling of quasars is > due to interference effects after gravitational lensing. If so you > see an extreme example of this experiment. (Of course, the fact that > photons interfere with themselves after going one way or the other > around a galaxy has a lot to say about causality...) > > > 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 Aug 7 02:54:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA07386; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 02:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 02:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960807070008_100060.173_JHB76-1@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: Homopolars and long. force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris, >> Maybe Norman Horwood, who built up a better device than I had, can comment further. But as far as I can see, Cullwick's whole approach to calculating the voltage produced is just wrong - the effect is an *ends* effect, and nothing to do with the length. << Yessir - its still in some packing case with a dozen or so very predatory flat little magnets and a large motor. I traversed the length of the brass cylinder, which was about 10" long and 4" dia., with dvm probes and found that the only location where there was any measurable pd was near the ends and the separation between the probes was about 1". Anywhere else, and with various separation distances, there was no reaction within the sensitivity of the meter at the mV level. The revs reached about 2000 rpm but imbalance precluded any increase, and I gave up further development. Norman From billb@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 07:25:10 1996 Received: from eskimo.com (billb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13506 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id HAA25023; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 07:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 07:25:03 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: VORTEX-L alive again In-Reply-To: <32050FB3.437D@loc100.tandem.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: To all who weren't receiving vortex-L, eskimo staff has unchoked the listproc, things look OK again. Were SOME vortex-L subscribers still receiving messages between sunday night and today? ....................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 Aug 7 09:28:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA20598; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 08:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 08:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960807150411_72240.1256_EHB118-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: CETI silence X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Larry Wharton writes: "It has been quite some time now that nothing has been heard from CETI." That is completely incorrect. I have heard quite a bit from them. They gave lectures at the ISNE, they showed samples of the Motorola data, and Cravens held a two-hour workshop where he assembled and demonstrated the cell that he later installed at SRI. Furthermore, I and others have been in frequent contact with George Miley, who is working with CETI cells and with replications fabricated at U. Illinois. He is co-chairing the transmutation meeting next month at TAMU. I hear more from CETI than I do from most researchers. "Various theories have been advanced to explain this silence. I will add now my theory. Following the Power Gen 95 demo I gave my suggestion that the cell could be inducing phase transformations or chemical reactions which could have a negative potential energy associated with them. The energy out would be the potential energy plus the kinetic energy. The temperature measurements would only give the kinetic energy out. No attempt in any of the experiments was made to measure the chemical potential energy difference across the cell. This was a gross oversight and a graphic indication of the quality of the scientific work being done." I don't like to say so here, but this is complete nonsense. I am sorry to use such strong language, but we have shown over and over again that the chemical phase transformation theories violate the conservation of energy. There is no place in the circuit where significant energy is added from the outside. The only significant source of external energy is the circulation pump, and this is hundreds of times too small. From the pressure and speed of the moving water we can compute the total amount of enthalpy added to the water. The numbers are *orders of magnitude* too low. In many experiments the total electric power consumed by the pump is less than the excess enthalpy! Furthermore, the null runs with gold beads and joule heaters show no excess. Similar experiments performed by Little and Merriman show no excess. Energy from the pump or some other external source cannot simply disappear when the contents of the cell change. Various people, including me, have pointed this out to Larry time after time. I do not think that he has addressed our objections. I think he is harping on this hypothesis without defending it, which is bad form. Furthermore, the statement about "a gross oversight and a graphic indication of quality" is insulting and out of line. I have reviewed the Cravens calorimetry in detail, in I.E. I find it excellent. I have not seen this kind of detailed critique of the calorimetry from Larry or other critics. Miley has not published details of his CETI work yet, but anyone who has read his previous papers in cold fusion and hot fusion knows that he is a conscientious, meticulous, first-rate scientist. He is not the kind of person who makes "gross oversights." Miley and I discussed the chemical phase transformation theories on telephone for 10 minutes or so. Both of us feel strongly that the theories are a violation of the conservation of energy because the sum of all outside sources of energy is often far smaller than the excess enthalpy, over very long periods of time (months in some cases). Therefore, we conclude the theories have no merit and are not worth investigating or disproving. If Larry feels otherwise he should construct a calorimeter and perform electrolysis with various anodes and cathodes. The effect should be seen in null runs with any type of material, as far as I can see. Finally, Miley, Motorola and others are not a loss to explain these results. The cause is not a complete mystery, by any means. The excess heat reactions are accompanied by massive transmutations in the host metal and by the production of helium and in some cases tritium. These are nuclear events, not chemical reactions or phase transformations. A circulation pump cannot change nickel into other elements and it cannot cause radioactivity to appear from nowhere in an autoradiograph. The causal connection between the transmutations and the excess heat has not been established, but appealing to Occam's oft abused razor we can be certain there must be some connection between them. It cannot be a fantastic coincidence! The CETI nickel reactions must be similar in nature to the widely reported nuclear reactions in palladium with heavy water. There can be no question that these reactions have a nuclear component. Mistakes and contamination were ruled out years ago. The tritium, for example, is generated in such dense concentration that if it was to come from outside contamination, the laboratories radiation alarms would go off, and the scientists would be in grave danger. We cannot simply ignore the palladium work when discussing the nickel reactions. You cannot toss out a huge body of work and discuss each experiment as if it occurred in a vacuum. That would be like pretending that high energy hot fusion experiments never happened, and the transmutations are no surprise. To be specific, if the phase transformation hypotheses mean anything they have to explain the palladium experiments. Yet in most of these experiments static or thermoelectric calorimeters are used, which have no pumps. You cannot cut the data into thousands of pieces and selectively ignore the parts you don't like. The skeptics want to say: "this experiment was caused by a pump and we will ignore the transmutations;" "that apparent boil off was caused soap in the electrolyte and we will pretend the heat after death never happened;" "these results barely fit within the bounds of chemistry, so we will say it was chemistry even though there was no sign of a chemical change and the autoradiograph showed radiation;" "these results might have been tritium contamination, even though the same lab later got so much tritium the scientists would be dead if it was contamination." You have to account for *all* of the data. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 09:37:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA27644; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 08:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 08:46:55 -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: Altered Nuclear Lifetimes X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Of possible interest to Vortexians: Below is a paragraph from a report, "Flood of New Isotopes Offers Keys to Stellar Evolution," from the Research News section of Science, vol. 273 (1996 jul 26) p. 433. The report is about new, neutron-rich isotopes produced artificially by the heavy ion accelerator GSI in Darmstadt, Germany, by smashing U-238 into Pb and Be targets. The collision strips off most of the electrons, leaving a spectrum of highly charged, new, neutron-rich isotopes. The products are separated on the fly and can be caught in a storage-cooler ring for further study. The main point made in the report is how measurements of the nuclear properties of these isotopes provides hard data for the nuclear synthesis processes thought to occur in supernovas, which are the main source of heavy elements in the universe. One paragraph states, without further detail: "Researchers also welcome the separator's ability to produce nuclei that are stripped of most, if not all, electrons, because that is the condition in which they are believed to exist in supernovae. That quality has taken on added meaning in the wake of the recent discovery at GSI that bare nuclei and the same isotopes carrying electrons have different half-lives. "It was always assumed that an isotope had a certain life time, and you could relate it to the age of the universe," GSI's Geissel says. The knowledge that lifetime depends on the charge state, he says, will have to be considered when using elements shch as rhenium and osmium as nuclear clocks to time stellar processes." Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 09:21:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA27721; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 08:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 08:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960807153739_100433.1541_BHG36-1@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: Homopolars and long. force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Norman, [cylindrical homopolar devices] > I traversed the length of the brass cylinder, which was about 10" > long and 4" dia., with dvm probes and found that the only location > where there was any measurable pd was near the ends and the > separation between the probes was about 1". Anywhere else, and > with various separation distances, there was no reaction within > the sensitivity of the meter at the mV level. The revs reached > about 2000 rpm but imbalance precluded any increase, and I gave up > further development. That's as I recalled it. And it means that the entire basis upon which Cullwick calculates the performance of a homopolar generator is hopelessly wrong. So much for textbooks, even good ones. They report "thangs thet jest ain't so." I admit to being at once irritated and intrigued by the idea of a 'reactionless' homopolar generator. Perhaps it is time I rethunk this whole area? My first reaction is that one cannot produce such a beast. Would not such a machine break the symmetry between a homopolar motor and generator? Is that an argument for or against it? Just because I am, does that mean I think? Is charity the fulfilment of the Law, or is the fulfilment of the Law charity? Have I finally slipped my last cog, like those many who now are giving barely the merest nod to caution in espousing these 'fossils' in 'Mars rock'? When will Robert Stirniman give us the references for 'Cavorite', the magical gravity shield? I was muttering grumpily to my son about how scientists are happy with 'Martian fossils' but ignore solid evidence of CF etc. They say that out of the mouths of babes and sucklings (well, 22-year old post-graduate science students) comes wisdom: he responded, "You are making the mistake of thinking that scientists are important people - which is what they want you to think." Chris (only partially fossilised) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 10:27:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA06294; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 09:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 09:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608071621.JAA00399@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: Homopolars and long. force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > the references for 'Cavorite', the magical gravity shield? Patience. The secret recipe for Cavorite is not available today. I've received no messages on this list since Sunday. Now they are here all at once. Better late than never. Will gather the available info about Tampere experiments, and post it tommorrow. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 10:41:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA10873; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:02:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:02:55 -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: CETI silence X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: In Martin Sevior's posting: >This would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and as such >is an even bigger violation of the known principles of Physics than low >energy nuclear reactions. > >To see why, imagine the CETI device connected to a 100% effcient carnot cycle >heat engine and bingo, you've got energy forever! he sees the second law of thermodynamics as preventing any heat output in excess of the Carnot cycle efficiency. To be more precise it is Clausius' statment of the second law that prevents this. But the Clausius statement is just made up and has no basis in fundamental principles of physics. It is assumed to be true because experimental evidence supports it. If any experimental evidence contradicts it the law has no basis and should be abandoned. Now the Boltzmann's equation leads directly to Boltzmann's H theorm which in turn leads to Gibbs' version of the second law. It is only the Gibbs statment of the second law that is based on known principles of physics and this version is known to allow violations of the Clausius version. In my work I only do H theorm type analysis. That is the only result that is based on principles of physics. I have not yet done an H analysis of the CETI device but I can say this, the device involves interactions that can produce violations of the Claussius law when doing an H analysis. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 10:52:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA13948; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608071712.KAA02218@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: Homopolars and long. force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 08:47 AM 8/7/96 -0700, you wrote: >> >I was muttering grumpily to my son about how scientists are happy with >'Martian fossils' but ignore solid evidence of CF etc. They say that >out of the mouths of babes and sucklings (well, 22-year old >post-graduate science students) comes wisdom: he responded, "You are >making the mistake of thinking that scientists are important people >- which is what they want you to think." > >Chris >(only partially fossilised) > > Bingo! Well, at least you are not so decrepit that you failed to recognize the truth when it trounsed upon you, he said, shaking his cane in delight. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 10:29:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14059; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608071716.KAA02688@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: Altered Nuclear Lifetimes X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Thank you for sharing this little note. It warms the cockles of me heart. Now we have another bead on the quarry. At 08:46 AM 8/7/96 -0700, you wrote: >Of possible interest to Vortexians: > snip > "Researchers also welcome the separator's ability to produce nuclei that >are stripped of most, if not all, electrons, because that is the condition >in which they are believed to exist in supernovae. That quality has taken >on added meaning in the wake of the recent discovery at GSI that bare >nuclei and the same isotopes carrying electrons have different half-lives. >"It was always assumed that an isotope had a certain life time, and you >could relate it to the age of the universe," GSI's Geissel says. The >knowledge that lifetime depends on the charge state, he says, will have to >be considered when using elements shch as rhenium and osmium as nuclear >clocks to time stellar processes." > >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 11:41:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA20892; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608071747.KAA09660@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: FTL phase propagation experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > I think this is known as the Dirac phase shift effect, and doesn't >violate causality, but appears to. No information can be extracted >from the phase shift without the reference signal which travels at the >speed of light. EPR on the other hand does violate causality, and the >experiment I mentioned in the last posting is probably the most >violent violation of causality possible... OK, now I am interested. Now nothing precludes us today from performing this experiment open ended and recording times of arrival of phase shift and changed wave forms. Is using a single scope a requirement to get the effect? ie, if you stretch out the 500 m of cable and put one scope at one end and another at the other end and record digitally the waveforms, do you still see the same thing? I ask because you have formed a loop in the previous set up and the end of the loop is near the launch end. This shouldn't have an effect I know, but since there is an effect, there is also a loophole so to speak and using two scopes can get this one out of the system. Also, do you have any info on the actual time equivalent of the phase shift per meter of cable length? Is it instantaneous? Thanks, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 11:31:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA20935; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:55:01 -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: CETI silence X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Lawrence On Tue Aug 6 @ 21:57 you said: > I suggested a simple test to measure this effect. The cell outflow >could be diverted into an insulated container (like a thermos jug) and then >capped. Then the contents of the jug could be sloshed around and allowed >to sit around an amount that would simulate the effects of the cell outflow i>n going through the path from cell outlit to cell inlit. Then the t>emperature could be taken. Do you have any suggestions for the chemical reactions that woud produce this negative enthalpy, for the amounts of excess heat and the length of time observed? Hank From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 11:36:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21033; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608071750.KAA09692@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Regarding the FTL discussion going on, I thought I would add a short, but important point. Causality is not necessarily violated just because something moves faster than light. Einstein's light speed limit is violated. This is very different. One implies magic, while the other implies a new mechanism for transmitting information. Just the phase shift in the signal, if it truly makes it from A to B at FTL is information. you could have someone sitting on a bomb trigger at the far end waiting to release the bomb when he sees a phase shift come across the line. The point is this, we can suppose that nature acted in a magical manner without a cause if we choose. Or, we can open our minds to the reality that nature reacted to some form of information that indeed made it from A to B in FTL time. One case is sought by advocates of the mysterious QM formalism, and the other by realists who simply try to discover the mechanisms that nature uses to accomplish the feat. The former leads to obscuration, and the latter to illumination. There is no value in presuming we cannot learn the mystery. This simply stifles the attempts to learn and in my opinion will be found to have been a great disservice afforded by the QM formalism. The value of the concepts is apparent in the predictions and the efficacity. But the hinderance imposed on creative thinkers is amazing and abhorent in my opinion. For example, Lorentz showed Schroedinger that his waveforms should spread out in space. If he believed that they did not, and that he had an important clue, then he might have sought a non linear mechanism like condensation of aether to explain the stability of his standing waves. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 12:24:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA28214; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 11:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 11:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608071832.LAA11841@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: Altered Nuclear Lifetimes X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Re; Michael J. Schaffer's post I missed whether the isotopes had longer or shorter lifetimes without their electrons surrounding them. Please tell me shorter! Any way, I can take the truth, what is it? Is there a consistent pattern, or is the variance in lifetimes chaotic with respect to gain or loss of life expectancy? Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 12:23:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00895; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 11:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 11:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960807174029_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: Altered Nuclear Lifetimes X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Michael, > That quality has taken on added meaning in the wake of the recent > discovery at GSI that bare nuclei and the same isotopes carrying > electrons have different half-lives. Fascinating. Perhaps this is a mechanism similar to that which occurs in the Reifenschweiler and related experiments? Is this another example of a largely-ignored 'cold' effect being taken more seriously when seen in the 'hot' regime? Do these people propose a mechanism? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 14:12:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA17096; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608072014.PAA00527@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: uh oh...need BIG currents-Rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 21:54 8/6/96 -0700, Robert E wrote: > Oh, yes. Don't forget to brace the gun against recoil, even the >first time you try it. I managed to lift one end of a lab bench a few >inches off the floor. Could you tell WHAT portion of the gun was responsible for the recoil force? i.e. did the rails push back.? 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 Aug 7 14:45:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA22289; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:50:03 -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: Longituinal force definitive test X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: B H C ------------------------------------------------ -------------- | |P x ------------------------------------------------ -------------- A d G D This is an atttempt to simplify and clarify the longitudinal force testing arguments I have been using. THE IDEAL TEST Assume two very long conductive rails BC and AD, separated by distance x = AB = CD, x/d ~ 0, with current i supplied in the segment AB, and a projectile P at CD. Assume all components are "ideal" and the rails are conductive yet separable at a gap G between A and D and gap H between B and C. Using The Biot law the force between the segments AB and CD is: F = k(ix)(ix)/d^2 = k i^2 x^2/d^2 but since x/d ~ 0 we have F ~ 0. Using the Biot law nearly all the reactive force to meet the conditions of Newton's third law is in the rails in the vicinity of P. Using Grassman's law, or a Maxwellian view, all the forces must be purpendicular to the conductors, so there should be no longitudinal force on the rails. The reaction force demanded by Newton's third law is conveyed between AB and CD by magnetic pressure in the space ABCDA. Thus, in the ideal model above we would expect a clear and decisive test being available. If the rails HC and GD remain approximately stationary while P is shot to the right, then Grassman's law prevails. If the rail segments HC and GD react to the left strongly to P's motion to the right, then Biot's law prevails. REAL WORLD COMLIPICATIONS However, the real world is more complex. The current element have a 3 dimensional nature. There are forces that come to bear in the rails at locations A, B, C, and D. Take the corner GDC for example. There is a location in the rail where the current bends, does not take an immediate right angle. Using the biot law (or Ampere's law for current elements, which is the Biot law extended to current segments not necessarily parallel as I understand it) then every current segment in the bend is behind the projectile P so results in a repulsive force. The rail segments GD and HC should be repelled by P as before, no significant change. However, using Grassman's law (it is assumed Grassman's law entails applying the Biot law for current segment and point to every current segment to determine B at a subject current segment location and then determine the force on the current segment via F = ilB) the force in the rail between the field and the curving current is *in the same direction* as the motion of P. This causes a tension to be placed on the rails. It also clearly indicates that in the test that the rails should fly apart at the gap G. This actually makes the test even *more* definitive. PRACTICAL TEST DESIGN COMLPICATIONS Whether using rails or a coaxial design, the key to a practical test is in creating the gaps G and H that will indicate direction of force while continuing to conduct while deforming yet not inducing a longitudinal force at the gap G due to the current bending around a corner due to the deformation required to measure the force. Using rails it might be possible to do this by using a Pb or solder section, or even a section of mercury in a flexible insulating cover - only for low current experiment where the mercury could not be expected to explode through the insulating flexible cover containing it) that will clearly show stretching or compression. Using a coaxial design it might be possible to do for the outer sheath by affixing braided copper segments to the coax sheath to bridge the gap. Since the "inner conductor does not know where the outer conductor is," it is only necessary to maintain symmetry at the gap. The gap width to eliminate any force on the gap due to the initial current surge can be found by static testing, i.e. holding the projectile in place for the duration of the pulse while determining the gap width that eliminates any longitudinal force due to local forces in the vicinity of the gap. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 15:08:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA26537; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 14:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 14:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: dacha@shentel.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: Weird electrostatic story X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: . The humidity was >extremely high, yet when the guy entered the factory floor his >electrometer measured many tens of KV just inside the doorway. As part of >the production process they were taking two types of plastic film off an >enormous roll many feet long and spooling it onto two other rolls. The >dissimilar materials were generating opposite surface charges, so these Dear Bill, I witnessed much the same phenomenon in a sign factory in the south. Even with very high humidity the rolls of plastic had to be drained before one could approach. The large amount of static potential in this process often knocked workers to the floor. This situation was one that "sparked" my interest in physics at a very young age. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 15:39:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA03265; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 14:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 14:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608072144.RAA10464@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: Altered Nuclear Lifetimes X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer said: > "Researchers also welcome the separator's ability to produce nuclei that > are stripped of most, if not all, electrons, because that is the condition > in which they are believed to exist in supernovae. That quality has taken > on added meaning in the wake of the recent discovery at GSI that bare > nuclei and the same isotopes carrying electrons have different half-lives. > "It was always assumed that an isotope had a certain life time, and you > could relate it to the age of the universe," GSI's Geissel says. The > knowledge that lifetime depends on the charge state, he says, will have to > be considered when using elements shch as rhenium and osmium as nuclear > clocks to time stellar processes." Thanks for the info, and nothing about what you said, but news reports like this are something I expect from sunday newspaper supplements not a "respectable" journal. (There are several elements for which the only known energetically favorable decay path is by electron capture. Does the author of this piece really think that it is a recent discovery that taking away all the electrons prevents this decay mode?) Now for some real questions. I assume that the scientist involved was reporting that OTHER modes of decay, especially fission, are affected by the lack of electrons, and that the effect on stellar clocks is the original isotope mix out of the supernova. Anyone have more details? 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 Aug 7 15:57:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA11286; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:12:16 -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: Longituinal force definitive test X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace, Your test is related to Ampere's hairpin experiment. You could simplify it considerably by replacing the projectile P with a solid connection from C to D. Just move CD far enough away from HG and you would have the hairpin experiment. Then if the HCGD section moves to the right Grassman's law prevails and if it remains stationary Ampere's force prevails (the reverse of your experiment). This experiment has been done and guess what? The movable section moved to the right. I would recommend forgeting about the projectile. Concentrate on the gap. Ampere's experiment actually disproved his law unless the MHD forces in the mercury bath he used was responsible for the force to the right. You have to avoid any possiblity of MHD forces. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 17:49:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA00937; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608072318.TAA10784@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross Tessien said: > Regarding the FTL discussion going on, I thought I would add a short, but > important point. Causality is not necessarily violated just because > something moves faster than light. Einstein's light speed limit is > violated. This is very different. But that is not how it works... Special Relativity is very well established and proven, and faster than light information transfer does result in (global) causality violation. The easiest way to see this is with Minkowski diagrams. Let's say you are moving at three quarters of the speed of light and send a message ahead (at 100c or so) to inform your twin brother of your impending arrival. You see the message arrive after it is sent, but he sees you send it well after it arrives. So far so good. Now he (instantly) replies, by a similar superluminal channel. He sees the message arrive well after he sends it, but before he sees you send the original message. What do you see? Same thing! You recieve the reply and then send the original message. (If you want to do the math rigorously, the easiest way is with both twins moving toward you at 1/2c and the transmission pipes moving with the message senders. But any situation with at least one pipe moving relativistically will do to produce global causality violations.) 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 Aug 7 17:48:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01033; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608072323.QAA09700@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: Takahashi Scooter/Motor Now In The U.S. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Interesting News Department: The Takahashi Scooter is now sitting in US Customs in San Francisco. Magnetic Power Inc. will evaluate the motor and magnets for possible licensing and manufacturing in North America. I inquired about purchasing Sciex magnets. They are not in production anywhere in the world and most likely none will be available for a couple of years. When available, the company estimates they will cost about $5.00 per gram. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 17:48:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01287; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608072321.QAA01585@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: Gravity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Re: Tampere Anti-Gravity Experiments Here's some information about the gravitational shielding experiments which were done by E. Podkletnov and others, in Tampere Finland, with papers published in 1992 and 1995. Summary - A type 123 superconductor disk, approximately 6 inches in diameter, is levitated above a solenoid coil, and then rotated by using two other solenoid coils along its sides. A gravitational shielding effect was measured above the disk. A cube of glass was found to lose up to 2% of its weight. The Finnish scientists stumbled across this effect by accident while looking for something else. In the second of the two experiments the gravitational shielding effect above a 6-inch disk, was found to extend at least through the second floor of the laboratory building, with only a small attenuation over distance. Possible theoretical interpretations of the Tampere experiment have been proposed in two papers (May 1995 and January 1996) by Dr Giovanni Modanese of Italy. Two scientists engaged with NASA (Dr Ning Li and Dr Douglas Torr), at UAB Huntsville have also published some articles relating to the gravito-electric effects of superconductors. The Finnish scientists are reported to have been acquired by a corporation affiliated with the Canadian government. Further published reports are not expected. Aside from NASA, there may be no other groups attempting to repeat the experiment, except possibly a group in Italy. It's a relatively simple experiment with profound implications. Anti-Gravity and Free-Energy. It hasn't been well publicized -- actually not publicized at all. Unfortunately, it seems that a number of things like this have fallen through the cracks over the last 40 years and gotten lost somewhere in the intelligence beaureaucracy. In my opinion, the results of the Tampere experiment are directly related to the experiments of William Hooper, (Electric-Gravitational field from a current carrying conductor -- also know as: the Clausius Postulate is invalid). The genesis of Hooper's work was the experiments that Joel Fisher and Hooper did in the late 1950s. Hooper did additional experiments in the 1960s, and was awarded two US patents (in 1969 and 1972). In one of Hooper's patents he provided the comment that his invention will probably not become a practical thing until sometime in the future when superconductor technology becomes available. It could be that now's the time. Regards, Robert Stirniman =========================================================== (One of the earliest reports of the Tampere experiments was this article from Usenet about 10 months ago.) From: R.Bursill@sheffield.ac.uk (R Bursill) Subject: Hi Tc SC and gravitational shielding Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 03:14:41 GMT Is anyone familiar with the experiments in Tampere Finland, by Podkletnov et al on weak gravitational shielding from a Meissner levitating, rotating disk of high-Tc superconducting material? The paper is: E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen, Physica C 203 (1992) 441. E. Podkletnov and A. D. Levit have another paper now, a Tampere University of Technology report, January 1995 (Finland), the experiment having being repeated (I assume no one believed it the first time?). In the 1st experiment a 5 g sample of silicon dioxide was found to loose around 0.05 % of its weight when placed at a distance of 15 mm from the SC disk. The SC disk had diameter 145 mm and thickness 6 mm. Under rotation of the disk the effect increased up to 0.3 %. In the 2nd experiment samples of different composition and weight (10-50 g) were placed at distances of 25 mm to 1.5 m from the disk. The mass loss went as high as around 2 %. I found out about this through a theoretical preprint by Giovanni Modanese, a Von Humboldt Fellow from the Max Plank institute. The preprint no. is MPI-PhT/95-44, May 1995. A colleage got it from hep-th@babbage.sissa.it, paper 9505094. Modanese thinks that it is something to do with the bose condensate from the SC interacting with the gravitational field. He uses some non-perturbative quantum theory on the Regge lattice to attempt to understand the effect. Must be a little bit like explaining cold fusion with the standard tools - couldn't be done. We all know what happened to cold fusion but at the time a professor from my department said in a public lecture that the product of the believability and the potential importance if true was of order 1. - Robert Bursill ------------------------------------------------------------------- E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen, "A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x Superconductor", Physica C 203 (1992) pp 441-444. E. Podkletnov and A.D. Levi, "Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x Superconductor Below 70 C Under Electro-Magnetic Field", Tampere University of Technology report MSU-95 chem, January 1995. HEP-TH/9505094 Theoretical analysis of a reported weak gravitational shielding effect Author: G. Modanese (Max-Planck-Institut, Munich) Report-no: MPI-PhT/95-44 May 1995 Under special conditions (Meissner-effect levitation and rapid rotation) a disk of high-Tc superconducting material has recently been found to produce a weak shielding of the gravitational field. We show that this phenomenon has no explanation in the standard gravity theories, except possibly in the non-perturbative quantum theory on the Regge lattice. More data, and independent repetitions of the experiment are however necessary. ABSTRACT SUPR-CON/9601001 From: Modanese, Giovanni Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 21:54:45 +0100 (MET) Updating the analysis of Tampere's weak gravitational shielding experiment Author: Giovanni Modanese Report-no: UTF-367/96 The most recent data about the weak gravitational shielding produced in Tampere by Podkletnov and coworkers through a levitating and rotating HTC superconducting disk show a very weak dependence of the shielding value ($\sim 1 \%$) on the height above the disk. We show that whilst this behaviour is incompatible with an intuitive vectorial picture of the shielding, it is consistently explained by our theoretical model. The expulsive force observed at the border of the shielded zone is due to energy conservation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA has been conducting experiments similar to the anti-gravity shielding experiments done in Tampere Finland. Dr. Ning Li at the University of Alabama Huntsville, has published some articles about the relationship between superconductors and gravitation. She works closely with Dr Douglas Torr. AUTHOR(s): Li, Ning and Torr, D.G. TITLE(s) Effects of a Gravitomagnetic Field on pure superconductors In: Phys. Rev. D, JAN 15 1991 v 43 n 2 Page 457 AUTHOR(s): Torr, Douglas G. Li, Ning TITLE(s): Gravitoelectric-Electric Coupling via Superconductivity. In: Foundations of physics letters. AUG 01 1993 v 6 n 4 Page 371 AUTHOR(s): Li, Ning and Torr, D.G. TITLE(s): Gravitational effects on the magnetic attenuation of superconductors. In: Physical review. b, condensed matter. SEP 01 1992 v 46 n 9 Page 5489 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Joel Fisher and William Hooper: A Progress Report on Gravitational Research. Presented at New Boston, N.H., August 16, 1958. W.B. Smith: Suggestions on Gravity Control Through Field Manipulation, April 10, 1959. An early description of gravity control after repeating the Fisher-Hooper experiment. US Patent #3,610,971. "All Electric Motional Electric Field Generator", Awarded to William Hooper, April 1969 US Patent # 3,656,013. "Apparatus for Generating Motional Electric Field", Awarded to William Hooper, April 1972 Hooper, W. J. (1974). New Horizons in Electric, Magnetic and Gravitational Field Theory, Electrodynamic Gravity, Inc. 1969 W. Farrel Edwards, "Measurement of an Electric Field Due to Conduction Currents", Utah State University Press, 1974 W. Farrel Edwards, "Continuing Investigation into Possible Electric Fields Arising from Steady Conduction Currents", Physical Review D, Vol 14 No 4 Page 922, August 1974. 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. Ralph Sansbury, "Detection of a Force Between a Charged Metal Foil and a Current Carrying Conductor", Rev. Sci. Instrumen. Vol 56 No 3 Page 415. Frances G. Gibson, "THE ALL-ELECTRIC FIELD GENERATOR AND ITS POTENTIAL", Electrodynamic Gravity, Inc., 1983 FREE FALL OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES: ON MOVING BODIES AND THEIR ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES, by Nils Rognerud 1994 (nils@ccnet.com) (This paper available at the elektromagnum website) This paper is a review of the problem of the observable action of gravitational forces on charged particles. The author discusses the induced electric fields and the sometimes overlooked unique physical properties. He analyzes several experiments, showing the reality of the induced electric fields. The current interpretation, based on the idea of only one electric field, with certain characteristics, is compared with alternative approaches. The Hooper Coil: Rognerud has tested a setup by pulsing strong currents, opposite and equal, through multiple parallel conductors. The configuration of the conductors in this type of experiment will cancel the B-fields, while still producing an Em field, in accordance with Eq. 4.2. This is similar to an experiment by Hooper (W. J. Hooper), who successfully predicted and measured the motional electric field - all in zero resultant B-field. Interestingly, all of the above experiments can influence an electron with a zero B-field, in the region of the electron. This has some profound implications - one of which is that the motional electric force field is immune to electrostatic or magnetic shielding. Experimentally, it can be confirmed that the motional electric field is immune to shielding and follows the boundary conditions of the magnetic (not electric) field. The only way to shield a motional electric field is to use a magnetic shield around the source of the magnetic flux - containing it at the source. These effects are not startling if one remembers that the motional electric field is a magnetic effect and that a magnetic field has a different boundary condition than the electric field. The Hooper effect can be readily demonstrated in the "Two Moving Magnets Experiment". In this experiment, magnetic flux is provided by equal strength opposite pole magnets, moving uniformly in opposite directions. The induced motional electric field that is generated in a conductor, is found to be twice that which would result from a single magnet, while remarkably, the sum of the magnetic B field is zero. This experiment is easy to setup and verify in any electronics laboratory with a pair of magnets, a wire, and a voltmeter. In fact, you may wrap the conductor, in electrostatic or magnetic shielding, and find the same result. -- Nils Rognerud ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF HOOPER'S GRAVITY-ELECTROMAGNETIC COUPLING CONCEPT National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH. MILLIS, MARC G. WILLIAMSON, GARY SCOTT JUN. 1995 12 PAGES Presented at the 31st Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 10-12 Jul. 1995; sponsored by AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE NASA-TM-106963 E-9719 NAS 1.15:106963 AIAA PAPER 95-2601 Avail: CASI HC A03/MF A01 Experiments were conducted to test assertions from Patent 3,610,971, by W.J. Hooper that self-canceling electromagnetic coils can reduce the weight of objects placed underneath. No weight changes were observed within the detectability of the instrumentation. More careful examination of the patent and other reports from Hooper led to the conclusion that Hooper may have misinterpreted thermal effects as his 'Motional Field' effects. There is a possibility that the claimed effects are below the detection thresholds of the instrumentation used for these tests. CASI Accession Number: N95-28893 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I am not going to be able to be polite about the above paper by NASA. Afterall, who paid for it? About a half dozen other different scientists have managed to find Hooper's effect without extreme difficulty. Most notably, take a look at the carefully done experiments of W. Farrel Edwards. But NASA can't find it? The amount of ampere-turns used in the NASA experiment was substantially lower than the amount used by Hooper. Hooper found that his effect increased in proportion to the square of the current -- and others have verified this theoretically and experimentally. If you were motivated to verify that the Hooper effect exists, would you not try to conduct the experiment with more ampere-turns, rather than less? Also, NASA suggests that Hooper's experiment was faulty due to "thermal effects". This hypothesis was put forward without any attempt whatsoever at verification. Yes, "thermal effects" does provide a nice prosaic explanation, if that's what you're looking for. If you're going to take the podium at a scientific conference under the NASA banner, and proclaim that something of the profound significance of the Hooper effect does not work -- then you have an obligation to society to make damn sure that you are right. An honest scientific approach requires at least a minimum effort. NASA did not even make the effort to duplicate Hooper's experiment in a fashion similar to what he originally did. The whole affair reminds me of when Copernicus asked the good Catholic bishops to look through his telescope to easily verify that Jupiter has satellites. "No, No. We must not see that." At best the NASA experiment is horrible science. It may be something much worse. Yes indeed. I'm mad as hell. Robert Stirniman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 18:28:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA07859; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608072358.TAA10800@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: uh oh...need BIG currents-Rail gun X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little asked: > Could you tell WHAT portion of the gun was responsible for the > recoil force? i.e. did the rails push back.? No clue, everything except the capacitors was firmly attached to the bench, and they were sitting in open topped steel cans welded to the bench. (I never charge a capacitor bank in a low inductance system without being sure that if it blows it won't get me.) The ostensible purpose of the apparatus was for forming metal. We were supposed to find out if reducing the forming time would decrease the "draw" in the mold. It did. Hit the mold hard enough, and the sheet steel would rip in half instead of thinning out. (We ended up buying a pneumatic press to use for those parts instead of the hydraulic press we had been using, so I guess the experiments proved out. ;-) 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 Aug 7 18:35:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA07946; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Tampere Experiments (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:25:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Tampere Experiments Re: Tampere Anti-Gravity Experiments Here's some information about the gravitational shielding experiments which were done by E. Podkletnov and others, in Tampere Finland, with papers published in 1992 and 1995. Summary - A type 123 superconductor disk, approximately 6 inches in diameter, is levitated above a solenoid coil, and then rotated by using two other solenoid coils along its sides. A gravitational shielding effect was measured above the disk. A cube of glass was found to lose up to 2% of its weight. The Finnish scientists stumbled across this effect by accident while looking for something else. In the second of the two experiments the gravitational shielding effect above a 6-inch disk, was found to extend at least through the second floor of the laboratory building, with only a small attenuation over distance. Possible theoretical interpretations of the Tampere experiment have been proposed in two papers (May 1995 and January 1996) by Dr Giovanni Modanese of Italy. Two scientists engaged with NASA (Dr Ning Li and Dr Douglas Torr), at UAB Huntsville have also published some articles relating to the gravito-electric effects of superconductors. The Finnish scientists are reported to have been acquired by a corporation affiliated with the Canadian government. Further published reports are not expected. Aside from NASA, there may be no other groups attempting to repeat the experiment, except possibly a group in Italy. It's a relatively simple experiment with profound implications. Anti-Gravity and Free-Energy. It hasn't been well publicized -- actually not publicized at all. Unfortunately, it seems that a number of things like this have fallen through the cracks over the last 40 years and gotten lost somewhere in the intelligence beaureaucracy. In my opinion, the results of the Tampere experiment are directly related to the experiments of William Hooper, (Electric-Gravitational field from a current carrying conductor -- also know as: the Clausius Postulate is invalid). The genesis of Hooper's work was the experiments that Joel Fisher and Hooper did in the late 1950s. Hooper did additional experiments in the 1960s, and was awarded two US patents (in 1969 and 1972). In one of Hooper's patents he provided the comment that his invention will probably not become a practical thing until sometime in the future when superconductor technology becomes available. It could be that now's the time. Regards, Robert Stirniman =========================================================== (One of the earliest reports of the Tampere experiments was this article from Usenet about 10 months ago.) From: R.Bursill@sheffield.ac.uk (R Bursill) Subject: Hi Tc SC and gravitational shielding Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 03:14:41 GMT Is anyone familiar with the experiments in Tampere Finland, by Podkletnov et al on weak gravitational shielding from a Meissner levitating, rotating disk of high-Tc superconducting material? The paper is: E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen, Physica C 203 (1992) 441. E. Podkletnov and A. D. Levit have another paper now, a Tampere University of Technology report, January 1995 (Finland), the experiment having being repeated (I assume no one believed it the first time?). In the 1st experiment a 5 g sample of silicon dioxide was found to loose around 0.05 % of its weight when placed at a distance of 15 mm from the SC disk. The SC disk had diameter 145 mm and thickness 6 mm. Under rotation of the disk the effect increased up to 0.3 %. In the 2nd experiment samples of different composition and weight (10-50 g) were placed at distances of 25 mm to 1.5 m from the disk. The mass loss went as high as around 2 %. I found out about this through a theoretical preprint by Giovanni Modanese, a Von Humboldt Fellow from the Max Plank institute. The preprint no. is MPI-PhT/95-44, May 1995. A colleage got it from hep-th@babbage.sissa.it, paper 9505094. Modanese thinks that it is something to do with the bose condensate from the SC interacting with the gravitational field. He uses some non-perturbative quantum theory on the Regge lattice to attempt to understand the effect. Must be a little bit like explaining cold fusion with the standard tools - couldn't be done. We all know what happened to cold fusion but at the time a professor from my department said in a public lecture that the product of the believability and the potential importance if true was of order 1. - Robert Bursill ------------------------------------------------------------------- E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen, "A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x Superconductor", Physica C 203 (1992) pp 441-444. E. Podkletnov and A.D. Levi, "Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x Superconductor Below 70 C Under Electro-Magnetic Field", Tampere University of Technology report MSU-95 chem, January 1995. HEP-TH/9505094 Theoretical analysis of a reported weak gravitational shielding effect Author: G. Modanese (Max-Planck-Institut, Munich) Report-no: MPI-PhT/95-44 May 1995 Under special conditions (Meissner-effect levitation and rapid rotation) a disk of high-Tc superconducting material has recently been found to produce a weak shielding of the gravitational field. We show that this phenomenon has no explanation in the standard gravity theories, except possibly in the non-perturbative quantum theory on the Regge lattice. More data, and independent repetitions of the experiment are however necessary. ABSTRACT SUPR-CON/9601001 From: Modanese, Giovanni Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 21:54:45 +0100 (MET) Updating the analysis of Tampere's weak gravitational shielding experiment Author: Giovanni Modanese Report-no: UTF-367/96 The most recent data about the weak gravitational shielding produced in Tampere by Podkletnov and coworkers through a levitating and rotating HTC superconducting disk show a very weak dependence of the shielding value ($\sim 1 \%$) on the height above the disk. We show that whilst this behaviour is incompatible with an intuitive vectorial picture of the shielding, it is consistently explained by our theoretical model. The expulsive force observed at the border of the shielded zone is due to energy conservation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA has been conducting experiments similar to the anti-gravity shielding experiments done in Tampere Finland. Dr. Ning Li at the University of Alabama Huntsville, has published some articles about the relationship between superconductors and gravitation. She works closely with Dr Douglas Torr. AUTHOR(s): Li, Ning and Torr, D.G. TITLE(s) Effects of a Gravitomagnetic Field on pure superconductors In: Phys. Rev. D, JAN 15 1991 v 43 n 2 Page 457 AUTHOR(s): Torr, Douglas G. Li, Ning TITLE(s): Gravitoelectric-Electric Coupling via Superconductivity. In: Foundations of physics letters. AUG 01 1993 v 6 n 4 Page 371 AUTHOR(s): Li, Ning and Torr, D.G. TITLE(s): Gravitational effects on the magnetic attenuation of superconductors. In: Physical review. b, condensed matter. SEP 01 1992 v 46 n 9 Page 5489 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Joel Fisher and William Hooper: A Progress Report on Gravitational Research. Presented at New Boston, N.H., August 16, 1958. W.B. Smith: Suggestions on Gravity Control Through Field Manipulation, April 10, 1959. An early description of gravity control after repeating the Fisher-Hooper experiment. US Patent #3,610,971. "All Electric Motional Electric Field Generator", Awarded to William Hooper, April 1969 US Patent # 3,656,013. "Apparatus for Generating Motional Electric Field", Awarded to William Hooper, April 1972 Hooper, W. J. (1974). New Horizons in Electric, Magnetic and Gravitational Field Theory, Electrodynamic Gravity, Inc. 1969 W. Farrel Edwards, "Measurement of an Electric Field Due to Conduction Currents", Utah State University Press, 1974 W. Farrel Edwards, "Continuing Investigation into Possible Electric Fields Arising from Steady Conduction Currents", Physical Review D, Vol 14 No 4 Page 922, August 1974. 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. Ralph Sansbury, "Detection of a Force Between a Charged Metal Foil and a Current Carrying Conductor", Rev. Sci. Instrumen. Vol 56 No 3 Page 415. Frances G. Gibson, "THE ALL-ELECTRIC FIELD GENERATOR AND ITS POTENTIAL", Electrodynamic Gravity, Inc., 1983 FREE FALL OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES: ON MOVING BODIES AND THEIR ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES, by Nils Rognerud 1994 (nils@ccnet.com) (This paper available at the elektromagnum website) This paper is a review of the problem of the observable action of gravitational forces on charged particles. The author discusses the induced electric fields and the sometimes overlooked unique physical properties. He analyzes several experiments, showing the reality of the induced electric fields. The current interpretation, based on the idea of only one electric field, with certain characteristics, is compared with alternative approaches. The Hooper Coil: Rognerud has tested a setup by pulsing strong currents, opposite and equal, through multiple parallel conductors. The configuration of the conductors in this type of experiment will cancel the B-fields, while still producing an Em field, in accordance with Eq. 4.2. This is similar to an experiment by Hooper (W. J. Hooper), who successfully predicted and measured the motional electric field - all in zero resultant B-field. Interestingly, all of the above experiments can influence an electron with a zero B-field, in the region of the electron. This has some profound implications - one of which is that the motional electric force field is immune to electrostatic or magnetic shielding. Experimentally, it can be confirmed that the motional electric field is immune to shielding and follows the boundary conditions of the magnetic (not electric) field. The only way to shield a motional electric field is to use a magnetic shield around the source of the magnetic flux - containing it at the source. These effects are not startling if one remembers that the motional electric field is a magnetic effect and that a magnetic field has a different boundary condition than the electric field. The Hooper effect can be readily demonstrated in the "Two Moving Magnets Experiment". In this experiment, magnetic flux is provided by equal strength opposite pole magnets, moving uniformly in opposite directions. The induced motional electric field that is generated in a conductor, is found to be twice that which would result from a single magnet, while remarkably, the sum of the magnetic B field is zero. This experiment is easy to setup and verify in any electronics laboratory with a pair of magnets, a wire, and a voltmeter. In fact, you may wrap the conductor, in electrostatic or magnetic shielding, and find the same result. -- Nils Rognerud ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF HOOPER'S GRAVITY-ELECTROMAGNETIC COUPLING CONCEPT National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH. MILLIS, MARC G. WILLIAMSON, GARY SCOTT JUN. 1995 12 PAGES Presented at the 31st Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 10-12 Jul. 1995; sponsored by AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE NASA-TM-106963 E-9719 NAS 1.15:106963 AIAA PAPER 95-2601 Avail: CASI HC A03/MF A01 Experiments were conducted to test assertions from Patent 3,610,971, by W.J. Hooper that self-canceling electromagnetic coils can reduce the weight of objects placed underneath. No weight changes were observed within the detectability of the instrumentation. More careful examination of the patent and other reports from Hooper led to the conclusion that Hooper may have misinterpreted thermal effects as his 'Motional Field' effects. There is a possibility that the claimed effects are below the detection thresholds of the instrumentation used for these tests. CASI Accession Number: N95-28893 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I am not going to be able to be polite about the above paper by NASA. Afterall, who paid for it? About a half dozen other different scientists have managed to find Hooper's effect without extreme difficulty. Most notably, take a look at the carefully done experiments of W. Farrel Edwards. But NASA can't find it? The amount of ampere-turns used in the NASA experiment was substantially lower than the amount used by Hooper. Hooper found that his effect increased in proportion to the square of the current -- and others have verified this theoretically and experimentally. If you were motivated to verify that the Hooper effect exists, would you not try to conduct the experiment with more ampere-turns, rather than less? Also, NASA suggests that Hooper's experiment was faulty due to "thermal effects". This hypothesis was put forward without any attempt whatsoever at verification. Yes, "thermal effects" does provide a nice prosaic explanation, if that's what you're looking for. If you're going to take the podium at a scientific conference under the NASA banner, and proclaim that something of the profound significance of the Hooper effect does not work -- then you have an obligation to society to make damn sure that you are right. An honest scientific approach requires at least a minimum effort. NASA did not even make the effort to duplicate Hooper's experiment in a fashion similar to what he originally did. The whole affair reminds me of when Copernicus asked the good Catholic bishops to look through his telescope to easily verify that Jupiter has satellites. "No, No. We must not see that." At best the NASA experiment is horrible science. It may be something much worse. Yes indeed. I'm mad as hell. Robert Stirniman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 20:52:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA09502; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 20:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 20:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608080331.UAA11458@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > > Ross Tessien said: > > > Regarding the FTL discussion going on, I thought I would add a short, but > > important point. Causality is not necessarily violated just because > > something moves faster than light. Einstein's light speed limit is > > violated. This is very different. > > But that is not how it works... Special Relativity is very well >established and proven, and faster than light information transfer >does result in (global) causality violation. > > The easiest way to see this is with Minkowski diagrams. Let's say >you are moving at three quarters of the speed of light and send a >message ahead (at 100c or so) to inform your twin brother of your >impending arrival. You see the message arrive after it is sent, but >he sees you send it well after it arrives. So far so good. I understand the dicey nature of the discussion you are entering and have considered the scenario. Let me state here that there is nothing so far in what you have said that requires that the information arrived at the twin, before it had been sent, using the twins time reference at the receiving end. In other words, there could be two velocities of propogation for the signals, c and 100c, and at the arriving end, both messages arrive following a time delay for transit. All of the transmissions are thus still causal, but arriving at different times. In water, if I drop a rock into it, the compression sound waves move out at 1,500 m/s, while the transverse wave moves out at about 1 m/s. Both of those waves carry information about the original event, but at different velocities. In a large ball park, the electronic signal from the announcer gets the sound information to you at different rates depending on how close the speaker was to you and how far the cable was to get to the speaker to deliver the electronic information. There are discrete delays for the different propogation velocities. In other words, I understand that what I am saying amounts to our not being able to simply look at one signal or another and determine when one originated relative to another. This happens with ghosts on TV's too, different path lengths but that is another story. In any case, light from the space craft way out there may have more than just c as a velocity of propogation. That just admits another FTL transmission mechanism which is still itself still causal. If both propogation means exist, and we only know of the slower one, then yes, we will think that causality has been violated. But I would say that causality is a fundamental fact of nature and that if we think it is violated, then we simply do not yet understand the mechanism responsible for the behavior we observed. ie, action reaction at the QVF level. > Now he >(instantly) replies, by a similar superluminal channel. He sees the >message arrive well after he sends it, but before he sees you send the >original message. Via the c velocity signal, yes. >What do you see? Same thing! You recieve the >reply and then send the original message. Here you have made an assumption that negative time took place based on the spacetime diagrams which do not account for the FTL process. This I believe is an incorrect treatment of such a situation where FTL is a reality. The assumption made is that the signal that went FTL arrived at the twin before it was sent originally using the senders reference. And also that the next message sent by the twin back home arrived before that twin sent it. This is just not a necessary condition of the process of FTL communication. And, I see no reason that causality should be supposed to be violated here. It is just our application of a light speed diagram to a FTL signal that leads to the confusion. If you use as the 45 degree angle the higher velocity light speed, then the slower velocity signal would be sort of like a sound speed signal in a normal diagram, ie, timelike. And our photons would thus be moving slower than that ultimate light speed and as well be timelike on that new diagram. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 7 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 UAA13181; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 20:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 20:58:37 -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 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/06/96 21:56 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Correa patents Bob: I wonder if some old fashioned "voltage regulator" tubes would work????? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 00:33:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA13991; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 00:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 00:20:38 -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: Longituinal force definitive test X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Lawrence E. Wharton writes: >Horace, > Your test is related to Ampere's hairpin experiment. You could simplify >it considerably by replacing the projectile P with a solid connection from >C to D. Just move CD far enough away from HG and you would have the >hairpin experiment. Then if the HCGD section moves to the right Grassman's >law prevails and if it remains stationary Ampere's force prevails (the >reverse of your experiment). This experiment has been done and guess what? >The movable section moved to the right. I'm sorry but I do not see how you can get anything meaningful from the experiment you describe. Yes, the segment HCGD will move to the right. No matter which law you use, Biot-Savart or Grassman, you get an outward pressure on the loop at all places. That is not definitive without detailed calculations and measurments. Letting the projectile go and seeing the rails HC and GD still ejected with it, regardless of the distance d, that's definitive proof. Alternatively, if the rails near the projectile carry the recoil force, that is definitive proof the other way. True? > I would recommend forgeting about the projectile. Concentrate on the >gap. Ampere's experiment actually disproved his law unless the MHD forces >in the mercury bath he used was responsible for the force to the right. >You have to avoid any possiblity of MHD forces. Yes, maybe building and testing a "conductive joint" for the gap should really be the first order of business. On the other hand, right before vortex went down I posted "Rail guns the simple way." I don't know if it got distributed. It seems like this test might be good enough to do the job, and it's only 5 parts plus power connections. You can buy graphite tubes 3/4" OD 1/2" ID by 72" off the shelf. If you have the power supply and graphite already it's less than an hours work. Here it is again with 2 minor spelling corrections: X-POP3-Rcpt: hheffner@anc Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:11:09 -0700 (PDT) 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: Rail guns the simple way Gnorts again, Hows this for simplicity? ########################### ########################## PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP =============================================== PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP ########################### ########################## A B C D | | -----S----- Two pieces of pipe "#" longer than the above, central copper rod "=", and two graphite washers "P" are laid as shown. End of construction. Power connected to B and C should result in washers flying opposite directions. Force due to power supply loop BCS is now opposed to the reaction force of the sheaths - we get a genuine answer as to where the reaction occurs. The power loop should force B and C apart, yet a reaction force on the sheaths should force the copper pipes together. Other interresting variations: power to A and C, also, D and A. Another wrinkle to all of the above: attach one of the washers to the rod and repeat variations. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 06:51:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA21644; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 06:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 06:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Schnurer To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: FTL phase propagation experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: FTL folks, You can detect the phase effect easily .... I am thinking probly the only thing that migh get in your way would be if you had a big spool of cable ..... inductance may affect you .... Of course you can use two scopes. Liked your earlier letter .... about formalism and so on VS "let's do it!" .... I am the let's do it kind .... but don't discount the thinking part. J On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Ross Tessien wrote: > > > I think this is known as the Dirac phase shift effect, and doesn't > >violate causality, but appears to. No information can be extracted > >from the phase shift without the reference signal which travels at the > >speed of light. EPR on the other hand does violate causality, and the > >experiment I mentioned in the last posting is probably the most > >violent violation of causality possible... > > OK, now I am interested. Now nothing precludes us today from performing > this experiment open ended and recording times of arrival of phase shift and > changed wave forms. Is using a single scope a requirement to get the > effect? ie, if you stretch out the 500 m of cable and put one scope at one > end and another at the other end and record digitally the waveforms, do you > still see the same thing? If you wanted to do a bunch of isolation you could. You could go to great lengths and do all or some of the following: Both scopes on batteries Optical isolation at one or both ends Return of signal from second scope via opto ..... To 3rd scope ... [if you want to get all crazy] and so on. You do not need to digially store anything ..... just compare on screen ..... use film to take a snap. J I ask because you have formed a loop in the > previous set up and the end of the loop is near the launch end. This > shouldn't have an effect I know, but since there is an effect, there is also > a loophole so to speak and using two scopes can get this one out of the system. > > Also, do you have any info on the actual time equivalent of the phase shift > per meter of cable length? Is it instantaneous? > > Thanks, Ross Tessien How fast is very good question .... bravo! J PS: I was wondering how long it would take. Ross wins! :) > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 07:35:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA29551; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 07:14:03 -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: Applied Science .... Gravity #1 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: NOTE: All parties: Each time I/we get another piece to the puzzle, I will put it on the line..... This article is labled #1 ... so look for #2 and so on as soon as I am reasonably comfortable. If at any time someone wants to take on the task -with me- of sort of summarising and updating: a) what we know or think we know b) what we don't c) what we do or don't have, in the way of informaion or resources to test with d) hardball, nuts and bolts, belt and suspenders engineering RESULTS Anyone else can address theory .... I am trying to address reduction to practice. Dear Folks, I am going forward in the applied science of this thing. All comers welcome. I am soliticting help from all of you. I will cut a lot of this to get to my questions. Refer to the whole thing if you need to. Thanks, J > > Summary - A type 123 superconductor disk, approximately 6 > inches in diameter, is levitated above a solenoid coil, and > then rotated by using two other solenoid coils along its > sides. Why rotated? A gravitational shielding effect was measured above > the disk. A cube of glass was found to lose up to 2% of its > weight. The Finnish scientists stumbled across this effect > by accident while looking for something else. In the second > of the two experiments the gravitational shielding effect > above a 6-inch disk, was found to extend at least through > the second floor of the laboratory building, with only a > small attenuation over distance. Size of disk? Detail of solenoid construction and field strength? > > In my opinion, the results of the Tampere experiment are > directly related to the experiments of William Hooper, > (Electric-Gravitational field from a current carrying > conductor -- also know as: the Clausius Postulate is > invalid). Magnitude of fields re; Hooper et al? earliest reports of the Tampere experiments > was this article from Usenet about 10 months ago.) > > From: R.Bursill@sheffield.ac.uk (R Bursill) > University of Technology report, January 1995 (Finland), > the experiment having being repeated (I assume no one > believed it the first time?). > > In the 1st experiment a 5 g sample of silicon dioxide was found > to loose around 0.05 % of its weight when placed at a distance of > 15 mm from the SC disk. The SC disk had diameter 145 mm and thickness > 6 mm. Under rotation of the disk the effect increased up to 0.3 %. Speed of rotation? > In the 2nd experiment samples of different composition and > weight (10-50 g) were placed at distances of 25 mm to 1.5 m from > the disk. The mass loss went as high as around 2 %. > What parameters changed to change degree of effect? > I found out about this through a theoretical preprint by Giovanni > Modanese, a Von Humboldt Fellow from the Max Plank reported weak gravitational shielding effect IMHO 2% is not so weak compared to anything else I have heard about. > Author: G. Modanese (Max-Planck-Institut, Munich) > Report-no: MPI-PhT/95-44 May 1995 > Under special conditions (Meissner-effect levitation and rapid > rotation) a How rapid? A) on the height above the disk. B) expulsive force observed at the border of > the shielded zone is due to energy conservation. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > US Patent #3,610,971. "All Electric Motional Electric Field Generator", > Awarded to William Hooper, April 1969 > > US Patent # 3,656,013. "Apparatus for Generating Motional Electric Field", > Awarded to William Hooper, April 1972 > > Hooper, W. J. (1974). New Horizons in Electric, Magnetic and > Gravitational Field Theory, shielding. > Experimentally, it can be confirmed that the motional electric field > is immune to shielding and follows the boundary conditions of the > magnetic (not electric) field. How is this proved? > The Hooper effect can be readily demonstrated in the "Two Moving > Magnets Experiment". In this experiment, magnetic flux is provided by > equal strength opposite pole magnets, moving uniformly in opposite > directions. How moving? The induced motional electric field that is generated > in a conductor, is found to be twice that which would result from > a single magnet, while remarkably, the sum of the magnetic B field > is zero. This experiment is easy to setup and verify in any electronics > laboratory with a pair of magnets, a wire, and a voltmeter. In fact, > you may wrap the conductor, in electrostatic or magnetic shielding, > and find the same result. > -- Nils Rognerud > ------------------- experiment was faulty due to "thermal effects". "Huston Control ... NASA .. Say What ??? Thermal ???? This > hypothesis was put forward without any attempt whatsoever at > verification. Yes, "thermal effects" does provide a nice prosaic > explanation, if that's what you're J From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 08:38:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA14658; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608081453.KAA11775@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien said: > This is just not a necessary condition of the process of FTL > communication. And, I see no reason that causality should be > supposed to be violated here. It is just our application of a > light speed diagram to a FTL signal that leads to the confusion. > If you use as the 45 degree angle the higher velocity light speed, > then the slower velocity signal would be sort of like a sound > speed signal in a normal diagram, ie, timelike. And our photons > would thus be moving slower than that ultimate light speed and as > well be timelike on that new diagram. As I said, the "trick" to understanding this is to have the FTL signals propagate using a channel that is moving in one observer's frame of reference, and stationary in another's. You now have two points in the same frame, and FTL communication between them from the point of view of observers in that frame. NOW you can use Special Relativity to look at that frame from another moving frame. By having two pipes in two different frames, all communication between frames by light waves, and NO acceleration, you avoid all the pitfalls of SR. Both observers see superluminal propagation in their pipe, causality violation in the other pipe, and a net causality violation. I used to say that the test for modern physicists was that of causality, relativity, and quantum mechanics you could choose to believe any two of the three. The universe seems to have chosen to relativity and quantum mechanics, and this is a pretty blatent example of that. 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 Aug 8 08:37:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA14781; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320A0166.598C@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: Longituinal force definitive test X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > Hows this for simplicity? > > ########################### ########################## > PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP > =============================================== > PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP > ########################### ########################## > A B C D > | | > -----S----- > Horace, I like this basic setup! How about ONE moving rod (which you already have) and ONE moving outer sheath - WITH COAX CONNECTIONS? ############################################ <- power supply ground IIIIIIII PPP III ######## <-long gap-> ########################################### PPP PPP ==================================================================== PPP PPP ######## <-power hot ########################################### IIIIIIII PPP III ############################################ Everything on the left side EXCEPT the rod is fixed to ground. It's a coax power supply line. The left-most PPP is just a graphite brush for the rod. The big outer sheath is power supply ground. The IIII's are insulating supports. The right sheath floats free to move longitudinally, just like the rod. Now, all currents and fields are axially symmetric around the rod - with no fields outside of the outer sheaths. Now, can we set this rig up so its ballistic movement will tell us the story after the shot? Maybe this just complicates construction too much for its worth? Drats! Out of time again! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 08:36:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA14857; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320ae0ae.3333299@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: Theory - CF, Breit-Wigner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: According to Breit-Wigner, the cross section for any particular resonance is proportional to the square of the De Broglie wavelength. Normally, one thinks of a nucleus as being at rest relative to the lab frame of reference, so that the De Broglie wavelength can also be calculated relative to that frame of reference. However, the correct frame is actually the frame of the nucleus itself.=20 When looking at fusion between positively charged particles in a lattice, a very different situation occurs, as a consequence of the rigidity of the lattice. Because of this rigidity, longitudinal compression and expansion waves travel through the lattice, moving all nuclei in harmony, *including that of the fusing particle* (this is where this situation differs from that of neutron fusion with a nucleus). If a situation were to exist, where the entire lattice were to oscillate at a single frequency, and the wavelength of the vibration were to exactly match the inter-atomic spacing of the lattice, then all nuclei would be moving in exactly the same frame, and thus be at rest relative to one another. In this situation, the De Broglie wavelength of all nuclei, relative to one another would be infinite, and the corresponding cross section would also be infinite. Under these circumstances, one might expect all nuclei to be amenable to fusion. In practice, a whole suite of frequencies prevail at any one instant in a normal lattice, few if any of which at any given temperature, will exactly match the lattice spacing in the direction of transmission of the wave, making the above sketched scenario "quite rare". There are however, various means by which the situation may be improved. But first a quick calculation: At a temperature of 300K, the average kinetic energy of an atom is 3/2*k*T=3D3/2*1.38*10^-23 J/K*300=3D0.04eV. The matching thermal frequency, according to E=3Dh*nu is 0.04eV/6.63*10^-34J*sec=3D9.38*10^12Hz. The speed of sound in most metals is about 3000 m/sec. This means the wavelength of the sonic waves is 3000m/9.38*10^12Hz=3D3.2Angstrom. (Have I got this right?) This is already quite a reasonable lattice spacing. Therefore, one method that might be employed, is variation of the temperature, so that the average sonic wavelength exactly matches the lattice spacing of the nuclei one wishes to fuse. A second method involves ensuring that the frequency of the sonic wave matching the desired lattice spacing, is selected out, in preference to other frequencies. This method can be applied, by altering the physical dimensions of the metal lattice, such that the boundary conditions select for the desired frequency. I suspect that this is the primary secret behind the occasional success of CETI devices. If this is so, then the path to complete reproducibility lies in strict and accurate control of the thickness and uniformity of the coatings. The fewer the number of frequencies selected, and the higher the "Q" factor as it were, the better the result.=20 A consequence of this theory is that temperature control is also very important. For this reason, and because one would also like to be able to draw off the resultant fusion energy, without upsetting the mechanism, it seems like a good idea, to choose an operating temperature that will be maintained at a constant level by the system itself, through the evaporation of water. E.g. at 1 atmosphere, one chooses a temperature of 100C, which is then maintained at this level by further evaporation. (Better of course to choose both a somewhat higher temperature and pressure). Nevertheless, the principle remains true. The device must be designed to operate at a specific temperature, and the physical dimensions of the device tailored to produce maximum output at this temperature.=20 It should also be noted, that it is the inter-atomic spacing of the specific nuclei that one wishes to fuse, that is important. I.e. if one wishes to fuse hydrogen and nickel, then one needs to base ones calculations on the interatomic spacing of hydrogen and nickel in the type of crystal under consideration. This leads to another problem. Saturation of the lattice with hydrogen, leads to expansion of the lattice, with the degree of expansion, dependant upon the degree of saturation. Hence the ideal operating point, moves around with hydrogen saturation. However the fact that CETI has had some success, does give hope that it is not impossible. One immediate improvement that I can think of, is ensuring that the device dimensions match the required frequencies in all three spatial dimensions, rather than just one. I.e. tiny cubes or spheres microns on a side, may work better than thin films. This may partially explain the success of those experimenters who have worked with finely divided metals. In summary, the positive charge on both particles taking part in the fusion process, ensures that they are both "ensnared" in the lattice as it were, ensuring that they move in harmony, and therefore share truly vast De Broglie wavelengths. 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 8 08:53:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA20230; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:44:06 -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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Robert This seems to happen with e-mail all the time. Answers arrive before the questions are asked. Hank PS. Did you ever work at the old GE Research Lab? On hot fusion in the 1950-60's? ---------- From: Robert I. Eachus To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: FTL causality violation Date: Wednesday, August 07, 1996 4:54PM Ross Tessien said: > Regarding the FTL discussion going on, I thought I would add a short, but > important point. Causality is not necessarily violated just because > something moves faster than light. Einstein's light speed limit is > violated. This is very different. But that is not how it works... Special Relativity is very well established and proven, and faster than light information transfer does result in (global) causality violation. The easiest way to see this is with Minkowski diagrams. Let's say you are moving at three quarters of the speed of light and send a message ahead (at 100c or so) to inform your twin brother of your impending arrival. You see the message arrive after it is sent, but he sees you send it well after it arrives. So far so good. Now he (instantly) replies, by a similar superluminal channel. He sees the message arrive well after he sends it, but before he sees you send the original message. What do you see? Same thing! You recieve the reply and then send the original message. (If you want to do the math rigorously, the easiest way is with both twins moving toward you at 1/2c and the transmission pipes moving with the message senders. But any situation with at least one pipe moving relativistically will do to produce global causality violations.) 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 Aug 8 10:54:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14545; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 10:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 10:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Longituinal force definitive test X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Lawrence E. Wharton writes: > > Concentrate on the >>gap. Ampere's experiment actually disproved his law unless the MHD forces >>in the mercury bath he used was responsible for the force to the right. >>You have to avoid any possiblity of MHD forces. > Here is an idea for coaxial gap testing: ----------/\-----------/\----------------- ----------/\-----------/\----------------- ----------\/-----------\/----------------- ----------\/-----------\/----------------- E1 G1 C G2 E2 The idea is to make the longitudinally neutral gap out of two flexible gaps. This way all the longitudinal forces can be balanced in the initial static condition. If the force becomes unbalanced after movement of sections E1 or E2 relative to the other components that is OK, and may even facilitate force measurement by converting that problem into a displacement measuring problem. I see two possibilities for the felxible gaps G1 and G2: flexible joints and slip joints. For low voltage applications a flexible joint can be made by soldering wire mesh or braid or many flexible wires could to the coaxial members. Since the smallest off the shelf graphite tube I could locate was 3/4" OD 1/2" ID maybe the best thing would be to make both the inner and out coaxial conductors out of pipe. The wire braid can then simply be soldered to the outside of the pipe. The main difficulty there is achiving symmetry and force balance for the initial static conditions. The other possibility is slip joints, which are applicable to higher voltages, or use with mercury. This can be achieved coaxially by mating a good fitting sleave with the outer sheath, and an exterior sleve or an interior rod with the central conductor. For rails it is just a matter of maintaining electrical contact of the slip joints: --------- --------- ---------- ----------- ----------------- E1 G1 C G2 E2 or: --------- --------- ---------- ----------- ----------------- --------- --------- E1 G1 C G2 E2 The main advantage of slip joints is the rigid maintenance of symmetry. The disadvantage is the tendancy to weld. It may be possibly to use graphite slip joints to avoid welding and reduce friction. Now, if there is a longitudinal pressure produced in a gaps G1 and G2, or a net for the total gap assembly (i.e. G1, C, E2 combined) it should be possible to measure that pressure as a function of current by placing two or more gaps or gap assemblies in series and measuring the incremental increase in longitudinal force due to the addition of a gap or gap assembly. By looking at the motion of C relative to a fixed E1 and E2 for each gap assembly it should be possible to determine a neutral starting position for each C relative to its E1 and E2, where no motion is induced on C when a current pulse is imposed. Then by photography of the gap assemblies it should be possible to determine the direction from which forces are being exerted and their magnitudes. This could be facilitated by increasing the momentum of C and by spanning the gap assemblies with external non-magnetic springs. Is the above circular, or is this going somewhere? It's beginning to appear that a variable voltage DC power supply for capacitor charging is very important - in order to produduce enough force to measure but not so much as to be destructive of the experiment. I am wondering if there is also a good possibility of destroying my electrolytic capacitor by creating oscillations and thus reverse voltages. Hopefully this can be minimized by use of a spark gap. Is there any advice available about this problem? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 11:48:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA27411; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320A25A4.70F3@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: Longituinal force definitive test X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I wrote: > > Horace Heffner wrote: > > > Hows this for simplicity? > > > > ########################### ########################## > > PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP > > =============================================== > > PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP > > ########################### ########################## > > A B C D > > | | > > -----S----- > > >(I meant to say I liked YOUR basic setup - following is only idea) > Horace, I like this basic setup! How about ONE moving rod (which you > already have) and ONE moving outer sheath - WITH COAX CONNECTIONS? > > ############################################ <- power supply ground > IIIIIIII PPP III > ######## <-long gap-> ########################################### > PPP PPP > ==================================================================== > PPP PPP > ######## <-power hot ########################################### > IIIIIIII PPP III > ############################################ Drat again! I managed to close up a volume above and the unavoidable arcing between the graphite and metal will cause plain old pop-gun forces - which we don't want! We would need to vent this volume with big holes - but this compromises the coaxality (neat word!) of the rig! Also, I meant for the PPP graphite ring to be fixed to the outer ground sheath to ground-out the rail-gun force caused by this sudden reduction of diameter. Back to work -------- Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 11:42:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA27500; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9608081745.AA29485@saticoy.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: Theory - CF, Breit-Wigner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In summary, the positive charge on both particles taking part in the fusion process, ensures that they are both "ensnared" in the lattice as it were, ensuring that they move in harmony, and therefore share truly vast De Broglie wavelengths. Regards, ----- I try to avoid theoretical discussions of CF, but I can`t resist pointing out the grosss error here: your debroglie wavelength considerations apply only to free particles!!! These are interacting particles, with the coulomb and the strong force to be considered. The coulomb forces in the lattice and the strong force inside the nucleus will ensure that no wavelengths (either of the entire atom, or of its nucleus) exceed their common values. Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 11:52:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA27567; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Longituinal force definitive test X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Horace Heffner wrote: > >> Hows this for simplicity? >> >> ########################### ########################## >> PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP >> =============================================== >> PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP >> ########################### ########################## >> A B C D >> | | >> -----S----- >> > >Horace, I like this basic setup! How about ONE moving rod (which you >already have) and ONE moving outer sheath - WITH COAX CONNECTIONS? > >############################################ <- power supply ground >IIIIIIII PPP III >######## <-long gap-> ########################################### > PPP PPP >==================================================================== > PPP PPP >######## <-power hot ########################################### >IIIIIIII PPP III >############################################ > >Everything on the left side EXCEPT the rod is fixed to ground. It's >a coax power supply line. The left-most PPP is just a graphite brush >for the rod. The big outer sheath is power supply ground. The IIII's >are insulating supports. The right sheath floats free to move >longitudinally, just like the rod. Now, all currents and fields are >axially symmetric around the rod - with no fields outside of the outer >sheaths. >Now, can we set this rig up so its ballistic movement will tell us the >story after the shot? > >Maybe this just complicates construction too much for its worth? > >Drats! Out of time again! Frank Stenger This is an interresting idea, fixing one end. To some extent this is the variation with the power attached to A and C. However, it bothers me enclosing everything in the outer conductor when the objective is to minimize the supply loop effects (assuming those are not the *only effects*.) You want to be able to make the distance BC above, and area BCS very big to reduce the magnetic pressure of the supply loop. The main pupose of the above coaxial design was to place the pressure of the supply loop field purpendicular to and isolated from the fields generated in the tube. By wrapping the outer grounded sheath (carrying the supply current) around everything the opposite goal is achieved. The supply field pressure is maximized. I hope this doesn't sound like nonsense. Every time you assume some undproven force or principle exists it creates a whole new context that is difficult to communicate in due to the existence of conflicting established vocabulary and thought patterns. It sounds like nonsense, and it likely is nonsense, but you have to deal with it if you want to prove it is nonsense, or discover the new paradigm. There I go again babbling. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 13:34:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA22694; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 13:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 13:18:06 -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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Robert >This seems to happen with e-mail all the time. Answers arrive before >the questions are asked. >Hank Even when channeled through a single thread server like vortex! There is clearly another channel of information flow available. Maybe all it does is supply the carrier wave to which phase shifts of the information signal can be compared - a universal clock, universal DDS. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 13:58:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA27805; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 13:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 13:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320A501C.520D@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: Horace, cap reverse volts X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > I am wondering if there is also a good possibility of destroying my > electrolytic capacitor by creating oscillations and thus reverse voltages. > Hopefully this can be minimized by use of a spark gap. Is there any advice > available about this problem? Horace, I worried about reverse-voltage with my capacitor bank too. On the one firing when Frank Z. and I had a scope across the capacitor voltage, we saw no sign of reverse voltage - the discharge looked a bit over-damped. I have discharged the bank (~100,000 MFD, 1050 volts) thru a semi-coax line with ~ 4 inch outer conductor, 3/8 inch inner conductor, about 5 feet long, with no drastic bad effects I could notice. The caps may have enough internal resistance to damp a discharge into inductances about like the one above. You might jump a sacrificial diode across your cap - to conduct on reverse voltage. Even if the diode blows, it should still take the edge off any reverse surge. Diodes being cheaper than big caps! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 14:16:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA01174; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 13:58:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 13:58:29 -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: Longituinal force definitive test X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace, In Re to: >I'm sorry but I do not see how you can get anything meaningful from the >experiment you describe. Yes, the segment HCGD will move to the right. No >matter which law you use, Biot-Savart or Grassman, you get an outward >pressure on the loop at all places. That is not definitive without detailed >calculations and measurments. Letting the projectile go and seeing the >rails HC and GD still ejected with it, regardless of the distance d, >that's definitive proof. Alternatively, if the rails near the projectile >carry the recoil force, that is definitive proof the other way. True? replacing the projectile by a fixed wire has the effect of combining the Grassman force (the normal Lorentz force) with the reaction force in the rails if it exists. If the Ampere force was valid then there would be no net force as the reaction force and the projectile force would cancel out. The movable part would not move unless there is a self force exerted in the straight section of wire (Ampere yes, Marinov no). So lets make a table of the motion of the movable rail for the two cases: Motion of Movable Rail Section Force projectile connection fixed wire connection Marinov moves to left moves to right for small d Ampere have to calculate moves to right (slow) Grassman no motion moves to right (fast) So for the fixed wire connection all forces are to the right but the Marinov and Ampere force may become too weak to overcome the friction and there would be no motion. For the projectile connection the motion must be calculated for the Ampere force. There is a reaction force that pushes the rail to the left and there is a coparallel force along the rail that tends to push the rail to the right. These must be calculated to see which is stronger. I can do this and post the results in a day or two. The important thing to do is to rig up the sliding rails and your graphite washer connection sounds like a great idea. The friction should be made as small as possible. For a rod projectile rolling on two rails a car battery produces enough current to make it move. To overcome the friction of your graphite washers you may need some more current. A few motor starting capacitors should be fine. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 15:04:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA08673; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320A5581.132C@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: Longituinal force definitive test X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > >Horace Heffner wrote: > > > >> Hows this for simplicity? > >> > >> ########################### ########################## > >> PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP > >> =============================================== > >> PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPP > >> ########################### ########################## > >> A B C D > >> | | > >> -----S----- > >> > > > >Horace, I like this basic setup! How about ONE moving rod (which you > >already have) and ONE moving outer sheath - WITH COAX CONNECTIONS? > > > >############################################ <- power supply ground > >IIIIIIII PPP III > >######## <-long gap-> ########################################### > > PPP PPP > >==================================================================== > > PPP PPP > >######## <-power hot ########################################### > >IIIIIIII PPP III > >############################################ > > > >Everything on the left side EXCEPT the rod is fixed to ground. It's > >a coax power supply line. The left-most PPP is just a graphite brush > >for the rod. The big outer sheath is power supply ground. The IIII's > >are insulating supports. The right sheath floats free to move > >longitudinally, just like the rod. Now, all currents and fields are > >axially symmetric around the rod - with no fields outside of the outer > >sheaths. > >Now, can we set this rig up so its ballistic movement will tell us the > >story after the shot? > > > This is an interresting idea, fixing one end. To some extent this is the > variation with the power attached to A and C. However, it bothers me > enclosing everything in the outer conductor when the objective is to > minimize the supply loop effects (assuming those are not the *only > effects*.) You want to be able to make the distance BC above, and area BCS > very big to reduce the magnetic pressure of the supply loop. The main > pupose of the above coaxial design was to place the pressure of the supply > loop field purpendicular to and isolated from the fields generated in the > tube. By wrapping the outer grounded sheath (carrying the supply current) > around everything the opposite goal is achieved. The supply field pressure > is maximized. I don't think so, Horace! Remember, the current flowing in the outer grounded sheath HAS NO FIELD EFFECT on any of the circuit inside of it. I tried to follow your suggestion on the "hot" power sheath by placing it as far to the left as the stiffness of the floating center conductor would permit (I guess additional insulating spacers could be used to prevent sag in the center rod.). Now, I know the field of the center conductor extends off to the left, but this is no different than in your original setup. I think the field of the center conductor will exert rightward rail-gun pressure on the cross-sectional area of the floating sheath, but this is probably true of any sheath of finite thickness. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 14:50:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09015; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:36:14 -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: Longituinal force definitive test (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 16:51:59 -0400 From: Larry Wharton To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Longituinal force definitive test Horace, In Re to: >I'm sorry but I do not see how you can get anything meaningful from the >experiment you describe. Yes, the segment HCGD will move to the right. No >matter which law you use, Biot-Savart or Grassman, you get an outward >pressure on the loop at all places. That is not definitive without detailed >calculations and measurments. Letting the projectile go and seeing the >rails HC and GD still ejected with it, regardless of the distance d, >that's definitive proof. Alternatively, if the rails near the projectile >carry the recoil force, that is definitive proof the other way. True? replacing the projectile by a fixed wire has the effect of combining the Grassman force (the normal Lorentz force) with the reaction force in the rails if it exists. If the Ampere force was valid then there would be no net force as the reaction force and the projectile force would cancel out. The movable part would not move unless there is a self force exerted in the straight section of wire (Ampere yes, Marinov no). So lets make a table of the motion of the movable rail for the two cases: Motion of Movable Rail Section Force projectile connection fixed wire connection Marinov moves to left moves to right for small d Ampere have to calculate moves to right (slow) Grassman no motion moves to right (fast) So for the fixed wire connection all forces are to the right but the Marinov and Ampere force may become too weak to overcome the friction and there would be no motion. For the projectile connection the motion must be calculated for the Ampere force. There is a reaction force that pushes the rail to the left and there is a coparallel force along the rail that tends to push the rail to the right. These must be calculated to see which is stronger. I can do this and post the results in a day or two. The important thing to do is to rig up the sliding rails and your graphite washer connection sounds like a great idea. The friction should be made as small as possible. For a rod projectile rolling on two rails a car battery produces enough current to make it move. To overcome the friction of your graphite washers you may need some more current. A few motor starting capacitors should be fine. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 15:46:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA17997; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 15:22:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 15:22:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Horace, cap reverse volts X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >You might jump a sacrificial diode across your cap - to conduct on >reverse voltage. Even if the diode blows, it should still take the >edge off any reverse surge. Diodes being cheaper than big caps! > >Frank Stenger Good idea! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 15:33:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA18123; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 15:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 15:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960808181654_380356665@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: gravity/superconductivity/ZPE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Robert Stirniman The fact that there is a relationship between superconductivity, gravity, and nuclear events is no suprise to to me. Superconductors are actually macroscopic zero point systems. See my paper on Bill B local files or on Elektromagnum. This stuff has been posted for over one year now. The idea has been in print on my first Book "Elementary Antigravity" for over 8 years. http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/~david/elektromagnum/web/physcis/Frank%20Znidarsic Pick ZPE Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 16:48:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA28427; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 16:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 16:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608082306.QAA17317@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: Titanium/Deuterium Dewar flask trick X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Mr. Doug Morgan, You wrote: > >Richard A Blue wrote: >> > --- results that are quite clearly bogus. >I also see a lot of "bumbling going on" - the foremost being the very >drive to perfect performing low temperature fusion in one's basement. >I am not sure that this is an all too saintly or safety minded goal. > Well, welcome to the Vortex! I believe Bill Beaty is doing a public sevice with this discussion forum. Glad you found it. That is, if you had not been a lurker all along. I have not seen Dick Blue active on the Vortex so I assume your identical message is also on the spf. Mr. Blue has been a relatively vehement anti-CF on the spf. Mr. Jed Rothwell and others can attest to that. I have also responded to Blue's posting remarks (on spf) on the 'Dewar flask trick'. He has offered to send his remarks to De Ninno et al on their paper (CF era) which he labeled bogus. I thanked him for that. Whether he does so is another matter. Italy is not dependant on our good graces to proceed on their own on the CF front. Same is true for many other countries. Your reference to 'Hydrogen in Metals' have been inquired into to Cal Tech and UCLA and the OpAmp Technical Bookstore. There seems to be four publications with the same title. Two of the publication are still available as reprints. One is a ten volumne, Pergamon Press publication reprint consolidated into three volumnes (ISBN 0-08-022108-4) and the other is a technical conference report (held in Champion(!), Pa. of 775 pages (ISBN 0-685-16430-6) ($620.00 & $180.00). A visit to the college library is in order. An interesting thing about the publications were that they were in the 1970's (1977, 1973), well before Pons & Fleischmann's 1989. As you said, you had 50 years of exposure to anomolies. This gives wonder to how much exposure Pons & Fleischmann had to the same anolomies before they embarked upon their experiments breaking open in 1989. And thank you for the warnings. I know I am not in any shape to conduct experiments in my garage. But maybe someday soon!--- cautiously. But also better that a motivated recognized laboratory do it. -AK- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 17:55:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA15280; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 17:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 17:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608082331.TAA13396@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: Horace, cap reverse volts X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Francis J. Stenger (fstenger@interlaced.net) said: > You might jump a sacrificial diode across your cap - to conduct on > reverse voltage. Even if the diode blows, it should still take the > edge off any reverse surge. Diodes being cheaper than big caps! Good idea, but don't count on blowing the diode. (Or use a large enough diode that you can count on it not blowing...) I think I managed about 7000 amps through a power diode rated at 10 amps continuous. (Measured by looking at the voltage drop in 10 AWG copper wire. That was the "limiting resistor" in the circut. ;-) The best trick I know is to use a unidirectional SCR and connect it as a diode. You are more likely to blow the lead wires, and on most SCRs they are pretty heavy to help conduct heat away from the diode. 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 Aug 8 19:08:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA00903; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Weird electrostatic story update X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On 8/6/96, William Beaty wrote: > Here's an odd story. I heard it second-hand, so I'm not totally > confident of its accuracy. I have a call in to the originator. > A friend attended the 1995 ESD assn. symposium where a 3M engineer told > of an interesting phenomenon at a factory in the south. The humidity was I talked with Dave Swenson, the 3M engineer involved. The geometry was different than I originally heard. A roll of PET plastic film 20ft. long was being unspooled. The sheet of film traveled 20ft upward, passed over rollers, traveled 20ft horizontal, then down into "slitting" machines where it was put onto smaller spools. The film traveled at 1000f/min (10mph). The film had previously been processed so that its two faces were dissimilar, so when it was peeled from the main roll, charge separation occurred. And so the charged film formed a sort of huge tent-like structure which one could walk under. The e-field around the equipment was so strong that workers could not approach it for fear of triggering huge discharges. When the humidity was low, an unusual effect took place: if you attempted to pass under the "tent" you were stopped by something like "an invisible wall." Additionally, the forces prevented you from turning your body, and you had to walk backwards to move away. This from a large sheet of highly-charged plastic! Question: could the e-fields from such a setup be strong enough to prevent a person from walking forward? I would think that they would be too weak, and they would cause attraction rather than repulsion. Could the e-fields affect the nervous system? Perhaps the strong fields attract something else which then provides the "wall" effect. Aerosol/polymers? Dark 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 Thu Aug 8 19:15:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA00962; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960808210928_255418297@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: Mixed news about Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I want to thank Jed for one of the best laughs I've had in some time. And I'm not laughing at anyone, for it's a cautionary tale. A perfectly miraculous process, every alchemist's dream, of no commercial value. Counterfeit platinum! Counterfeit because it does not carry the isotopic signature that certifies that some standard amount of human labor was invested in its production. It's just a commercial commodity, for whatever platinum is useful for. Mike Carrell From taoshum-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 19:04:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA01084; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Originator: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Sender: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: judycole@spider.lloyd.com (Judy Karleen-Cole) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Larry Grant's letter X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 01:34 PM 8/8/96 -0700, I3683 (Anders) wrote: >I disagree with Larry on some points. > >I no longer find this hum mysterious, but easily measurable, easily >understood, and locatable. I have no doubt that there may be a local acoustical hum which you are monitoring which is all of the above things. However, to compare this hum to the Taos hum does a disservice to the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people all over the world who hear it. For many of them, there IS no discernable local explanation. I would be seriously interested in your comments, when, after you tame your local hum, you have an opportunity to take your sophisticated equipment to some place where THE hum is very strong, and which also is many, many miles from any of the usual "hum-makers". Taos would seem a good place to start... while the hummers there continue to suffer with the effects of the hum, the University of New Mexico has already determined with their sophisticated equipment that no hum-noise generator capable of producing anything like the T.H. exists in Taos or outlying areas. Judy K El Dorado, CA 38.663N-120.872W judycole@spider.lloyd.com From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 20:12:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA13538; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 20:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 20:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608090207.TAA21719@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Robert I. Eachus said; > As I said, the "trick" to understanding this is to have the FTL >signals propagate using a channel that is moving in one observer's >frame of reference, and stationary in another's. You now have two >points in the same frame, and FTL communication between them from the >point of view of observers in that frame. NOW you can use Special >Relativity to look at that frame from another moving frame. By having >two pipes in two different frames, all communication between frames by >light waves, and NO acceleration, you avoid all the pitfalls of SR. >Both observers see superluminal propagation in their pipe, causality >violation in the other pipe, and a net causality violation. > I guess I don't understand what you mean by "channel" in order for it to be moving. I understand that the two observers will neither agree on the arrival times, or the period between arriving signals at a fixed location if there is relative motions involved. But this is due to the rate of ticking of their respective clocks, and due to the transit delay from one point to another for the various observers. Would you agree with the following; If I have one point of reference for all observers to watch, R. And I have a person in a space craft over here at A, and another at B. A sends a signal to R, and A and B watch for R to receive it, but all eyes are on R. A and B can be moving toward R or away from R, but they cannot switch from one to the other during the test. A sends a signal at faster than c, say 100c as before, and when R receives the signal R sends out a message stating receipt of signal from A and this is sent to A and to B. The light speed image of A sending the signal follows the FTL signal. The signal sent by R acknowledging receipt also goes out at 100c, and the light speed image of R sending the signal follows, and both the FTL and the c image of R sending the message goes out to both observers. R sends out a second signal when he "sees" A send the first signal, ie the light speed signal arrives. Now, my point is that at A, and at B, the sequence of events remain the same if they are observed as they occured at one reference point, R. B sees the FTL signal from R, and then later, B receives the FTL signal indicating that the light speed signal arrived. Also, at some point in time, B receives the image of R sending him the first signal, and following that he receives the image of R sending the confirmation of having received the image of A sending the message. But, one cannot say when the light speed signals will be received with respect to the FTL signals at B. That depends on the distance from R to B and from R to A as the times of propogation are important. ie, the second FTL signal could arrive before or after the first light speed signal. But the final light speed image will definitely be the last received, and the first FTL signal will definitely be the first received. It is only the middle two that can get switched dependent on positions and velocities. Depending on velocity, B may not agree with the time of separation from one event to the next. But, B will agree on the ratio of times from one event to the next if there is a series of events that are sent. ie, 1,2,3 minutes might become 1,2,3 hours due to the shift in time inside of a moving reference at B. Note that in no case is causality violated. It is just that there are two sets of causal mechanisms with different propogation velocities. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 8 20:16:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA13639; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 20:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 20:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960809022410_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: Weird electrostatic story update X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill - > "Question: could the e-fields from such a setup > be strong enough to prevent a person from walking > forward?" Or even: could e-fields from such a setup be strong enough to prevent a person's body from touching down on a horizontal surface if mounted underneath, say, a raised padded platform, like oh, maybe a bed? We could have 'em replacing all those "Magic Fingers" gizmos in every motel room across America in about two years. It would be too bad if such a setup prevented the operation of nearby video equipment, though. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From herman@college.antioch.edu Fri Aug 9 05:37:56 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 FAA02001 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 05:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by college.antioch.edu (SMI-8.6/1.63) id IAA04752; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 08:36:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 08:36:59 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: rmcarrell@aol.com, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>, William Beaty , "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Platinum Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Subject: a Platinum of no value. (fwd) content-length: 672 Dear Folks, I have a market for platinum, or gold or other similar metals, of any signature provided they are not radioactive. Is there a reason the material is not being produced or sold? Do you think you can get a message to Joe C and we can get this on the road? Do I need to know more ... such as; it is proof of principle only now we need xxx dollars to proceed now we have yyy previous legal or financial commitments ?? Can I get a SIMPLE no frills description of method so I can open the doors? J ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:54:37 -0700 (PDT) From: RMCarrell@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Mixed news about Champion I want to thank Jed for one of the best laughs I've had in some time. And I'm not laughing at anyone, for it's a cautionary tale. A perfectly miraculous process, every alchemist's dream, of no commercial value. Counterfeit platinum! Counterfeit because it does not carry the isotopic signature that certifies that some standard amount of human labor was invested in its production. It's just a commercial commodity, for whatever platinum is useful for. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 05:55:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA03868; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 05:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 05:47:25 -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: Ha O Frank Horace, cap reverse volts X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Hands On Frank, I always like to see Frank's comments ... nice to hear from people who bend electrons .... in the real world. 'sacrificial diode' Love it! On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > Horace Heffner wrote: > > > I am wondering if there is also a good possibility of destroying my > > electrolytic capacitor by creating oscillations and thus reverse voltages. > > Hopefully this can be minimized by use of a spark gap. Is there any advice > > available about this problem? > > Horace, I worried about reverse-voltage with my capacitor bank too. > On the one firing when Frank Z. and I had a scope across the capacitor > voltage, we saw no sign of reverse voltage - the discharge looked a bit > over-damped. I have discharged the bank (~100,000 MFD, 1050 volts) > thru a semi-coax line with ~ 4 inch outer conductor, 3/8 inch inner > conductor, about 5 feet long, with no drastic bad effects I could > notice. The caps may have enough internal resistance to damp a > discharge into inductances about like the one above. > You might jump a sacrificial diode across your cap - to conduct on > reverse voltage. Even if the diode blows, it should still take the > edge off any reverse surge. Diodes being cheaper than big caps! > > Frank Stenger > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 09:13:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA05584; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 08:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 08:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608091533.IAA22296@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: Navy cold fusion report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Greetings, I haven't seen anybody comment on this so I thought I'd mention that there is a technical report on CF work done at the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center in San Diego. The report includes papers published by Stan Szpak and Pam Mosier-Boss on their Pd/D co-deposition technique. Its all in pdf format (you'll need adobe acrobat) at the following URL - http://guppy.nosc.mil/services/sti/publications/biblio/COLDFUSION.HTML My apologies if this has been mentioned before. cheers, Bart Simon (bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu ============================================ 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 Fri Aug 9 09:41:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA10885; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960809114823_595731810@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: Hering experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: John, I forget the details about the LED. I think that when it didn't rotate with the disk it did light, so he probably had the right LED. Why don't you call Tom Vallone directly - he is very accessible and likes to talk about this stuff. He can be reached at (202) 452-7674. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 09:37:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA11019; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960809115319_595733490@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: Dranetz ?? Re: Chernetskii/EarthTech X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: John, With regard to the Dranetz, it's been awhile since I used it. I think they're in Atlanta, so you should be able to get info from there. I also know that electronics rental places rent them, so info should be available there also. Hal From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 09:41:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA11106; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608091548.IAA00400@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: Applied Science .... Gravity #1 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John. Thanks for your objective questions and comments regarding the Tampere experiments. Sorry I don't have time to deal with them. Unfortunately, anti-gravity does not pay the bills. In any case, there is never any substitute for genuine articles. > IMHO 2% is not so weak compared to anything else I have heard about. Not so weak indeed. If it is a repeatable experiment, it ought to be headline science news. And here's an even bigger headline -- WHY ISN'T IT? Oops. I lost your quote from Dr. Modanese about the repulsive force around the edge of the "anti-gravity field". Modanese does not think Mother Nature is going to give us a free lunch. In spite of my madness, I tend to agree. But what we can get is important new knowledge. Regards, Robert Stirniman From 72240.1256@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 9 09:50:38 1996 Received: from arl-img-1.compuserve.com (arl-img-1.compuserve.com [149.174.217.131]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA17885 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id MAA11481; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 12:49:52 -0400 Date: 09 Aug 96 12:48:32 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Subject: Platinum Message-ID: <960809164832_72240.1256_EHB115-3@CompuServe.COM> Status: O X-Status: To: John Schnurer > INTERNET:herman@college.antioch.edu; >INTERNET:RMCARRELL@AOL.COM; William Beaty > INTERNET:BILLB@ESKIMO.COM; "MHUGO@EPRI" > INTERNET:MHUGO@EPRINET.EPRI.COM Dear John, You wrote: "I have a market for platinum, or gold or other similar metals, of any signature provided they are not radioactive. . . . Is there a reason the material is not being produced or sold? . . . Do you think you can get a message to Joe C and we can get this on the road? . . . Do I need to know more ... such as . . ." Simmer down! It is probably a lot of crap. Joe Champion has a long record of lying, criminality and other of self-destructive behavior. He has served time in jail. I think the chances that there is anything to this alchemy business are small. They are just high enough to motivate me to ask Mizuno to check those isotopes. In the unlikely event that he reports an anomaly, then we can get excited about it and start taking Joe seriously. If Mizuno and others find nothing then I think we should ban Joe from Vortex-L and publish an expose in Infinite Energy. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 10:38:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA23733; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 10:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 10:17:55 -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: Weird electrostatic story update X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >On 8/6/96, William Beaty wrote: > >> Here's an odd story. I heard it second-hand, so I'm not totally >> confident of its accuracy. I have a call in to the originator. >> A friend attended the 1995 ESD assn. symposium where a 3M engineer told >> of an interesting phenomenon at a factory in the south. The humidity was > >I talked with Dave Swenson, the 3M engineer involved. The geometry was >different than I originally heard. A roll of PET plastic film 20ft. long This is an interesting story but I am not surprised as I have observed these forces myself on a smaller scale. First let me describe my simple ion motor. I took an old computer monitor (an old TV should work just as well just as long as its high voltage supply works) and took the high voltage lead going into the tube and hooked it onto the top of the monitor case where I had a needle protruding out vertically upward. Then I formed an ion motor with magnet wire in the shape of an S. A drop of solder on the center and a tap with a punch provides the bearing for the contact with the needle. So then we have an ion motor, nothing new about that. I got my motor to rotate so fast that the centrifugal force would tend to straighten out the S curve. I am not sure that the simple ion jet force is responsible for this device working but that is another story. After the monitor is turned off the S rotor would come to a stop. Then if you attempt to touch the rotor with your finger there is a repulsive force and the rotor moves away from your finger. This effect had a decay time of about 30 minutes. I showed this to my two little girls and they had lots of fun pushing the rotor around with their fingers without touching it. My explanation was that the inside of the moniter CRT became negatively charged. Even though I had disconnected the negative HV supply I guessed that some current was still leaking in. So then after turning off the monitor, the negative charge on the CRT induced a positive charge on the needle and rotor. A person approaching it would have this same positive charge induced and thus there would be an electric repulsion force. I would guess that the same thing is going on with the weird electrostatic story. The charged plastic roll induced an opposite charge in both the supporting frame work and the people around it and there was a repulsion. It still is a little strange that there is not more attractive forces both in my ion motor and in the plastic roll. I took insulating material to the rotor and there was still a repulsion in most cases. Sometimes the repulsion was weaker depending on the material. Now the negative ion stream will charge up nearby objects so I tried to charge up some insulators this way and see if I could get an attractive force after turnoff. This seemed not to work most of the time and at best seemed to be able only to cancel out the repulsive force. The rotor will, of course, induce an electric polarization in the insulating material but I would expect this interaction to be attractive. If anyone wants to check this out just get an old TV, a needle, and a few inches of wire and give it a try. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 10:46:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA23837; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 10:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 10:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320AF2CA.5802@loc100.tandem.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Bob Horst To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: PAGD and Correa patents X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: In the past few days I have gathered some information on tubes to try to understand how much of the Correa patents were already known, and how much is new. A friend found some books, including a 1941 book called "Priniciples of Electron Tubes," by Herbert Reich. This book shows a VI curve that is essentially the same as Fig 1 of the first patent (also in IE page 33). The the term "abnormal glow discharge" was coined a long time ago and this region of operation has been known since before 1941. Why would it have taken until now to discover that oscillations in that region of the curve produce excess energy? (My friend also dropped a not-so-subtle hint in the form of another book called "Hustlers and Con Men," by Robert Nash.) The excess energy claims of Correa seem to come from three different measurements: 1. Pulses with energy much greater than the energy drawn from the drive pack. 2. Longer experiements with excess based on before/after battery voltages 3. The 8-hour run of the dual-tube experiment with periodic switching of drive and charge packs. For measurement 1, as someone pointed out, you cannot compute excess because it does not include the power to charge capacitors between pulses. For measurement 2, it is known that pulse charging of rechargable batteries is better than DC charging. Is it possible that the experiment takes DC out of one battery and efficiently charges up the other battery using pulses? The excess would actually be stored chemical energy in the charge pack that is released due to the pulses. For measurement 3, the experimental details are sketchy in the materials I have. With the large numbers of batteries required by these experiments, 8 hours of run time does not seem unreasonable without excess. Have I missed some more convincing evidence of excess energy? Also, the biography in IE did not give any educational background on Dr. Correa. Does anyone know where he got his PhD and in what field? I would also like to know his dissertation topic. -- Bob Horst From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 10:35:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA24151; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 10:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 10:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960809164707_72240.1256_EHB115-1@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: Mixed news about Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Mike Carrell writes: "I want to thank Jed for one of the best laughs I've had in some time. And I'm not laughing at anyone, for it's a cautionary tale. A perfectly miraculous process, every alchemist's dream, of no commercial value. Counterfeit platinum!" I hope I made it clear that I don't believe a word of the 3-isotope blacklist tale. Joe Champion has a different story. He says those people cannot sell the platinum because he, Joe, told a dealer's association about a legal squabble within the company, so the association has them blacklisted. Frankly, I don't believe that either! Joe must have fantastic influence if it is true. The stories that swirl around this alchemy business are so outlandish that I would never believe any of them without copious original source documents: things like signed letters from precious metal companies stating categorically that they will not purchase 3-isotope platinum for thus and such reason. I would have to see names and phone numbers I can follow up on. I remain open minded and ready to believe in alchemy if and when a number people like Mizuno tell me they are sure there are isotope shifts. Until then, I do not believe it. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 11:39:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07088; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 11:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 11:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320B8025.4BE1@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: Bill Beaty and his electric force! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: > Question: could the e-fields from such a setup be strong enough to prevent > a person from walking forward? I would think that they would be too weak, > and they would cause attraction rather than repulsion. Could the e-fields > affect the nervous system? Perhaps the strong fields attract something > else which then provides the "wall" effect. Aerosol/polymers? Dark > matter? :) Bill: If I have this right, the energy density of an electric field in a vacuum - air too, if we aren't being too picky, is given by: joules/meter^3 = 4.425 * (megavolts/meter)^2 . Sea level air can take about 3 megavolts/meter at break-down, so, joules/meter^3, MAX, = about 39.82 >>> same as neuton-meter/meter^3 >>> same as neuton/meter^2 >>> pascals So, 39.82 pascals >>> 0.0058 PSI >>> 0.835 lb./ft^2 . So, if I did all that right, in sea-level air, an electric field could exert a maximum of, say, 3 or 4 pounds force on a human body. Any checks on this? Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 13:34:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA01264; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608091920.MAA18255@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: Mixed news about Champion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 10:19 AM 8/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Mike Carrell writes: > > "I want to thank Jed for one of the best laughs I've had in some time. > And I'm not laughing at anyone, for it's a cautionary tale. A perfectly > miraculous process, every alchemist's dream, of no commercial value. > Counterfeit platinum!" > >I hope I made it clear that I don't believe a word of the 3-isotope blacklist >tale. Joe Champion has a different story. He says those people cannot sell the >platinum because he, Joe, told a dealer's association about a legal squabble >within the company, so the association has them blacklisted. Frankly, I don't >believe that either! Joe must have fantastic influence if it is true. The >stories that swirl around this alchemy business are so outlandish that I >would never believe any of them without copious original source documents: >things like signed letters from precious metal companies stating categorically >that they will not purchase 3-isotope platinum for thus and such reason. I >would have to see names and phone numbers I can follow up on. I remain open >minded and ready to believe in alchemy if and when a number people like Mizuno >tell me they are sure there are isotope shifts. Until then, I do not believe >it. > >- Jed > > Jed: "cold fusion" is the transmutation of catalytic metals. That is CETI's "real" discovery and why they are not very forthcoming at present. Of course, transmutation is not their discovery. Their discovery was to discover that what other people had been pointing to was in fact happening to them. That is most likely one of the reasons why they cut you and other people off. Nobody cares if you believe or not. I care that you know. You deserve to know. Others might if it mattered. What does it matter if you know? Motivate the pointy-hat set and maybe the knowledge, not the belief, will come your way... And where are those damn lab reports from Japan? It has been nearly a month now. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 15:47:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29506; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:32:43 -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: Weird electrostatic story update X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/08/96 20:05 From: DAVID E. SWENSON - 3M Company ELECTRICAL SPECIALTIES DIV. INTL TECH SERVICE- A144-4N-01 Subject: Weird electrostatic story update Bill, one small correction in the story .....the film was 20 feet wide and the rolls typically 50,000 feet long. From your description - plastic was only 20 feet long..... also the film was polypropylene (PP). I mentioned that it could have been worse if the film were PET. Best Regards, DAVID E. SWENSON From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 15:44:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29618; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960809170757_256018814@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: ceti quiet..I published again X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: My stock broker tells me that is is rumered on Wall Street that Mot is to announce something big in mid September. Could it be the CETI technology?? My latest paper "The Zero Point Interaction" is going to press in the next addition of New Energy News. My head is spinning with all of the news. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 15:47:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29718; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Griggs and Patopov... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Griggs and Patopov... - Had a nice talk with Griggs recently. He's definitely selling his "Hydro-pumps" and making money... Question is why? Does he promote "over unity". "Not at all..." That's a quote. So what advantage does his device have? Why would it have a market? The answer to that is so simple, it almost boggles the mind when you figure it out... - Has anyone ever worked with an "evaporator?" I have! It was a standard chemical engineering process device, and we had one in our Chemical Engineering laboratory at the U. of MN. It was a marvelously INEFFICENT device, taking about 2 BTU's in for every 1 BTU it vaporized. Our evaporator was actually a duplicate of one used at Oak Ridge to concentrate a uranium salt. Obviously energy effeciency, or operational parameters were not a concern there. - HOWEVER, in the "real world" there are a lot of situations where the logistics of having a device that you can put a "brackish" water into on one end, have flash to steam and "gunk" on the other end, and then use a relatively simple separation chamber (which can be opened and cleaned out quickly and put back in service quickly) are very favorable. In point of fact that is exactly where Jim Griggs is getting a "market". - Wither "over unity"? How many of you have bought a home furnace recently? How about a hot water heater? Has anyone bought a device like one of those and NOT found some indication of the input versus output capacity? In the case of gas fired hot water heaters, it's like 60% efficient, in the case of a electrically heated one it should be 100% efficient, and in the case of domestic home furnaces it will vary 70 to 90% depending on the design. HOW DO YOU THINK THEY GOT THOSE NUMBERS? Did they guess, did they "engineer" them that way? Or did they MEASURE the input and output? Obviously they MEASURED the input/output. - In the case of Grigg's device, there is no exception. You wouldn't be interested in his device, even though it may handle "dirty" water without clogging, if it was 1:10, i.e. 1 BTU out (or Kcal for you metric types) for every 10 BTU in. And with the geometery involved, who knows what the effeciency would be. - Thus the basic measurements on the Griggs device are to show that it somehow approaches 1:1, i.e. is not a net energy "drain" for the sake of producing a seperable steam flow output. - HOWEVER: As Gene and Jed found out a couple years ago, when one DOES measure the thermal output on the Griggs devices, and then compare with the electrical input, numbers like 110%, 120% even 130% keep dropping out. So how does Jim Griggs promote his product: Ans., as a reasonably efficient boiler/evaporator (i.e. close to 1:1) which by its design can handle "dirty" water, and not suffer mechanical degradation due to the contaminates in the "feed stock". - QUESTION: Is it fraud to market something as LESS 'effecient' than it actually is? Or just 'good marketing/engineering' practice? MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 15:42:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29827; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:34:42 -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: Longituinal force definitive test X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > >I don't think so, Horace! Remember, the current flowing in the outer >grounded sheath HAS NO FIELD EFFECT on any of the circuit inside of it. >I tried to follow your suggestion on the "hot" power sheath by placing >it as far to the left as the stiffness of the floating center conductor >would permit (I guess additional insulating spacers could be used to >prevent sag in the center rod.). > >Now, I know the field of the center conductor extends off to the left, >but this is no different than in your original setup. I think the >field of the center conductor will exert rightward rail-gun pressure >on the cross-sectional area of the floating sheath, but this is >probably true of any sheath of finite thickness. > >Frank Stenger By which laws is the above true? For example, if the "grounded sheath HAS NO FIELD EFFECT" were true you could expect that a coaxial railgun would have half the efficiency of a regular railgun, under Biot-Savart, because there would be no interaction with the outer rail current. We can't presume which law is true when the objective is to differentiate the results. The force I have the greatest difficulty eliminating or compensating for or measuring is the Lorenz style force that should be in the rail metal where current bends to head out of, or into, the rail to a contact point. It is this force that makes designing a sliding joint or gap that permits easy measuring of the inital forces on a rail segment. Maybe using high voltage and a spark gap is an answer. Even then, there would be some pinching and also some outward force due to the spark blast, and a lack of symmetry due to the point nature of the spark origin. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 15:48:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA00104; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:35:31 -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: PAGD and Correa patents X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/09/96 14:22 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: PAGD and Correa patents Bob: Thanks for your comments on Correa. As I have noted before, the simple, direct method of proving "excess" from his devices is the "daisy chain" battery approach. Because it seems "difficult" to obtain this info from the Correa's in a clear, concise form, and because they only want "visits" from "serious investors", frankly I do smell either: A. "A rat", or B. The "inventors disease". MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 15:49:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA00342; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 15:36:11 -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: Bill Beaty and his electric force! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Frank Stenger's calculation: >Bill: If I have this right, the energy density of an electric field >in a vacuum - air too, if we aren't being too picky, is given by: > > joules/meter^3 = 4.425 * (megavolts/meter)^2 . > >Sea level air can take about 3 megavolts/meter at break-down, so, > > joules/meter^3, MAX, = about 39.82 >>> same as > > neuton-meter/meter^3 >>> same as neuton/meter^2 >>> pascals > > So, 39.82 pascals >>> 0.0058 PSI >>> 0.835 lb./ft^2 . makes an excellent point. First let's check the numbers with units I use. Energy density = V * Q/2 = V * V * C /2 (MKS) where V is the voltage, Qis the charge and C is the capacitance of a meter cubed of free space or C = 8.8542 * 10^-12 farads (just the permittivity of free space) so then Energy density = 4.427 * (megavolts/meter)^2 Mabey I am using a wrong value but who cares, the numbers agree to two places in the fourth digit. Frank's conversion from pascals to lb/ft^2 appears also to be right. It would appear that the reports of this very large force are false or we have some force that is not electric. The important thing to do now, I think, is to see just how much evidence from first hand eye wittnesses can be obtained. In paticular did Dave Swenson, the 3M engineer involved, actually experience this large force? Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 16:58:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA15806; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 16:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 16:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608092310.QAA13554@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: Funding Progress and ????? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Greetings to the group. I have finally made a few good connections to some people with some bucks. My attourney says that he has a meeting scheduled with some contacts who have regularly funded 100+ million dollar projects. Of course, the work I am trying to put forward will be more of angel funding than bonified VC money. In any case, he asked me to ascertain as much info as I can about real live funding of projects. Especially where major companies are involved. I was wondering if any of you might have some info you could send on over. I need info on funding of projects like Patterson, P&F by the Japanese, or any government funding of projects and of course, EPRI funding. I also need some juicy tidbits of devices that seem to have definitely produced nuclear reactions. I am not picky that they be identified as "fusion". But that they are not chemical is a must and verification of this at national labs is a plus as well. Any help would be appreciated. My lawyer will be speaking with the sources next week sometime. Thanks, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 18:22:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA02094; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 18:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 18:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608100111.SAA18679@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: Bill Beaty and his electric force! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >William Beaty wrote: > >> Question: could the e-fields from such a setup be strong enough to prevent >> a person from walking forward? I would think that they would be too weak, >> and they would cause attraction rather than repulsion. Could the e-fields >> affect the nervous system? Perhaps the strong fields attract something >> else which then provides the "wall" effect. Aerosol/polymers? Dark >> matter? :) > >Bill: If I have this right, the energy density of an electric field >in a vacuum - air too, if we aren't being too picky, is given by: > > joules/meter^3 = 4.425 * (megavolts/meter)^2 . > >Sea level air can take about 3 megavolts/meter at break-down, so, > > joules/meter^3, MAX, = about 39.82 >>> same as I used to perform dielectric strength measurements on teflon and PVC dielectrics in a cable manufacturing facility. It seems to me that we had values like 1,000 volts per thousandth of an inch. We used Hipot testors capable of failing the cables dielectrics if there was insufficient insulation between conductors. This could occur at levels of 10,000 volts, to 15 KV for just a few thousandths of an inch. Poly pro is a good dielectric. So in the above analysis, it is presumed that the electrons are free to move through the air. As the coils are wound, the electrons are trapped between subsequent layers of the plastic film. Wouldn't this keep the air from breaking down since you are dealing with the dielectric strength of the plastic, and not the air, in the electron confinement? If you have a large number of layers, each with say, 3 KV of charge, then you should be multiplying the electric field with each subsequent layer. But the plastic and the air will not break down because the charges are not free to move through the plastic. It seems to me that you get a couple of KV per layer, and at a mil or so per layer and say a 20 inch diameter roll, then you have 20,000 layers leading to 20MV or thereabouts. This level of a field would be huge, so I don't know if this is whacko or not, but it is a heck of a lot more than the simple air breakdown voltage. I guess the question would be how mobile are the electrons. ie, are they free to squirt out of the ends of the rolls by migrating outward along the layers of plastic to get away from the intense fields that have built up? If they cannot freely migrate (and this would not surprise me with the plastics involved), then a huge field seems reasonable to me. In the manufacture of the roll guides, do they have some large metal shields at the ends of the rolls, or brushes in contact with the ends where electrons might be squirting out so that they are transported to ground? Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 20:23:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA22361; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 20:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 20:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320BFC34.642A@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 and his electric force! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: > > >William Beaty wrote: > > > >> Question: could the e-fields from such a setup be strong enough to prevent > >> a person from walking forward? (Ross concludes) > not surprise me with the plastics involved), then a huge field seems > reasonable to me. I see what your getting at, Ross, but I think the fields in the plastic are limited to the volume inside the plastic. Also, the POTENTIAL, in VOLTS inside the plastic is up for grabs! Maybe it does reach way more than 3 megavolts - as you say, many plastics can isolate 1000 volts/mil or more. However, out in the air where the people are, the POTENTIAL GRADIENT (E) can not go much above 3 megavolts, or the air will ionize by spark or by corona discharge (through the people, if necessary!) to get E back down to its 3 megavolt limit. It's the value of E near the people that would determine the electric pressure on them - I'm not saying I understand what the force was these people felt - only what it's "E" limit would be. But hey! I've seen some impressive high voltage action with sheet plastic too, and I wonder if rolling - unrolling plastic sheet would be a neat way for garage physicists to generate huge potentials by stuffing them inside a large roll of plastic? Let's see, 1000 volts/mil X a roll 10 inches thick, mmmmmmmmmmmmm 10,000 mils >>>>>> 10 MILLION VOLTS!!! WOW! Busy-wrapping-himself-in-plastic, Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri Aug 9 23:45:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA23556; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 23:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 23:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960810063532_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: Bill Beaty and his electric force! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank said: > But hey! I've seen some impressive high voltage > action with sheet plastic too, and I wonder if rolling > - unrolling plastic sheet would be a neat way for > garage physicists to generate huge potentials by > stuffing them inside a large roll of plastic? Sounds to me like a big wide VDG belt that just keeps rolling up at one end instead of continuously transferring the charge it carries onto an accumulating conductive surface. And with poor/no conduction through the plastic, I'm with Ross on this one: the charge stored in the roll could be huge, and wouldn't necessarily discharge through the air, even at upwards of the 3meg V/m. Even if the air "breaks down", what is there to discharge except for the few mobile charges on the effective outer surface? There *has* to be a conductive route for a bulk discharge to happen, and theoretically it's blocked (ignoring other possible routes in a real world situation) by the dielectric strength (breakdown value) of the plastic! Way cool. And it makes me wonder if the molecules of air or other dielectrics are doing anything "interesting" when they're in a field well in excess of their normal breakdown value where the insulation around the stored charge prevents conduction. Wouldn't this be a common situation in any >3meg V/m field where electrode surfaces are insulated by a >3meg V/m material, but there's also an air gap or other lesser dielectric strength substance between them where the field is still above 3meg V/m or whatever? Then of course there's the issue of the effects on humans. Since we are normally quite zapped by the time we've gotten ourselves in such a field where there were available charge carriers as well as routes of conduction, this does not sound like a common thing for us to have experienced, and yet lived to tell about! Nerves controlling muscles for breathing and blood-pumping, not to mention those used to walk and say things like "Holy Sh*t!", all use ions. I'm sure there's some point in an increasing e-field at which that system begins to fail, for reasons other than discharges from/to the external charge source bringing it all to a sudden halt in the conventional way. Non-lethal defensive weapons application? (You could always just slap the bad guy in the face with your 20' roll of plastic, but I was thinking of possible advances in miniaturization here) And another question: if such a bundle of plastic-trapped charge were curved in a hemisphere or similarly shaped package, would that not concentrate the field at the focus to some even higher value? This again assumes the charge particles simply aren't free to scoot around within the confinement to rearrange themselves in an actual distribution not as conducive to focusing action. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 00:53:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA05922; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 00:49:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 00:49:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960810073946_100060.173_JHB46-1@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: Bill Beaty and his electric force! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rick: >> And another question: if such a bundle of plastic-trapped charge were curved in a hemisphere or similarly shaped package, << Reminds me of the construction of golf balls - why not get the effect with filaments as well as sheets - imagine a golf ball which refuses to land, let alone drop into the hole! Norman From billb@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 08:54:52 1996 Received: from netra.interlaced.net (Netra.Interlaced.NET [206.21.49.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA24095 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 08:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fstenger by netra.interlaced.net with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0upGN5-000GeAC; Sat, 10 Aug 96 11:54 EDT Message-ID: <320CB0C3.72C4@interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:54:43 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bill Beaty and his electric force! References: <960810063532_76216.2421_HHB31-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: I'm with > Ross on this one: the charge stored in the roll could be huge, and wouldn't > necessarily discharge through the air, even at upwards of the 3meg V/m. Even if > the air "breaks down", what is there to discharge except for the few mobile > charges on the effective outer surface? The outer surface of plastic is exactly where the charge adjustment would be made to maintain < 3 meg V/m in the surrounding air! I think modern VDG generators do about 20 megavolt potential difference inside pressurized metal tanks. The potential of the electrodes inside the tank may be + 10 meg V and - 10 meg V but the tank wall is at ground potential and the E field outside the tank in the air is zero. If the air E field outside our roll of plastic exceeded 3 meg V/m, the air - acting like the non-linear conductor that it is - would "ground" the outer plastic layer until its conduction stopped, at around 3 meg V/m. If the roll were very big (ignore its curvature) and it was one meter above a conductive floor, then the outer layer of plastic could be at about 3 meg V potential above (or below) ground potential. If the roll were 2 meters above the floor - then 6 meg V - etc. If you take the center of the roll to 100 meg V above ground and the outer layer is at 6 meg V above ground then: ################## <------ 100 meg V __________________ __________________ __________________ plastic layers ----> __________________ __________________ outer layer -------> __________________ 6 meg V above ground .................. .................. 2 meters of air ---> .................. .................. ################## zero V above ground (floor) So, the E in the plastic would be 100-6 = 94 meg V/(tot. plastic thick.) The E in the air would be 6-0 = 6 meg V/(2 meters) = 3 meg V/m. The 6 meg V limit is a boundary condition for air. If you want the outer layer to go above this, presurize the room with a good insulating gas - and you're all set! Back to house remodeling ------------ Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 10:34:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA09561; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 10:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 10:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960810131900_175778614@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: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-08-07 00:57:46 EDT, Michael Schaffer wrote: > greatly exceeds the drive power, and that this is a demonstration of >transient ou. However, I must point out that AC coupling capacitors C3 and >C5, as well as the obvious smoothing capacitors C7a and C7b, are all energy >storage elements. >A more conventional explanation is that the drive battery pack charges C3 >and C5 during the 2 sec or so between high power pulses, after which the >power pulse is just the discharge of their energy into the load pack >system. More specifically, when the tube is in its quiet, high resistance >state, the drive pack charges C3 and C5 via the circuit consisting of D1, >R1, C5, D3, D8, charge pack, D7, D5, C3, D4. Also note that C7a and C7b >also get charged in parallel with the charge pack. When the tube suddenly >switches on (conducting, low resistance), it lets C3 and C5 discharge >through the circuit consisting of C5, C3, D6, C7b in series with C7a plus >the charge pack in parallel, D2. >With four energy-storing capacitors in the circuit, ou performance can only >be determined from data spanning a complete cycle, not just a high power >phase that is only about 1% of the cycle. The fact that 200 W average >drive power / 25,000 W peak power = 0.8% is consistent with non-ou. >BTW, the C7 center tap connection to one point of the bridge is not >conventional for a bridge rectifier and will make unusual waveforms with >respect to ground at some circuit nodes. This distortion could be a source >of confusion if it is not appreciated and understood. >> Schaffer's point is appropriate, and arrives just as I was doing some serious analysis of the circuit, looking for just his point; could the energy burst be *just* the discharge of the coupling and storage capacitors C3, C5, C7a and C7b? First, a couple of details. In the charge path proposed, D3 conducts, so C7b accumulates negligible charge, but part of the charge current is diverted to C7a until it reaches the voltage of the CP. The full picture is much more complex. I've discussed this with Correa, and it looks like this: In the data shown, the reactor is active for 25 ms, the goes nonconductive. The energy release occurs principally in about 3 ms and is oscillatory, but leaves C5 and C3 charged with the anode positive, blocking current flow from the drive pack until the reactor again becomes conductive. R1 is 300 ohms. With C3 and C5 in series, the net capacitance is around 17,000 uf and the time constant about 5 sec. The charge path proposed includes CP at about 300 V, so the net voltage is about 200 V. The inrush current would then be about 200/300 = .66 A if the capacitors were discharged as in a glow-discharge relaxation oscillator. This would be visible to the instrumentation, which does not show it. I have performed careful graphical integration on the waveforms described in my earlier post. The charge delivered by the DP is .08 Coulomb; that received by the CP is 24 Coulombs. Power delivered by the DP is 4.4 joules; that received by the CP is 42 Joules. Capacitors C7a and C7b buffer the battery from the shock of the energy burst. The center tap is unusual, but it plays a role in the overall functioning of the PAGD and was determined experimentally. One could quibble about this pulse data at length, which is why Correa performed the other experiments with charging calibrated batteries. One could also quibble about the batteries at length, but we have two complimentary sets of observations, both of which point to o/u performance. There are two other oscillograms which I have chosen not to put in the article, because they were taken under different conditions and would raise still more detail questions. The performance of the PAGD reactor is influenced by many things. Correa is notably complete in the discussions in his three patents, but one eventually realizes that not all the pieces were shipped with the jigsaw puzzle. Aspden has written an analysis of the Correa reactor as being supportive of his view of aether physics and electrodynamics. Perhaps the whole system has unseen connections to the continuum. At one point in patent '989, Correa notes that: "Other factors can also influence the frequency: the motion of external permanent magnetic fields oriented longitundinally with the intereelectrode gap, external pulsed or alternating magnetic fields, external electrostatic or electromagnetic fields, specific connections of the earth ground, and the presence of a parallel capacitative, capacitative-inductive or self-inductive arm in the circuit..." I don't at present pretend to have a full comprehension of this system. I'm looking for signs of the o/u beast, and its claw-marks are all over the place. Questions and critiques are welcome and I will happily confess to errors, as truth is the goal we all seek.. But please do the homework, as I have. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 10:28:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA09633; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 10:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 10:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960810131843_175778632@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: CETI replication efforts X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In the course of my study of the Correa PAGD reactor, I have dug into the work of Harold Aspden, who has put a pot of years into the development of an aether physics. In one of his papers on the CF effect, he proposes that a thermal gradient through the metallic lattice is necessary for the reaction to occur. Thus static calorimitry would tend to suppress the reaction. Thus, too, the styrene beads of the Patterson Cell may be important because of they are poor thermal conductors. Glass beads, having higher thermal conductivity and higher specific heat, may also suppress the reaction. A mere thought bubble, for whatever value it may have. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 10:55:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14281; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 10:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 10:48:52 -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: Funding Progress and ????? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/09/96 16:58 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Funding Progress and ????? Ross: Why don't you contact Tom Passel at EPRI and see if he'll send you the 5 volumes that they have published on Cold Fusion? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 11:12:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA16608; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608101757.KAA26804@dfw-ix10.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: Doug Morgan to Jones X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ever since Mr. Doug Morgan posted his "Dewar Flask" posting on the spf, there has been some exchange of e-mails with him. He has been kind enough to cc some correspondence with Richard Blue and J. Jones which I thought were interesting to foward it to the Vortex for every one to see. I have obtained his permission to do so. I think it starts to throw some light to activities in the CF anolomies prior to 1989 of Steve Jones and P&F. My post on August 8th was made on the erroneous assumption that Doug joined the Vortex and posted this message. Doug Morgan to Jones: Jonathan E. Jones wrote: > > I read your note in sci.physics.fusion. I worked with Dr. Steve Jones > for several years on cold fusion type cells. One of the experiments we > ran was thermal shocking of D2 and H2 loaded titanium (I believe we tryed > some palladium to but titanium is a lot cheaper). We never saw any > neutron emmissions from these experiments. Perhaps, we didn't have the > right loading ratios. Do you have any more information on these type of > experiments. > > Jonathan E. Jones I believe a book entitled "hydrogen in metals" gives some information on the subject. I cannot locate any copies at the moment. I might try searching an on-line library catalog. The book only mentionned this behavior with titanium so I suspect that this has significance. It also mentions that platinum seems to be different (in this and other related aspects) than nickel, palladium, and titanium. I think that this difference could be readily be exploited in verifying nuclear reaction origins. (See below) The book also discusses in detail odd exothermic anomolies in the measurment of the thermal conductivity of these metals at low temepratures. Another interesting anomoly (called the strangest by the author) is the fact that deuterium has a higher difusivity in palladium than hydrogen. My experience has shown that certain nickel on Al catalsyts loaded with ultrahigh pure hydrogen (most likely palladium filtered and hence deuterium rich) are much more "pyrophoric" (acually quite explosive). My work indicates that sudden exposure of such catalyst systems to oxygen leads to violent and sudden heat releases. With industrial hydrogen the heat release is sufficent to vaporize many times the mass of the catalyst in oils and to melt insultation coverings, valving and vessels. I have seen several pounds of heavy oils boiled by 100 g or so of catalyst. Such catalsts usually contain about 1% palladium or nickel. One experiement involving about .1 gram of catalyst loaded with ultrs purity H2 in a TGA cell resulted in a nasty explosion that destroyed a small lab. No one was hurt because no one was there. When it happened, we chose to not investigate further because we were not up to facing a potentially scary reality. We chose to not investigate further even though we had considered fooling around in this fashion immediately after the PF CF announcement. (We were privay to some scary news from Utah). We kept a low profile because we were not up to facing a potentially scary reality. (I take a little pride in having worked with this particuliar group since it seemed we could always do want we evisionned as possible). It was in trying to make sense of this experiment that I came across the palladium diffusivity citation. It was also this experiment (which occurred in 1989) that made me reluctant to work anymore on the subject. I hope everyone else is comfortable with what they are doing. When it happened, We chose to not investigate further even though we had considered fooling around in this fashion immediately after the PF CF announcement. We kept a low profile because we were not up to facing a potentially scary reality. (I take a little pride in having worked with this particuliar group since it seemed we could always do want we evisionned as possible). Someone might want to do some (careful) calorimetic experiments with nickel, palladium, and platinum loaded catalysts to see if there is a significant difference in heat generation during loaded catalyst oxygenation. Please take extreme caution when experimenting in this area. Any catalyst loaded with palladium filtered or otherwise deuterium enriched hydrogen can be VERY dangerous. Also, note that the fury over "Brown's gas" lends credance to this particular branch of CF - even if Dr. Brown has misidentified (intentionally?) the principle behind the phenomoenom. Sincerely, Doug Morgan -- Someday everything is going to be different when I paint my masterpiece. And that's what its all about! -AK- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 11:25:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18081; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608101808.LAA11252@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: Doug Morgan to Richard Blue' remarks X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: This is Doug Morgan's response to Richard Blu's remarks on the Dewar Flask" posting. Richard Blue has since responded to Doug which I will post after this. Doug Morgan writes: >Richard A Blue wrote: > > I assume this is a reference to the landmark results published early > in the CF era as: > > "Evidence of emission of neutrons from a titanium-deuterium system," >by A. De Ninno, A. Frattolillo, G. Lollobattista, L. Martinis, >M. Martone, L. Mori, S. Podda, and F. Scaramuzzi > > What makes this particular publication so significant is, I believe, >what it tells us about cold fusion research and about those who have >been outspoken advocates supporting each and every claim for cold >fusion success. > > The above paper, in fact, is perhaps the worst example of a totally > bogus claim for cold fusion success based on experimental evidence that > could only be produced by inexperienced, bumbling, incompetent, and > wrong-headed experimenters who were so convinced they would detect > neutrons before they turned on their instruments that they could not > bother to consider the possibility that they might make a serious > error. > > The result was data that could not possibly have been produced by > cold fusion or any other process that involves the emission and > detection of neutrons. In fact the data reveals that, without any > doubt whatsoever, the detection electronics is simply exhibiting > a form of malfunction common to neutron detection systems based > of Bf3 counters. It is something that anyone experienced with > nuclear detection equipment would recognize immediately. > > For those not familiar with this paper let me summarize. The output > from a BF3 counter was processed by the standard sort of electronics > and recorded as counts per 10 minute interval in a PC-based data > logging set-up where the timing was handled by the PC over some > 60 hours of total recording time. > > The dead giveaway that something is terribly wrong with the data > is the fact that the counts per 10 minute interval fall at only > three rate levels: There are either 0 counts, roughly 10 counts, > or roughly 20 counts! > > The statistics is all wrong! You just can't get that kind of data > from a random process unless you do something which forces the > outcome, and it is easy to guess just exactly how these experimenters > forced this bogus result. It is something known as "ringing." If > the amplifier is hit with an input pulse that drives the circuit into > overload in the process of recovery the output may actually oscillate > as an exponentially decaying sine wave. Each oscillation in that > decay is counted as an individual pulse in a very regular pattern > with each input overload producing 10 counts instead of only one. > > So we can say with a high degree of confidence that instead of > observing bursts of 10 or 20 neutrons, as the claimed, De Ninno, > et al. were observing overload pulses such as those that might > be produced by electrical breakdown in the BF3 counter -- a not > uncommon problem with those devices. > > I submit then that this claim for cold fusion success with the > "Dewar flask trick" was totally false and that the authors of > the paper, by publishing such data, reveal themselves as being > unqualified to make a good case for cold fusion. > > Furthermore, the fact that this data is often cited by others > in the community of CF supporters shows us that there has been > a significant lack of critical judgement exercised within the > ranks of the CF researchers. > > True, there is an unusually observation here, but the explanation > lies not is some mysterious aberation of physical processes. The > aberation is in the way cold fusion advocates have treated >experimental results that are quite clearly bogus. > > Dick Blue In some ways I hope you are correct. However, I doubt that the original researchers in the area are going to be on the internet unless there is a server in the after life. I have never published results on this subject for personal reasons. I also see a lot of "bumbling going on" - the foremost beingthe very drive to perfect performing low temperature fusion in one's basement. I am not sure that this is an all to saintly or safety minded goal. Second on my list is the electolysis work since it is so difficult to reproduce and so limited in its energy producing capability. The "gee whiz" factor is also embarrissingly high (i.e. much less research and too much reproduction work However, I also see a lot of seemingly unrelated phenomenom that have been reported for many years (more than 50) which I think have a fundamental basis in cold fusion without the influence of recent hysteria. I also see a lot of respected people acting too quickly to criticize those with some pro CF leanings in sometimes harmful and definitely negligent ways. I guess a significant part of my motivation in the area lies in my desire to prove those who tried to lock me up when I got a little concerned about some observations - to be reckless and libelous meanies (that I am entitled to extract rather large compensation from) rather than to be the one to announce THE CF breakthrough of all time. However, this motivation is severely counterbalanced by my feeling that placing my reputation and financial security against the safety of everyone on the planet is wrong. I hope you don't think that I took any offense to your posting in the newsgroup. To the contrary, I was feeling a little irresponsible for having posted it. I was wondering, do you really have such strong anti-CF feelings or are you just trying to do the right thing? I hope also that you will respect my desire not to air my thoughts in too public of a forum. Thanks Doug Morgan President First Principle Controls -- Someday everything is going to be different when I paint my masterpiece. And that's what its all about! -AK- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 11:29:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA19359; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608101819.LAA10986@dfw-ix5.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: Richard Blue to Doug Morgan X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Doug Morgan received this from Richard Blue and responded: > Doug, > The point I have been most adamant about relates less to the > question of whether or how one might induce cold fusion and > more to the issue of who one detects such a process. In other > words I would judge all cold fusion investigations by their > experimental design and reject ( or at least give little weight > to) the experiments that involve only calorimetry. > > I argue that the mere assertion that there is an exoergic > process involving an energy release "beyond chemistry" has > logical implications that must not be ignored. To my mind > "beyond chemistry" does literally mean that the energy > release event is capable of producing significant disruption > of atomic structure, i.e. there must be states of ionization > involved and hench X-ray production is likely. > > Next one must ask what sorts of states of excitation are available > in these systems and how can they be produced. The only resonable > answer that I have ever seen at any time in the discussion of > cold fusion involves nuclear transformations, and this is the > area where I believe I can legitimately claim to have a sound > working knowledge and extensive practically experience with > precisely the sorts of nuclear reaction processes that have > been proposed. > > Basically it comes down to the fact that states of nuclear > excitation, just as in bound atomic systems, have certain > characteristic quatum levels -- levels that have been investigated > under all sorts of conditions for more than 50 years. So I > think I am safe in asserting that we do know a great deal > about these nuclear systems and how they behave. It follows > that we do know how these nuclear excitations decay, and we do > know how to detect these decays with sensitivities that exceed > the sorts of calorimetry being done for CF by something like > thirteen orders of magnitude. I would say that could even > be pushed up by perhaps four more orders of magnitude, as has > been done in the work by Steve Jones, for example. > > Now the appropriate methods for doing CF investigations becomes > clear. Simply put everything you do is in the presence of an > appropriate detector for one or more of the following forms of > radiation: neutrons, energetic charged particles, gamma rays > or X-rays. Any experiment that does not involve one of the above > is simply ignored as nothing more than perhaps a preliminary > run to learn how some system behaves thermodynamically. One > that preliminary work is done there can be no excuse for not > wheeling in a suitable detector. For example, since CETI > has demonstrated their device for a year or so they have had > ample time to do a proper experiment. Since that has not been > done (or at least not reported) we can X them off the books. > No further consideration is needed. > > So what about the arguments that there is some "special condition" > that allows nuclear excitations to decay in a way that is totally > undetectable, i.e. a deexcitation process that looks just exactly > like what occurs when atomic excitations decay in a solid. > Obviously this is a form of special pleading right from the start > and should be suspect for that reason alone. > > The real problem with the "special condition" argument, as I see it, > is that it defies the basis of standard quantum perturbation theory. > Perturbation theory, in a nut shell, says that large perturbations > in wavefunctions can be produced only by large changes in the Hamiltonian > for the system. So consider the claim that a 20 MeV excited state in > helium decays by the creation of several million phonons. That requires > a perturbation that splits a single 20 MeV state into a million eV > states. The perturbation required to do that is like 20 MeV! No > dinky little lattice interaction is doing to do that. It is totally > unreal to even suggest it, and no one seriously has. > > You may have heard that this or that theorist has some explanation > for cold fusion, but that is pure bull. There is no theory for > a cold fusion reaction process in metal hydrides. > > Now if you were going to pick a nuclear fuel for cold fusion, deuterium > is the likely candidate. The recent change in focus to systems involving > plain H2O is a clear indicator that CF investigations have gone totally > off the trolley. The fact that "excess heat" is being generated with > ordinary water is a very clear sign that nothing like a nuclear reaction > is involved in whatever is going on. > > Now that is pretty much how I approach the cold fusion question. > > Dick Blue Some more to add: 1. I only feel comfortable detailing my theory to people that I know enough about. Getting it on paper is not a problem since I wrote it down in 1989. Getting it via email is somewhat problematic since I wrote it on a 286 with a 5.25 disk try. The most convincing thing about the theory it is how it consistently explains what seem like minor points in a variety of seemingly different areas including Metal Hydrides, Catalysis, Brown's Gas, hydrolisis, and relative difusivities. 2. The difussivity phenomenom is easily reproduced, yet still unexplained. You seem to be connected to a University. Why doesn't someone look into this? It seems that the only explanation avalaizble is going to invlove the nucleus and will therefore be beyond chemistry. This would make a hell of a masters or PhD thesis. Or a good project for a freelance researcher (Hint!) Besides being a tantalizing research topic, the difusifity issue has special meaning to me. It was after my third and final experiment that I started to look into the CF thing. When I started to consider things I have seen and to test the model against it I hit a major stumbling block over the first experiment. This was the one that invlovled Ni on Al. The problem was that it was not the one that involved by far the least amount of metal (.01 g vs 10 to 100 g) but also the one that seemed to have reeked the most devastation. Since it occurred three years before I put much thought into it, I talked to an associate in the catalyst lab wheich had the accident and asked whether we might have been using Dueterium at the time for info on isotope effects or something. He said no, we were using ultrs high purity H2. I almost shelved my idea over this since I thought people would use some test that would detect Deuterium and therefore limit the purity. But I stuck with it because I thought that there was an outside chance that the purification processes used might enrich deuterium. Next I turned to my office mate (a Vietnamese engineer who remembers smoking opium and not wearing shoes in college in Saigon) how hydrogen was purified. I asked him because he has a memory like an elephant. (However, as is often the case, He does not do very well at applying it ) He simply stated," Paladium memberane". And then went on to explain the concept a little more since that made little sense at first. this discouraged me more since I was hoping that difusion was NOT involved for obvious reasons. I went to the in-house library to see if he was right. While there I came across the infamous "Hydrogen in metals" book. After perusing it and picking up some interesting tid bits (like the Titanium one), I moved on to look under diffusion or Pd it was during a sort of uniterested glance that I cuaght these words, "the strangest thing about the D/H/Pd system is that D has a higher diffusivity in Pd than H"! 4. All the experiments I have down were actually dangerous accidents. So please, if you take anything that I write serious, make it thelurking danger that I refer to. Sincerely, Doug Morgan President First Principle Controls 313 W Saulnier Houston, TX 77019 (713) 521-3223 http://www.netcom.com/~dmorgs/firstprin/analyzers.html -- Someday everything is going to be different when I paint my masterpiece. And that's what its all about! -AK- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 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 LAA20460; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960810142314.31971a76@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: CETI replication efforts X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 10:23 AM 8/10/96 -0700, Mike Carrell wrote: >In the course of my study of the Correa PAGD reactor, I have dug into the >work of Harold Aspden, who has put a pot of years into the development of an >aether physics. In one of his papers on the CF effect, he proposes that a >thermal gradient through the metallic lattice is necessary for the reaction >to occur. > >Thus static calorimitry would tend to suppress the reaction. Thus, too, the >styrene beads of the Patterson Cell may be important because of they are poor >thermal conductors. Glass beads, having higher thermal conductivity and >higher specific heat, may also suppress the reaction. > >A mere thought bubble, for whatever value it may have. > >Mike Carrell > > Good points. However, static calorimetry does not have some of the potential errors of vertical flow calorimetry. Very few papers exist discussing the potential errors of such non-static calorimetry (http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html), or some solutions to minimize the impact (cf. Barry Merriman's web site, or my pending paper). Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 11:59:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23168; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:47:26 -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: Over-Unity-Experiment-that worked ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortex, This last week I have been very busy dealing with an italian inventor that has what he believes is a way to produce energy out of...well...thin air (not that air is always so thin). It seems that this person (one of the most educated people that I have met in some time) has came upon an effect that could be a key to clean, cheap energy production. It would seem that he has discovered that when a fluid reaches a certain velocity an unexpected pressure differential occurs within the fluid mass. This effect can then be used to produce power using common devices. It would also seem that this effect could explain the energy output of a tornado, or even the Yusmar. :) Two small experimental devices have already been produced and there is hope that a third larger device (several kilowatts) will be constructed soon. The inventor has applied for a patent on his device so he has asked me to be careful with the information. My part if this project advances, would be to do a computer model of the effect an possibly build the larger prototype in a russian lab. Just some FYI. I like this one because the power output needs no null-balanced to detect (kind of like trinity on a much, much smaller scale)....It produces enough energy that one can experience unaided. There are also valid accepted set equations that show the possibility of this effect. It may be that the effect is voided by an increase in size, but lets hope not. Oh NO....not again! From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 2 14:30:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA07603; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607021922.MAA07272@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: Another Believer! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The following note appeared in my email box today. After conversing with with John, he said it was agreeable to post this to Vortex. John is a member in good standing of the International Precious Metal Institute and is starting to see the writing on the wall. John's main business is operating precious metal metal refineries, domestic and international. Also, he will field any personal questions. >Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 13:05:24 -0400 >From: "JOHN F. WILLIAMS" >Reply-To: DRAWER, M, STONY, CREEK, VA., 23882@TECHCOM.NET >To: discpub@netzone.com >Subject: person to person-- To: Joe Champion > >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". > >It has been two years or more since we have communicated and in that >time my understanding of your discoveries has broadened. My appologies >for frustrating you with my doubts. Would like to hear from you. > >John F. Williams >Catalytics S. A. >catalytics@techcom.net > _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 12:14:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA25941; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 12:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 12:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9608101903.AA10331@joshua.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: Over-Unity-Experiment-that worked ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: dacha wrote: I like this one because the power output needs no null-balanced to detect (kind of like trinity on a much, much smaller scale)....It produces enough energy that one can experience unaided. There are also valid accepted set equations that show the possibility of this effect. -------------- I realize you are being intentionally vague, but its hard to imagine that any pressure differntial in a fluid system that is described by accepted equations could produce net power. All the accepted equations I am familiar with CONSERVE ENERGY---so unless your prssure effect allows you to tap some extant energy reservoir (such as nuclear energy, in the manner that fluid equations describe inertial confinment fusion) it is simply not possible to get any energy. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 12:28:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA28199; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 12:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 12:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608101918.OAA10025@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: Doug Morgan to Richard Blue' remarks X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >>Richard A Blue wrote: >> The dead giveaway that something is terribly wrong with the data >> is the fact that the counts per 10 minute interval fall at only >> three rate levels: There are either 0 counts, roughly 10 counts, >> or roughly 20 counts! Dick is certainly correct about this point. If you DID have a neutron source that was delivering an average of 1 neutron/minute to your detector, then you would expect to see an average of 10 counts in every 10 minute period and you would expect to see the standard deviation in a series of such counts be SQRT(10) or about +/-3. A typical set of values with such a std dev is: 10, 7, 9, 13, 12, 15, 7, 10, 5, 9, 13, etc. - 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 Aug 10 12:47:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA29665; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 12:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 12:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608101924.OAA10232@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: Over-Unity-Experiment-that worked ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:47 AM 8/10/96 -0700, Robert wrote: >This last week I have been very busy dealing with an >italian inventor.... >It would seem that he has discovered that when a fluid >reaches a certain velocity an unexpected pressure.... Without revealing the secret could you please describe the experiment from a black-box standpoint? I'd like to know how the input/output power ratio was measured, pressures, temperatures, flow rates, etc. With that information we could perhaps provide an impartial evaluation of the validity of this fantastic measurement. - 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 Aug 10 12:50:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA02045; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 12:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 12:42:42 -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: Re: Bill Beaty and his electric force! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Larry Wharton wrote: > It would appear that the reports of this very > large force are false or we have some force that is not electric. The > important thing to do now, I think, is to see just how much evidence from > first hand eye wittnesses can be obtained. In paticular did Dave Swenson, > the 3M engineer involved, actually experience this large force? Yes, he's the one who discovered it. He says that the plant manager didn't believe him, so they both went down to the factory floor to try it out. Of course it didn't work anymore! Dave says that he suspected the reason for the failure was the higher humidity that day (summer in South Carolina), so they tried it again early the next day when the humidity was lower, and the effect had returned. He reports that they were physically unable to walk through the corridor. I asked if he could lean his entire weight against the force, and he said yes. ....................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 Aug 10 15:57:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA19619; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608102003.NAA19046@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: Bill Beaty and his electric force! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I see what your getting at, Ross, but I think the fields in the plastic >are limited to the volume inside the plastic. Also, the POTENTIAL, in >VOLTS inside the plastic is up for grabs! Maybe it does reach way more >than 3 megavolts - as you say, many plastics can isolate 1000 volts/mil >or more. Yes. 1,000 V/m is a piece of cake. And 1 mil plastic is also a common size. I just went out in the shop and got a micrometer. Both the plastic bags you get in the store for produce, and Saran wrap are 0.0005 inch thick. So, you would have 2,000 layers in an inch of that stuff. With a voltage potential of 1,000 V/0.001 inch, you get quite a lot of buildup without exceeding the breakdown voltage of the plastic since you are adding voltage in series through the volume. >However, out in the air where the people are, the POTENTIAL GRADIENT (E) >can not go much above 3 megavolts, or the air will ionize by spark or >by corona discharge (through the people, if necessary!) to get E back >down to its 3 megavolt limit. I understand what you are saying here, but think it is incorrect. This presumes that the electrons are free to flow in order to equalize the voltage gradient between the source and sink. In this case, they are bound up in the plastic roll and cannot get out in order to arc. Also, the electric field is not bound up in the plastic, it extends out through the plastic into space. So, if you could get a bunch of electrons into that roll (or deficit thereof), they would emit that field into the surrounding space. Makes you wonder whether the objects around the roll would attain like, or opposite polarity. If the entire region around the roll is ionized as you say, perhaps there is a like charge build up on the people due to some form of static corona in the vicinity. Also makes me think of things like a Penning trap if I recall the name right. The one where they trap an electron or a positron (Priscilla) all by its lonesome (up in Seattle I think it was). They use an interesting shape of positive and negative electrodes to shape the field and trap the electron inside. I thought of that from the description of the tent like shape of the drapped plastic. Well, I don't know what else to say here, Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 16:07:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA20771; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 16:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 16:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608102124.OAA32726@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: Funding Progress and ????? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 04:47 PM 8/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >Greetings to the group. > >I have finally made a few good connections to some people with some bucks. >My attourney says that he has a meeting scheduled with some contacts who >have regularly funded 100+ million dollar projects. Of course, the work I >am trying to put forward will be more of angel funding than bonified VC >money. In any case, he asked me to ascertain as much info as I can about >real live funding of projects. Especially where major companies are involved. > >I was wondering if any of you might have some info you could send on over. >I need info on funding of projects like Patterson, P&F by the Japanese, or >any government funding of projects and of course, EPRI funding. I also need >some juicy tidbits of devices that seem to have definitely produced nuclear >reactions. I am not picky that they be identified as "fusion". But that >they are not chemical is a must and verification of this at national labs is >a plus as well. > >Any help would be appreciated. My lawyer will be speaking with the sources >next week sometime. > >Thanks, Ross Tessien > > Ross, I would like to throw a venture into your ring for possible finance. It is very mundane compared to free energy devices. It is an elegant, passive, cheap oil/water separator which separates either phase down to less than 10 ppm. It can be widely applied to the petroleum industry, especially in the US which is awash in un-economic petroleum because of the water brine content. We can recover all such at very little cost. Best yet, the device has a five year pollution control track record, is patented, and is supported by an immigrant from DOW chemicals senior research staff. We are trying to raise a $1 million to install some units, which will produce large cashflows in about 90 days. Better yet, with $6 million financing, we may be able to secure world control of the application of the technology to the petroleum industry. I can supply extensive documentation and plans for this venture, which is being organized under "Environmental Tune-Up. Stock positions, equity in any form, options, guarantees, liens, etc are all available to you and your group...and will generate LARGE cashflows of real profits in very little time. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. What do you think?? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 16:07:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA19846; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960810200355_100433.1541_BHG97-2@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: Long. Force, Blue, TV programme X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I admit I get a bit confused by the message flood on these longitudinal force experiments. Are we any closer to general agreement as to whether we can devise a secure test for this force existing or not? After all, if no such test can be devised, then the existence or otherwise of the force becomes of zero significance. I would ask also, having seen mention of arcs jumping gaps to complete the circuit, whether the later Graneau experiment - which involved the centring of a rod in a gap - is a valid test. The rod, it seems, always moves to be centred in the gap. Having seen the physical layout of the equipment, I would be very surprised if some kind of arc-pressure were responsible for the effect: 1. ___________________ _____ ____________________ 2. ___________________ _____ ____________________ In (1.) the central rod moves to the right, in (2.) it moves to the left. Polarity does not affect the results. Secondly, I see from Akira's postings that Richard Blue has indeed now altered his position. Since he has been unable to make the calorimetry go away, he now rejects it as not relevant. A curious mind, his, and one which I would not like to occupy. Finally, in the UK there is currently a TV series, which is a joint effort by the BBC and The Learning Channel. To be honest, it is quite execrable, and mostly involves the female lead from that (to me) repugnant "X-Files" programme series wandering about saying rather confused things. However, last night's was a bit surprising, I taped it and skimmed through it. It covered the Townsend-Brown stuff, saying that a US Air Force team had replicated the effect fully and disputed the earlier claims (by the US Navy) that there is no anomaly. (A brief moment here to reflect on the old SF story where the US Navy found a base on the Moon, not far from their own - and found it to be USAF.) Further, Griggs was interviewed - looked like new film - and it was said that NASA had found no error in the energetics claimed for the Hydrosonic Pump. But that may just have meant they hadn't finished their tests at the time the film was made. Then we had Peter Graneau claiming o-u for his water-explosions, and Bob Forward claiming that pre-charged Casimir plates could be used to extract vacuum energy. There was also Mays talking about remote viewing but that is outside my area of interest. Peter looked very relaxed and happy with his findings. What was also of interest was that we saw Frank Close being extremely cautious about dismissing the antigrav and Casimir stuff. He even saw no problem about extracting vacuum energy. This may of course have been an intentional effect of the editing of what he said. But it did seem quite a long way from his earlier line; I have his s.p.f posting from, I think, 1994, where he stated that 'zero point energy = zero energy'. Though he did say that to extract ZPE by the Casimir effect would need very big plates indeed, and would therefore not obviously be economic. All in all, quite interesting. As I say, I have the tape. It is, however, in VHS PAL format and would require transcription to be used on a US (NTSC) VCR. Perhaps it might be of interest to see whether or when The Learning Channel intends to broadcast this series (note that this specific programme is perhaps the fourth or fifth in the series). It is interesting that this programme (titled, "Weird Science") was one to which Jed and Gene and I (the notorious agitators) made no input - that I can recall, anyway. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 16:08:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA20329; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 16:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 16:00:22 -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: Invisible Electrostatic Wall X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Francis J. Stenger wrote: .. > However, out in the air where the people are, the POTENTIAL GRADIENT (E) > can not go much above 3 megavolts, or the air will ionize by spark or > by corona discharge (through the people, if necessary!) to get E back > down to its 3 megavolt limit. It's the value of E near the people that > would determine the electric pressure on them - I'm not saying I > understand what the force was these people felt - only what it's "E" > limit would be. > > But hey! I've seen some impressive high voltage action with sheet > plastic too, and I wonder if rolling - unrolling plastic sheet would be > a neat way for garage physicists to generate huge potentials by > stuffing them inside a large roll of plastic? Let's see, 1000 volts/mil > X a roll 10 inches thick, mmmmmmmmmmmmm 10,000 mils >>>>>> 10 MILLION > VOLTS!!! WOW! Yeah, that's what I thought too! But the roll would seem to discharge as it attracted air ions to its surface (same way electrets do), but then you could unroll a couple of layers to restore the effect. But then I got the message from Dave Swenson that the takeup rolls are not the source of the field. (see the 1st "update" message.) The plastic is taken from an uncharged 20ft long supply roll containing 50K ft. of polypropelene, goes up to the ceiling rollers, across, then down into other equipment. The plastic sheet forms a square tubular "tent" corridor 20ft tall and 20ft long. Presumably it is only the moving film that carries the charge and causes the field. SOMETHING LIKE THIS? : _____________________________________ |(*) (*)| | | | | | | | \/ | (end view) to the slitters | | _____ | / \ | / \| | supply | | roll | \ / \_____/ =========================================================================== Also, there should be terrific output of air ions, since without ion effects the peeling of the film from the supply roll would result in large but opposite charges on opposite surfaces of the film, and the fields would only exist *within the thickness of the film,* not out in the air. Think about it. The supply roll outer surface is already charged by departing film, and when this outer surface is peeled off the roll during the next rotation, it generates an OPPOSITE charge on the "inner" surface of the film, the surface adjacent to the rest of the supply roll. The departing film has opposite charges on opposing faces, so there will be no fields in the space nearby. Unless there is corona and emission of charged air at the place where the film departs from the roll, the departing film should be overall neutral. Set phasers on 'speculate'! : One thing I'm wondering about: if aerogels of >>99% porosity occur naturally in the atmosphere, they would be invisible and mostly unnoticed. The electrified polypropelene film in the factory might attract this transparent matter and form a sort of plug, in the same way that iron filings can form a plug between the poles of a horse-shoe magnet. The "wall" would then be a wall of transparent matter made rigid by large e-fields. Too bad the charging problem was solved. We could have sent someone down to the factory with a plastic bucket and tried to extract a wad of "wall" material. Maybe Larry Wharton's spinner had attracted a thick coating of invisible matter? Another idea: perhaps the large field and the large ion density resulted in 'polymerized' air! The field would force air ions to line up in rows like iron filings, and the result would be an exotic form of invisible semi-solid matter composed of charged nitrogen/oxygen molecules kept stable by a long range e-fields. A sort of e-field-mediated aerogel. There might be no chemical bonding, only electrostatic alignment and chain-building effects. If the field was strong enough, a person might be able to thrust an object into the "wall" and have it hang there trapped in the electrostatic ion-jello. Too weird to be real? ....................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 Aug 10 17:25:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA02358; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 17:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 17:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608110008.RAA01703@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Ron McFee To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Potapovs visit Los Alamos X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Greetings Vortejanos I am please to report that the Yusmar Company representatives Yuri Semionovich Potapov and his son Semion Yurievich Potapov are presently in Los Alamos, New Mexico to demonstrate one of their second generation Yusmar devices. The device is being set up according to the Potapovs' instructions, and we will begin diagnostics next week. Los Alamos National Laboratory has signed a limited non-disclosure agreement which I believe will allow full publication of the test results. Peter Glueck of Cluj, Romania has accompanied Yuri and Semion and is serving as advisor and interpreter. The device will have an input power of approximately 5.6 Kilowatts (7.5 HP) of three phase 220 Volt electricity to the motor and should according to Potapov predictions produce about 10 Kilowatts of thermal energy. These test are being conducted with limited discretionary resources by Los Alamos; the Yusmar, motor, pump and piping being the property of the Yusmar Company. Los Alamos is providing power, water, and diagnostic testing. The Yusmar was hand carried to Los Alamos by Yuri, the remainder of the device was procured locally and assembled in a private Los Alamos machine shop at Yusmar Company expense. Regards, Ron From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 19:15:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA14235; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 19:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 19:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960811013513_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: Invisible Electrostatic Wall X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill Beaty drew: > SOMETHING LIKE THIS? : > > _____________________________________ > |(*) (*)| > | | > | | > | | > | \/ > | (end view) to the slitters > | > | > _____ | > / \ | > / \| > | supply | > | roll | > \ / > \_____/ > ======================================================================== Oh well, so much for the VDG roller-up belt idea. But it does suggest the focusing of the e-field at the center under the "tent" where the workers were unable to walk. Still pretty interesting. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 20:21:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA23834; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 20:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 20:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320D43B5.6BC5@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 Invisible Electrostatic Wall X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A William Beaty wrote: The > "wall" would then be a wall of transparent matter made rigid by large > e-fields. > We could have sent > someone down to the factory with a plastic bucket and tried to extract > wad of "wall" material. ------ > a thick coating of invisible matter > 'polymerized' air! > e-field-mediated aerogel. > electrostatic ion-jello. > > Too weird to be real? Why no, Bill - er, not at all! (Oh, BTW, could you please post the recipe for what ever it is you've been drinking?) I think you forgot about the telekinetic mosquitos, excited to mate only under high-E-field conditions, erecting a psionic barrier to exclude unwanted life forms from their plastic mating bower. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 20:23:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA24122; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 20:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 20:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320D44FB.7099@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: Potapovs visit Los Alamos X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ron McFee wrote: (Update on Potapov visit to LANL) Thanks for the info Ron - onward and upward! Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Aug 10 20:58:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA00270; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 20:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 20:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608110327.WAA00117@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: Potapovs visit Los Alamos X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 05:12 PM 8/10/96 -0700, Ron McFee wrote: >The device will have an input power of approximately >5.6 Kilowatts (7.5 HP) of three phase 220 Volt electricity to the motor >and should according to Potapov predictions produce about 10 Kilowatts >of thermal energy. Ron, we would like to hear details of how you plan to measure the input/output power balance. Perhaps the group could make some useful contribution to your strategy. - 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 Aug 10 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 VAA09374; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 21:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 21:47:58 -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 Invisible Electrostatic Wall X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 10 Aug 1996, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > William Beaty wrote: > > electrostatic ion-jello. > > > > Too weird to be real? > > Why no, Bill - er, not at all! > (Oh, BTW, could you please post the recipe for what ever it is you've > been drinking?) > I think you forgot about the telekinetic mosquitos, excited to mate only > under high-E-field conditions, erecting a psionic barrier to exclude > unwanted life forms from their plastic mating bower. Heh! The non-exotic explanation probably involves my misinterpretation of the original description. "Running into a wall" describes something fairly nonlinear. But if the actual sensation could better be described as "pushing into an increasingly dense pillow", then the explanation probably involves effects of conventional electrostatic forces. OR MAYBE THE CHARGED FILM ATTRACTED SHADOW-MATTER FROM A PARALLEL WORLD! (maniacal laughter!) :) ....................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 Aug 10 23:50:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27802; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 23:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 23:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320f7ba5.27122030@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: Invisible Electrostatic Wall X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 10 Aug 1996 16:00:28 -0700 (PDT), William Beaty wrote: [snip] >SOMETHING LIKE THIS? : > > _____________________________________ > |(*) (*)| > | | > | | > | | > | \/ > | (end view) to the slitters > | > | > _____ | > / \ | > / \| > | supply | > | roll | > \ / > \_____/ >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D [snip] Depending on the mounting of the rollers at the top, this looks like a "walk through" Van de Graaf generator. 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 Aug 11 00:39:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA03334; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 00:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 00:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608110733.AAA03181@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: Tape Field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Hi Folks! The "invisible wall" caused by charged tape sounds interesting enough to investigate. Since I live in South Carolina (Columbia), I was wondering if someone could tell me the local of the tape company in question. If it is not too far away I would like to try the "interested EE student routine" to try and experience the field myself! BTW, my father works at a tape company here in Columbia. I have heard stories of workers being zapped by large arcs from rolled up tape. I think it is standard procedure to keep a static drain strap on the rolls nowadays for obvious reasons. Also, during some parts of the processing at least some kinds of tape are exposed to Strontium-90 rods to counteract the charge buildup. Thanks for the space! -Brian QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu ... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 11 06:04:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA24709; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 06:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 06:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320e7881.26317732@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: Bill Beaty and his electric force! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 10 Aug 1996 12:42:44 -0700 (PDT), William Beaty wrote: [snip] >Dave says that he suspected the reason for the failure was the higher >humidity that day (summer in South Carolina), so they tried it again = early >the next day when the humidity was lower, and the effect had returned. = He >reports that they were physically unable to walk through the corridor. = I >asked if he could lean his entire weight against the force, and he said >yes. Pity he didn't try to throw an object through the field (other than himself). [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 Aug 11 06:59:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA28269; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 06:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 06:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320DE4A7.2C94@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 and his electric force! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > Pity he didn't try to throw an object through the field (other than > himself). > [snip] Good point, Robin! What ever the actual E-field was, it was probably a bit scary! Involuntary psychosomatic muscular reactions(or, FEET, DO YOUR STUFF!!) might have played a roll in the phenomenon. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 11 07:14:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA01770; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 07:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 07:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960811100524_256839475@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: Potapovs visit Los Alamos X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Stenger I'll be at Lanl late thursday evening with one of my business partners John Barrron. On word and up is how I feel about it to. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 11 09:21:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA23689; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 09:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 09:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: dacha@shentel.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Over-Unity-Experiment-that worked ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Without revealing the secret could you please describe the experiment from a >black-box standpoint? I'd like to know how the input/output power ratio was >measured, pressures, temperatures, flow rates, etc. With that information >we could perhaps provide an impartial evaluation of the validity of this >fantastic measurement. -----------------End of Original Message----------------- The experiment is pretty simple. So simple, I guess, that this is the reason for caution on the part of the inventor. His original work was to build a super diffuser for another project. Durring the testing of this device measurements were taken and unexpected data was recorded. His feeling is that the energy is part of the thermal energy that exists in the atmosphere, plus additional energy from a pressure differential on opposing sides of a boundary layer created at a specific fluid velocity. I hope to pass on all the details soon, but just wanted to give some positive information about a system that seems to work. ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 8/11/96 Time: 11:50:15 AM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 11 09:37:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA26400; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 09:31:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 09:31:44 -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: Tape Field X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Brian wrote: > The "invisible wall" caused by charged tape sounds interesting enough to > investigate. Since I live in South Carolina (Columbia), I was wondering if > someone could tell me the local of the tape company in question. If it is not > too far away I would like to try the "interested EE student routine" to try and > experience the field myself! Dave Swenson is an ESD control expert, and the effect no longer exists because he had needle-combs installed in the equipment. All I know about location is "3M company in S.C." However, Dave has promised to send me some photos of the equipment where the effect occurred. > BTW, my father works at a tape company here in Columbia. I have heard > stories of workers being zapped by large arcs from rolled up tape. I think it > is standard procedure to keep a static drain strap on the rolls nowadays for > obvious reasons. Also, during some parts of the processing at least some kinds > of tape are exposed to Strontium-90 rods to counteract the charge buildup. Yes, rad sources are used to create air ions. Air ions equals movable charges, equals air that's conductive. Installing a grounded strontium rod is like installing a water sprayer, it provides a discharge path. BTW, I wrote a small article on tape-peeling electrostatic effects back in 1988. Part of it has been typed into my VandeGraaff Generator webpage at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/emotor/vdg.html Also check out my bundt-pan inline Kelvin waterdropper article. Pour water into the top, and tens of KV magically appear. ....................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 Aug 11 12:44:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA22058; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 12:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 12:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320E3663.4A8F@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: Potapovs visit Los Alamos X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > I'll be at Lanl late thursday evening with one of my business partners John > Barrron. I hope your hope comes true, Frank! Good luck! Keep us posted. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 11 12:50:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA23325; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 12:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 12:47:37 -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: Long. Force & Graneau gap X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I admit I get a bit confused by the message flood on these longitudinal >force experiments. Are we any closer to general agreement as to whether >we can devise a secure test for this force existing or not? > >After all, if no such test can be devised, then the existence or >otherwise of the force becomes of zero significance. > >I would ask also, having seen mention of arcs jumping gaps to complete >the circuit, whether the later Graneau experiment - which involved the >centring of a rod in a gap - is a valid test. The rod, it seems, always >moves to be centred in the gap. Having seen the physical layout of the >equipment, I would be very surprised if some kind of arc-pressure were >responsible for the effect: > >1. ___________________ _____ ____________________ > >2. ___________________ _____ ____________________ > >In (1.) the central rod moves to the right, in (2.) it moves to the >left. Polarity does not affect the results. > B L J H C ------------------------------ --------- ------- -------------- | |P w ------------------------------ --------- ------- -------------- A K I G D d Maybe this phenomenon from the Graneau experiment may be useful in determining the forces on the rail segments HC and GD. The rails (or coaxial section) could be cut at GH and IJ to create a segment. The acceleration of the rails HC and GD could be measured with P attached and not attached to them. This could be repeated with gap JI added, and maybe even additional gaps, KL etc., added and the experiment repeated again, to determine the amount of force due to adding a gap. Using Lorentz forces there should be no force added by adding a gap. Using Biot-Savart there is a force added. If you look at two small current carriers dx and dy, located on opposite rails which are separated by width w, on opposite sides of the gap of 0 separation by distance y and x respectively, then, assuming no mistake on my part, the Biot-Savart predicted longitudinal force is given by: d(dF) = (mu/4pi) (i^2) (w) ((x+y)^2 + w^2)^-3/2 dy dx This can be integrated for y=0 to length of the first segment, x=0 to the length of the second rail segment to get the longitudinlal force between opposed rail segments on opposite sides of a gap (e.g LJ and IG). By unleashing this force bottled up in the rails incrementally we should be able to see the increased acceleration of the rail segments on the right to the right as more gaps are added, shouldn't we? This alone points to nonconservation of energy it seems. Of course the net longitudinal force on each rail segment must be found by integrating of the entire length of the barrel (all segments), but the above makes it clear there is a longitudinal force between adjacent segments via Biot-Savart. Taking this to extremes, one could build a coaxial railgun by stacking together rail segments. The final layer would be a conductive disk or other form of projectile P resting on the end of the gun. The above gun would be stacked vertically instead of horizontally as shown. Using sufficient current, and using Biot-Savart this stack should explode both longitudinally and horizontally. Using Lorentz forces, the end plate or maybe end plate and first segment should blow off, and most all the rest of the "explosion" should be lateral in nature. Does this make sense or have I missed something? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 11 16:31:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA25025; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 16:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 16:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I85SJAZ72Q8WZATG@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: Dranetz X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Magtrol, Buffalo NY, also makes a power analyzer calibrated to NIST for about $5K. Trouble with these power analyzers is they have trouble with "duty cycle" in an inductive circuit. If a coil is pulsed with DC, x percent on and x percent off and both active and reactive power are present then the power factor, Vars, are not correct, you have to know the instrument, and the makeup of what you are measuring to know when you can rely on the reading. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 11 17:08:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA00636; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 16:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 16:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608112357.QAA26509@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: Funding Progress and ????? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >I can supply extensive documentation and plans for this venture, which is >being organized under "Environmental Tune-Up. Stock positions, equity in >any form, options, guarantees, liens, etc are all available to you and your >group...and will generate LARGE cashflows of real profits in very little >time. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. > >What do you think?? Sounds like a great idea, but I am not in a position to lend you any support. I am trying hard to get my ideas pushed forward and so far have no funding for that either. It sounds to me like you have a patented, working device. What you need is a professional business plan and then seek some bonified venture capitol money. Writing such a plan is quite time consuming and far reaching. They don't want to hear that it will "generate LARGE cashflows of real profits in very little time". What they want is to read a business plan which tells them when, where, how much, and why money will be spent. And from where, when, and how much money will come in. Then they want to see the latter subtracted from the former with a plus sign in front within three years. Also, they are not normally interested if it will only require 2 or 7 million. They have lots of money to move around and to get making more money. It takes them just as much time and effort to put together a 5 million dollar deal as it does a 200 million dollar deal. You need to show that the thing works, show that it is profitable, show that people are willing to pay to purchase or liscense the technology. Try to make a sale or two on your own. Then try to get the VC's involved to ramp up the sales potential. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 11 19:02:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA20479; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 18:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 18:56:14 -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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Some time ago Scott Little wrote: >At 06:02 PM 8/3/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >> >>Maybe 5% of the current through the cell is directly via electrons. >>Remember the 10 meter long cell experiment I did? Maybe you are not >>getting 100% electrolysis efficiency, only 95 or so. > >Maybe so, but the power required to push those electrons thru the cell would >have been accounted for by my V*i input power measurement. Also, the heat >generated in the cell by the passage of those electrons would have been >measured by my calorimetry. What would have been missing is the gas that >would have been generated by dissociation. In my calcs I assumed that all >the electrons worked to dissociate H2O so, under yr scenario, I would have >computed too large a value for the energy lost from the cell as gas. This >value ends up being added to the output side of the energy balance so the >expected result from yr scenario would be an apparent excess output >energy...(I think). > > - Scott Little My apologies for losing this email. I didn't mean to let it go by unanswered (I just found it.) Been loosing lots of stuff lately - too busy. Maybe I just didn't understand you calculation, but I got the impression you measured the voltage, current, E(heat), and E(gas flow) and E(heat) + E(GAS FLOW) = .95 V*I. Suppose there is a means for a limited number of electrons to get through the electrolyte via a tunneling mechanism, and that this mechanism presents ZERO resistance. That is to say for some current i1 the resistance r1 is less than the overall cell resisitance R. This is the same as saying for some even smaller current i2, that it went through the cell with no resistance at all. This raises the question, when electrons tunnel, do they heat? Maybe, for a limited number of electrons, there is sometimes a zero resistance "jump" occuring. Suppose there was a nearly zero resisitance (yet limited current due to statistical selection of candidates to pass through the shunt) shunt to your cell that you could not see. V*I would be gigantic, yet there would be almost no gas evolved and and almost no heat in the cell. The "energy" would be unaccounted for because it simply passed right through the cell, i.e. there is no I^2*r3 heatingh because r3=0. This is another reason I think a tank oscillator in the cell might be a good idea - because it is a way to "compound the interest" on such "pass through" energy (if it exists) and recycle it back through the cell. I hope this isn't nonsense. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 11 19:40:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA26285; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 19:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 19:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608120227.VAA13426@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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:56 PM 8/11/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >Maybe I just didn't understand you calculation, but I got the impression >you measured the voltage, current, E(heat), and E(gas flow) and E(heat) + >E(GAS FLOW) = .95 V*I. Yes, this is what actually happened. I probably got it confused in my last post. >Suppose there is a means for a limited number of electrons to get through >the electrolyte via a tunneling mechanism, and that this mechanism presents >ZERO resistance. Ah, then my current would have been larger than "normal" but there'd be no heating from the extra current and the situation depicted above would result. I suppose this is possible...but, deep down, I believe that my anomalous result was a calorimetry error. Part of the reason is that I have since run quite a number of CF experiments in other calorimeters and they always balance out quite well. Also, this particular experiment (with the nickels) was not terribly rigorous...as soon as I was certain that I wasn't getting the 20-40% excess heat that was advertised, I lost interest in it. I still have the cells used in this experiment. Perhaps some day I will run them in my new calorimeter. First, however, I should try Mark Hugo's Pd tube experiment. That is to say for some current i1 the resistance r1 is >less than the overall cell resisitance R. This is the same as saying for >some even smaller current i2, that it went through the cell with no >resistance at all. This raises the question, when electrons tunnel, do >they heat? Maybe, for a limited number of electrons, there is sometimes a >zero resistance "jump" occuring. Suppose there was a nearly zero >resisitance (yet limited current due to statistical selection of candidates >to pass through the shunt) shunt to your cell that you could not see. V*I >would be gigantic, yet there would be almost no gas evolved and and almost >no heat in the cell. The "energy" would be unaccounted for because it >simply passed right through the cell, i.e. there is no I^2*r3 heatingh >because r3=0. This is another reason I think a tank oscillator in the cell >might be a good idea - because it is a way to "compound the interest" on >such "pass through" energy (if it exists) and recycle it back through the >cell. I hope this isn't nonsense. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > - 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 Aug 11 21:14:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA10691; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 20:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 20:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320EACED.5E0B@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: Call me- I'm near Santa Fe X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Welcome to New Mexico, Frank and John Barron, I've been a Vortex-L member this year, and would love to meet you. I've been invited to the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference, as an interested amateur. I got a double major in physics and history at M.I.T. in 1964, and a M.A. in psychology from Boston U. in 1967. I've read every issue of Scientific American, Science, Physics Today, and The Skeptical Inquirer since then, so I enjoy knowing a little bit about everything. The accumulating solid evidence for nuclear transmutation should bring in a tidal wave of involvement by mainstream scientists. Recently, I've been imagining that the deep explanation for low energy nuclear reactions may lie in a basic new paradigm about the omnipresent vacuum and its awesome energy density: the vacuum may be quite a bit structured, rather than chaotic and random, and in various ways "mirror" our level of nuclear reality and thus provide additional channels for energetically favored reactions to occur, bypassing the nuclear energy potential barriers that impede the reactions in the previous paradigm. Another way to visualize this new paradigm might be the concept of multiple parallel streams of time, branching from and into each other, coexisting as equally valid probable realities, somewhat separated, somewhat interconnected, so that certain interactions operate "sideways" from one stream of history to others, as what could be called "perpendicular" time. This can lead to new kinds of "resonances" that could allow low energy nuclear reactions that otherwise would be highly improbable when viewed in terms of a single line of history. Yet another, broadly similar, approach is the heretical paradigm of "morphic resonance", offered by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, in which previous configurations directly catalyze by a new mode of "causality" the configurations of later related processes. For instance, he points out that newly synthesized organic compounds are very hard to crystalize. Yet once a brand new compound is successfully crystalized somewhere in the world, then afterwards it is much easier to crystalize all over the world, due to "morphic (shape) resonance". So, for me low energy nuclear reactions offer a door to considering very expansive new paradigms about the basic nature of "reality", as resulted a hundred years ago from the completely unexpected discovery of x-rays and radioactivity. Rich Murray HCR 70 Box 515 Pecos, NM 87552 505-757-6145 home 505-699-4122 cellular From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 11 21:53:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18341; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 21:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 21:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Funding Progress and ????? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 13:40:40 -0700 From: Ross Tessien To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Funding Progress and ????? >*** Reply to note of 08/09/96 16:58 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Funding Progress and ????? >Ross: Why don't you contact Tom Passel at EPRI and see if he'll send you the >5 volumes that they have published on Cold Fusion? > > I have spoken with Tom at length last summer or thereabouts. The problem was that I could not get him to sign an NDA in order to discuss our technology with EPRI physicists in order to seek funding of development of the process. I guess he plans to retire sometime in the future, and didn't want another NDA on his shoulders. If someone else at EPRI in the fusion arena would be willing to discuss some initial exploratory funding, then we would be interested in discussing this possiblility. I have some of the information you speak of. What I need at this time is to get funding to further study the designs I came up with. This is high risk funding at this point, and we are right now doing some evaluations that may alter the level of risk depending on the results of the analyses. But it takes time to arrange for funding, so I am working on it now so that by the time we find some we are ready to go. It sounds like we are making progress on this front, finally. But I need to get some information showing that real live companies are starting to stand up and take notice of the potential of some of the processes people are working on. I need to get hard information about any contracts and the dollars expended wherever possible. We have some contacts that may have some funding willingness but need to present them with some information regarding other research in the general field. If anyone has concrete information about any funding of projects I would appreciate hearing about it. ie, is the Motorola stuff with Patterson and CETI real? Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Aug 11 23:33:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA02888; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 23:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 23:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <320fc972.28040376@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: Theory - CF - tying it all together. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: For my latest effort, explaining the importance of the Debye temperature, and the connection with the Mossbauer effect, please see my web page at http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa 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 Aug 12 01:44:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA15273; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 01:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 01:35:22 -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: Long. Force & Graneau gap X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: B L J H C ------------------------------ --------- ------- -------------- | |P w ------------------------------ --------- ------- -------------- A K I G D d Earlier I wrote: "If you look at two small current carriers dx and dy, located on opposite rails which are separated by width w, on opposite sides of the gap of 0 separation by distance y and x respectively, then, assuming no mistake on my part, the Biot-Savart predicted longitudinal force is given by: d(dF) = (mu/4pi) (i^2) (w) ((x+y)^2 + w^2)^-3/2 dy dx This can be integrated for y=0 to length of the first segment, x=0 to the length of the second rail segment to get the longitudinlal force between opposed rail segments on opposite sides of a gap (e.g LJ and IG)." First let me note for clarity that the above should read: d(dF) = (mu/4pi) (i^2) (w) ((x+y)^2 + w^2)^(-3/2) dy dx Note that in integrating over the ranges of x and y that the interval of integration can include any current segment for either x or y, be it a rail or spark gap. If we wish to exclude the electrons in the gap because they will obtain a voltage change, not directly result in a rail force, we can integrate over the lengths of the segments for x and y: d(dF) = (mu/4pi) (i^2) (w) ((x+y+g)^2 + w^2)^(-3/2) dy dx wher g is the gap width. Note that since: ((x+y+g)^2 + w^2)^(-3/2) < ((x+y)^2 + w^2)^(-3/2) Since x, y and g are all positive quantities, the shorter the gap the greater the repulsive force between adjacent segments. This could account for the tendency observed by Graneau of a conductor "floating" in the gap to center itself. I am considering doing an experiment consisting of a central non-ferrous conducting rod, with all but the tip insulated by a plastic sleeve, pointing upward with a stack of non-ferrous washers around it. The top of the stack consists of a flat round metal plate which is in electrical contact with the central rod, as well as the stack of washers. The stack of washers lie on a metal plate on top of a plastic insulating plate through which the central rod and plastic sleeve pass. Whan a discharge is made through the rod and stack of washers, the washers, especially toward the free end, should be violently expelled if Biot-Savart prevails. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 04:29:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA00764; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 04:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 04:25:58 -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: Measurements add was Re: Dranetz X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Dear Joe, Thank you for your comment. When I asked Scott Little and Hal Puthoff about how measurements were performed ... I got Dranetz ... When I asked about Dranetz I got a price and location. I never got information about the workings of the instrument. In many cases, for the measurement of currents I like thermal measures. Personally I like shielded hot wire/thermocouple junction .... you make it, cal it in your range. Make your own pulses .... if that is what you are measuring that is giving you fits ... and cal again. J On Sun, 11 Aug 1996 JOEFLYNN@delphi.com wrote: > Magtrol, Buffalo NY, also makes a power analyzer calibrated to > NIST for about $5K. Trouble with these power analyzers is they > have trouble with > "duty cycle" in an inductive circuit. If a coil is pulsed with > DC, x percent on and x percent off and both active and reactive > power are present then > the power factor, Vars, are not correct, you have to know the > instrument, and the makeup of what you are measuring to know > when you can rely on the reading. > > Joe Flynn > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 05:45:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA08989; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 05:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 05:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960812083146.47b77ad0@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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 07:29 PM 8/11/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 06:56 PM 8/11/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >>Maybe I just didn't understand you calculation, but I got the impression >>you measured the voltage, current, E(heat), and E(gas flow) and E(heat) + >>E(GAS FLOW) = .95 V*I. > >Yes, this is what actually happened. I probably got it confused in my last >post. > Regarding only the material science: There is probably no basis for assuming that the electrons conduct 5% of the electrical current through an aqueous water solution. is there? (imho, it is nothing like 5%) there is no basis for assuming that electron flow does not contribute to the heat in situ through ohmic heating. is there? (elementary electrodynamics -- cf. Poynting vector -- states that it does) regarding the calorimetry: This equation is wrong becuase of the above, because it has not been demonstrated that equilibrium is achieved, and also because it ignores other losses (like conduction and radiation from the cell which a major source of heat loss from whatever container is used). in the steady state, at equilibrium, in the absence of other losses and sources a better approximation might be: heat loss (conduction, radiation, convection, gas loss) = V*I Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 07:23:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA21619; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 07:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 07:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960812135926_72240.1256_EHB47-1@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: Mizuno results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex T. Mizuno sent me the following message describing his analysis of some of material Joe Champion sent me. I am not sure which sample he looked at here. I have to find the table of isotopic abundances that Chris posted to figure out the significance of this. I figure other Vortexians want to see it before I get around to doing that. - Jed Date: 12-Aug-96 01:35 EDT From: Mizuno Tadahiko > INTERNET:mizuno@athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp Subj: SIMS results Dear Jed. Rothwell I almost finished the SIMS analyses. I show you the results of ESM1, ESM2 and Pb sample. The numerical values that are represented in following mean the isotopic abundance for each elements and error in parenthesis. ESM1; Mg24: 0.727 (0.031), Mg25: 0.131 (0.0081), Mg26: 0.141 (0.0082), Si28: 0.873 (0.013), Si29: 0.0777 (0.0021), Si30: 0.049(0.0019), Ca40: 0.828 (0.0041), Ca42: 0.018 (0.001), Ca43 0.023 (0.0014), Ca44: 0.131 (0.004), Ti46: 0.176 (0.0075), Ti47: 0.0718 (0.005), Ti48: 0.57 (0.03), Ti49: 0.043 (0.004), Ti50: 0.138 (0.026), Fe54: 0.0706 (0.0034), Fe56: 0.879 (0.013), Fe57: 0.039 (0.0023), Fe58: 0.011 (0.00196), Cu63: 0.66 (0.126), Cu65: 0.339 (0.055), Zn64: 0.564 (0.042), Zn66: 0.104 (0.0086), Zn67: 0.189 (0.013), Zn68: 0.074 (0.009), Zn70: 0.0684(0.004). ESM2; Mg24: 0.74 (0.056), Mg25: 0.124 (0.014), Mg26: 0.136 (0.014), Si28: 0.895 (0.037), Si29: 0.0646 (0.004), Si30: 0.041(0.0036), Ca40: 0.838 (0.0025), Ca42: 0.026 (0.0016), Ca43 0.023 (0.0015), Ca44: 0.113 (0.0058), Ti46: 0.194 (0.026), Ti47: 0.072 (0.011), Ti48: 0.59 (0.046), Ti49: 0.043 (0.003), Ti50: 0.099 (0.0046), Fe54: 0.053 (0.0037), Fe56: 0.878 (0.027), Fe57: 0.060 (0.0176), Fe58: 0.0085 (0.0010), Cu63: 0.688 (0.13), Cu65: 0.312 (0.046), Zn64: 0.511 (0.0557), Zn66: 0.109 (0.011), Zn67: 0.222 (0.0077), Zn68: 0.0556 (0.0065), Zn70: 0.103(0.008). Pb; Pb204: 0.0178 (0.0012), Pb206: 0.287 (0.0137), Pb207: 0.226 (0.011), Pb208: 0.469 (0.020). Other elements were such as Ni, Mo, Ge, Xe existed in ESM1 and 2, Kr, Xe and Ar rare gas were detected in Pb. However, isotopic changes were not estimated yet because the counting rates for these elements were under 1000, the error were so large as significant deviation of isotopic changes. You can evaluate the above mentioned isotopic value for the elements. I will show you if I obtaine other estimations. Best regard, Tadahiko Tadahiko Mizuno Department of Quantum Energy, Graduate School of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Kita-ku, North 13, West-8, Sapporo 060 JAPAN Tel:81-11-706-6689, Fax:81-11-706-7835 E-mail:mizuno@hune.hokudai.ac.jp From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 08:20:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA27996; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608121430.KAA04439@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien said: > I guess I don't understand what you mean by "channel" in order for > it to be moving. This is vital, and if you miss it, you miss everything. Faster than light is only meaningful in a frame of reference. If a signal is FTL in one frame, then there are other frames where it is not. (And other frames where it is time reversed.) So to discuss FTL communciations meaningfully, you have to have a frame of reference. Since the experiments I was reporting on require a waveguide, that seems to be the only appropriate frame. > Now, my point is that at A, and at B, the sequence of events > remain the same if they are observed as they occured at one > reference point, R. B sees the FTL signal from R, and then later, > B receives the FTL signal indicating that the light speed signal > arrived. Also, at some point in time, B receives the image of R > sending him the first signal, and following that he receives the > image of R sending the confirmation of having received the image > of A sending the message. Forget B, all you need are A and R. If A sees the communication from A to R as FTL, and the from R to A as time reversed, then R sees the mirror: the signal from A to R is time reversed, and from R to A is FTL. Both see the events at a single point (A) in the same order. Assuming the geometry is right, that order is acknowledgement first, then message sent. 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 Aug 12 09:35:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA17742; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 09:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 09:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960812144304_100433.1541_BHG110-1@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: Mizuno results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Jed, Of the isotopic abundances you list, it may be that the following are a bit odd, I'm not impressed by the others. Ti46 @ 0.194 instead of 0.08 Ti48 @ 0.59 instead of 73.8 - with the other isotopes pretty accurate... Zn66 is 0.109 instead of 0.279 Zn67 is 0.222 0.041 Zn68 is 0.0556 0.188 Some of these do look interesting. I think? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 09:38:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA16843; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 09:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 09:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608121537.LAA04649@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: Weird electrostatic story update X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Sounds like an electret effect. What is an electret? It is the electrical equivalent of a magnet. The usual way to build one is to pour molten wax into a mold with two electrodes. You put a high (static) voltage across the electrodes then let the wax cool. (I think Scientific American had a nice article on electrets in The Amateur Scientist years ago. The recommended the geometry of a metal cup for one electrode, and an aluminum disk for the other.) Anyway once the wax has cooled, the electric field is trapped. Shorting cathode to anode doesn't remove the charge, but since anything moving through the field develops a charge, moving a wire into position to short across will create a spark. All fairly standard STATIC electricity effects, but your chances of finding a good electrostatics course in college is low. This could account for both the pinwheel and plastic film effects discussed here. Since moving something into the electric field does work, energy has to be supplied. The repulsion effect would be, one case the energy required to do all that work, and in the other case, it is easier for the pinwheel to move away from the finger. (Plastic monitor cases, especially when dirty make great electrets.) Incidently, some companies sold electret speakers a few years ago. A large electret is cheaper than a large magnet... 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 Aug 12 09:48:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA17268; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 09:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 09:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608121551.IAA18723@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: Call me- I'm near Santa Fe X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >The accumulating solid evidence for nuclear transmutation should bring >in >a tidal wave of involvement by mainstream scientists. Recently, I've >been imagining that the deep explanation for low energy nuclear >reactions >may lie in a basic new paradigm about the omnipresent vacuum and its >awesome energy density: the vacuum may be quite a bit structured, >rather than chaotic and random, and in various ways "mirror" our level >of nuclear reality and thus provide additional channels for >energetically favored reactions to occur, bypassing the nuclear energy >potential barriers that impede the reactions in the previous paradigm. I think that these comments are very much on target in as I view matter as resonant. I am finding out that Thompson and later Bjerknes experimented with the concepts of pulsating postive and negative "particles" in an aether and indeed found that they would attract or repel depending on phase angle relationships, ie 0 or 180 degrees. Further, they found that energy at intermediate phase angle relationships had no effect, ie 90 and 270 degrees. If you sum all of the wave energies from matter throughout the universe, it would seem that the sum of that energy should be zero at any given place. But I think that if you allow the rectilinear sum to sort of crunch, by allowing a helical compression of the nodal structure, that the sum is non zero. This is very important if it is so because it would provide the frame work within which matter could exist and be compressively confined as resonant standing waves. And this could then be the structure to the quantum vacuum mentioned above. Here is why I mention this today. If the above is so, then emissions from matter are in effect like a phased array radar beam. And if you organize a bunch of atoms in a geometric pattern like an atomic lattice you will get strong constructive interferences. These can either drive aether into the nucleus, or they can allow an escape path through what is normally otherwise more chaotic, and better suited to confinement. Put another way, the photonic exchanges presumed between nuclei, and the gluons presumed between quarks may simply be constructive and destructive phased array interferences of three dimensionally positioned coupled wave emitters. The geometries in electrodes are very much different from the geometries in a hot fusion plasma because there is organization to them. It may well be that a coherent beam constructs from all of the emissions from other atoms and rips helium nuclei off of the metal nuclei. Put more accurately, it may well be that a destructive interference (from the emissions of many particles) breaks down the confinement pressure for one nuclei in the path of the beam, and this breakdown in confinement pressure of the quantum vacuum allows the alpha to shoot out of the nucleus leaving a remaining nucleus that is of lower isotopic number. I have found (I think) that when you consider the constructive interference for electrons moving in a circle in a conductor, that there is a counter rotational constructive interference for the standing waves forming the nodal structure of space. This corresponds with the thrust imposed on a charged particle moving through such a magnetic field. And, if you consider this as being the structure of magnets and the fields passing through them, you wind up with "attraction" and "repulsion". Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 11:37:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18123; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:13:30 -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: Weird electrostatic story update X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/12/96 09:38 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Weird electrostatic story update My mind is boggling at this "electret" effect. There's something to this, but I can't grasp it. Has anyone done this experiment? MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 11:39:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18239; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608121811.NAA21000@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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 05:36 8/12/96 -0700, Mitchell wrote: > Regarding only the material science: > There is probably no basis for assuming that the electrons conduct 5% of >the electrical current through an aqueous water solution. is there? > (imho, it is nothing like 5%) I agree...it's probably very very tiny. I got Dieter Britz, who knows something about electrochemistry, to agree on this point a few months ago. Horace was just speculating, as he tends to do > there is no basis for assuming that electron flow > does not contribute to >the heat in situ through ohmic heating. is there? (elementary >electrodynamics -- cf. Poynting vector -- states that it does) You are correct. Again, Horace was speculating!.... > regarding the calorimetry: > This equation is wrong becuase of the above, because it has not >been demonstrated that equilibrium is achieved, and also >because it ignores other losses (like conduction and radiation from >the cell which a major source of heat loss from whatever container >is used). Actually, my measured heat output was obtained in a fairly sophisticated system that NOMINALLY was at equilibrium AND had all the various loss factors already taken into account in the calibration. I believe the real culprit here lies in the design of this particular calorimeter. It utilized Newton's Law of Cooling and the air-filled experiment chamber was not actively stirred. This means the system was rather dependant upon the exact nature of the heat generator, its physical shape and location in the chamber, etc. I was able to get some pretty satisfactory (i.e. close to 1.00) power balances in this system from a reasonable variety of resistive devices used for calibration purposes but every time I made a big change in the nature of the experiment itself I always had to recalibrate things. I established the calibration for the double-nickel cells with resistive heaters that were immersed in the electrolyte along with the nickels but that heater did not stir the electrolyte like the bubbly electrolysis did. I AM surprised that the calibration was 5% off due to this small effect but I still think it's the most probable explanation.... Never-absolutely-sure-of-anything Scott From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 12:52:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA06011; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608121842.AA05590@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: Mizuno results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Just out of curiosity, what happened to the Au, Ag and Pt that was supposed to be in the ESM samples and the Pb bar per the Jun. 24 message by Joe Champion? Is Mizuno going to analyze for these? Or was that one of the other labs? Per Chris' remarks, I'm not too impressed with variations from the natural abundances, that can just be due to the unique sample. I would be more impressed by changes in the before/after ESM samples, but I didn't see anything too impressive. Some differences are present, but they all are very close to the experimental error bands. Are the errors due to replication of the machine analyses, or the complete sample prep procedures as well? (Machine reps. only can understate the error, and if the errors are doubled, the results become almost indistinguighable.) Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 12:57:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA06107; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608121901.OAA24485@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: Mizuno results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 09:05 8/12/96 -0700, Jed wrote a bunch of isotopic ratio results that, as Chris pointed out, show some considerable deviations from the natural ratios. Jed, are the samples that Mizuno identifies as "ESM1" and "ESM2" the same as the ones you sent me identified "1. ESM Head Ore" and "2. ESM Treated" respectively? If so, then Mizuno's data may be suspect because I believe that the ESM Head Ore is "untreated" and it shows isotopic anomalies similar to the ESM Treated sample. Either that or the ore they're digging is naturally anomalous. In either case, it doesn't look like Joe's treatment changed the isotopic ratios very much. Please confirm my sample identification. Also, please ask Mizuno about the Pt, Au, Os and other precious metals in the Pb sample...that's what we are mainly interested in, right? 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 Aug 12 13:10:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA06210; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:41:09 -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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >At 05:36 8/12/96 -0700, Mitchell wrote: > >> Regarding only the material science: >> There is probably no basis for assuming that the electrons conduct 5% of >>the electrical current through an aqueous water solution. is there? >> (imho, it is nothing like 5%) > >I agree...it's probably very very tiny. I got Dieter Britz, who knows >something about electrochemistry, to agree on this point a few months ago. >Horace was just speculating, as he tends to do Yes, I was speculating, as usual. However, I did previously post here some data from experiments I did using a 10 meter long 1 m Li2SO4 electrolysis cell with Pt and nichrome electrodes that indicated some of the current (excluding the electrode/electrolyte interface) of the cell must be carried by electrons due to the velocity of charge equalization throughout the cell. As I posted, I believe there has been extensive work done on charge exchange at the interface and very little on actual mechanisms of charge transport in the intermediate electrolyte because it is just assumed the central charge transport occurs by diffusion. I think the data and conclusions I posted here show otherwise, but more careful experimentation is required. I don't know if Bill Page still lurks about, but he might have something to say on this issue, as he felt some of the charge transport is due to protons moving in proton conduction bands established in the electrolyte. My experiment is now sitting in a box awaiting the day I buy a good digital scope and current probe to continue the investigation. However, I should note that to be manifest in the data the 5% would also involve a change in the interface that would fall into the realm of the very well understood, so make this an unlikely explanation unless there is something very special about the interface in Scott's experiment. > >> there is no basis for assuming that electron flow >> does not contribute to >>the heat in situ through ohmic heating. is there? (elementary >>electrodynamics -- cf. Poynting vector -- states that it does) > >You are correct. Again, Horace was speculating!.... > I don't think this arument is relevent to tunneling phenomena. If an electron tunnels across a forbidden zone I don't believe it leaves or gains any energy in so doing in that zone. If there is some mecanism whereby conduction consists of long chains consisting of a large number of tunnelings interspersed with orbital exchanges the phonon generation due to normal conduction band or free charge motion may not occur due to the very brief periods of charge imbalance at locations in the chains. Again more speculation, but speculation already made in prior posts concerning the 10m cell data. I agree the error is probably in the calorimetry, but my brain is primed for the serendipity of results showing electron conductivity in electrolytes. BTW, if such exists, if there is under some circumstances a zero resistance shunt in electrolysis cells, there is much data that should indicate even better cell energy performance than published. Not all the V*I energy is "spent". Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 15:12:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA01963; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960812213552_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: Weird electrostatic story update X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark Hugo wrote: > "My mind is boggling at this "electret" effect. There's something > to this, but I can't grasp it. Has anyone done this experiment? MDH" Dittos the "can't grasp". Since there's the analogy between an electret and a magnet, I wonder if there's also something like an electret homopolar generator or motor as well. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 15:17:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA01824; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960812165809_597864854@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: Potapovs visit Los Alamos X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Ron, I can't wait to hear the results of the YUSMAR testing. We still have our model in our lab, so if it becomes obvious to you why we might have not gotten anything, let us know and we could modify it and fire it up again. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 15:25:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA01484; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960812165823_597863184@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: Potapovs visit Los Alamos X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Good luckat LANL Frank, We're waiting with baited breath! Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 16:47:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA26020; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 16:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 16:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960812181557.6b075a86@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: comments Big questions Wayne Green "nickles" experiment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 12:41 PM 8/12/96 -0700, Horace Heffner wrote: >>At 05:36 8/12/96 -0700, Mitchell wrote: >> >>> Regarding only the material science: >>> There is probably no basis for assuming that the electrons conduct 5% of >>>the electrical current through an aqueous water solution. is there? >>> (imho, it is nothing like 5%) >> >>I agree...it's probably very very tiny. I got Dieter Britz, who knows >>something about electrochemistry, to agree on this point a few months ago. >>Horace was just speculating, as he tends to do > >Yes, I was speculating, as usual. However, I did previously post here some >data from experiments I did using a 10 meter long 1 m Li2SO4 electrolysis >cell with Pt and nichrome electrodes that indicated some of the current >(excluding the electrode/electrolyte interface) of the cell must be carried >by electrons due to the velocity of charge equalization throughout the >cell. As I posted, I believe there has been extensive work done on charge >exchange at the interface and very little on actual mechanisms of charge >transport in the intermediate electrolyte because it is just assumed the >central charge transport occurs by diffusion. There has been much literature on this. I've cited references in my papers on the "Quasi-one-dimensional model of isotope loading" Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 16:57:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA25655; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 16:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 16:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960812181609.79677850@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: Weird electrostatic story update X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A At 02:50 PM 8/12/96 -0700, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Mark Hugo wrote: > > > "My mind is boggling at this "electret" effect. There's something > > to this, but I can't grasp it. Has anyone done this experiment? MDH" > >Dittos the "can't grasp". > >Since there's the analogy between an electret and a magnet, I wonder if there's >also something like an electret homopolar generator or motor as well. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > it is called the Quinke rotor (methinks) and has several stable states. It is discussed in Melcher's "Continuum Electrodynamics" MIT PRESS Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 17:00:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA26859; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 16:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 16:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960812185438_597959874@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: Re: Call me- I'm near Santa Fe X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Nice to hear from you Richard. I try to give you a call while in New Mexico. Perhaps you know of a good place where we could take Peter and Yuri out for an evening. I'll be at the Bandileer Inn in White Rock late thursday evening. We will be heading back monday. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 17:29:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA26966; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 16:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 16:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960812185637_597962299@emout18.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: order a disk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I'm selling many disks now. I think my work is having an impact. --------------------- Forwarded message: From: pwpark@hitel.kol.co.kr (Pyong Woon Park) To: fznidarsic@aol.com Date: 96-08-12 01:32:43 EDT pwpark@hitel.kol.co.kr Hi, I'm a scientist in Korea. I'm quite interested in your ad about the antigravity on a disk. Since you didn't give any information about ordering from overseas, I want to know how to order it from here. Please tell me the amount(including shipping and handling), payment way, and your address. Thank you, P.W. Park From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 19:07:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA23089; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 18:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 18:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608130056.RAA29179@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > > Now, my point is that at A, and at B, the sequence of events > > remain the same if they are observed as they occured at one > > reference point, R. B sees the FTL signal from R, and then later, > > B receives the FTL signal indicating that the light speed signal > > arrived. Also, at some point in time, B receives the image of R > > sending him the first signal, and following that he receives the > > image of R sending the confirmation of having received the image > > of A sending the message. > > Forget B, all you need are A and R. If A sees the communication >from A to R as FTL, and the from R to A as time reversed, then R sees >the mirror: the signal from A to R is time reversed, and from R to A >is FTL. Both see the events at a single point (A) in the same order. >Assuming the geometry is right, that order is acknowledgement first, >then message sent. > Robert I. Eachus > First of all, I understand what you are saying. Further, I can stretch my brain and conclude that according to the current versions of SR that your appraisal is accurate. However, I still feel it is incorrect. If I assume that the FTL signal uses a different device to detect the signal, then A and R know which signal is which. This seems reasonable to me to assume since if FTL exists in our space it is a compression wave where current transmissions are transverse waves. In the aether days of the 1800's and early 1900's, some people sought these FTL signals since in other fluids, transverse waves move as much as a thousand times slower than compression waves. With the above, then I would expect the following sequence of events: A sends signal to R at light speed and FTL at the same instant. R receives a message on R's FTL device and responds in light speed and FTL signals. FTL arrives back at A acknowledging receipt of the signal. The light speed signals follow up both transmissions and their sequence of arrival always follows the FTL signal sent at the same time to the same destination. The problem with SR on this account is that SR and GR for that matter treat "spacetime" as an inseparable single concept. There is no requirement that this be so. Space is space, and time is time. They are independent concepts. It is true that when you alter the structure and spacings of the geodesics, or as I would say, the nodes, of space that you are simultaneously altering the pulsations of those nodes, ergo time (or again, just the geodesics). In short, I think that your example above clearly shows that this concept in SR is simply incorrect (as it is clearly a paradox that a signal I will decide whether or not to send could ever arrive prior to my decision to send it. I could not send signals that arrive, and send signals that don't. The whole universe would blow up) . Space and time are separable, and if you allow this, then there is no linking time with the FTL signal propogation. It is simply a new mechanism of which we are currently unaware. There is no reason for us to loose our heads over some new technology like FTL signals and to conceive that time is going to all of a sudden run backwards. This goes for considering a positron to be an electron moving backward in time as well. Again, I agree with the math but simply and clearly object to the concept. There is a forward arrow, and our willingness to allow in other concepts is obscuring the real mechanisms at work. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 19:53:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA06838; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 19:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 19:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608130229.TAA00290@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: Funding Progress and ????? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 04:57 PM 8/11/96 -0700, you wrote: > >>I can supply extensive documentation and plans for this venture, which is >>being organized under "Environmental Tune-Up. Stock positions, equity in >>any form, options, guarantees, liens, etc are all available to you and your >>group...and will generate LARGE cashflows of real profits in very little >>time. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. >> >>What do you think?? > >Sounds like a great idea, but I am not in a position to lend you any >support. I am trying hard to get my ideas pushed forward and so far have no >funding for that either. It sounds to me like you have a patented, working >device. What you need is a professional business plan and then seek some >bonified venture capitol money. Writing such a plan is quite time consuming >and far reaching. > >They don't want to hear that it will "generate LARGE cashflows of real >profits in very little time". What they want is to read a business plan >which tells them when, where, how much, and why money will be spent. And >from where, when, and how much money will come in. Then they want to see >the latter subtracted from the former with a plus sign in front within three >years. > >Also, they are not normally interested if it will only require 2 or 7 >million. They have lots of money to move around and to get making more >money. It takes them just as much time and effort to put together a 5 >million dollar deal as it does a 200 million dollar deal. > >You need to show that the thing works, show that it is profitable, show that >people are willing to pay to purchase or liscense the technology. Try to >make a sale or two on your own. Then try to get the VC's involved to ramp >up the sales potential. > >Ross Tessien > > Thanks Ross for your input. Since I've written about 30 business plans for clients through the years and worked for five years for a boutique investment broker, where I did due diligence on about 5000 requests for money and have conversed with maybe about 100 venture capitalists concerning same, I have at least some inkling of what you are talking about. For the separator technology, the product, the market, and the deal are far more mature than my breezy desciption led you to think. We don't have to prove anything at all. We just need money to buy the product and tie up territory and then go shoot fish in a barrel. I am not interested in talking with VC money because I have not the slightest desire to receive in this lifetime any more rude behavior and insults from such quarters. I am only interested in talking with real people with real money and I am interested in talking only about money from $200,000 to $1 million. With such money I can generate an equivilent return of about 200% per year for the investor. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Aug 12 21:10:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA21364; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 20:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 20:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608130254.WAA06553@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien said: > First of all, I understand what you are saying. Further, I can > stretch my brain and conclude that according to the current > versions of SR that your appraisal is accurate. However, I still > feel it is incorrect. Ah. All I am saying is that 1) I can keep general relativity out of the picture, and 2) that special relativity requires causality violations 3) in an experiment which can now be done/is being done in the laboratory. Without a lot of engineering the experiment is useless for communicating backwards in time, but it sure tests whether causality or special relativity is a universal law. It is now down to one or the other with action at a distance as a red herring. (Quantum Mechanics is not a red herring it is fundamental to the experiment, but that part of the experiment is already beyond question.) If you want to come up with a replacement for SR, be my guest. In may be needed soon. But, IMHO, what is going to be needed is something to replace causality. 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 Aug 13 03:47:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA19920; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 03:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 03:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <32104d6b.39323179@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: How heat can affect radioactivity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: See my web page at http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa 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 Aug 13 06:38:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA09672; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 06:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 06:16:34 -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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > Ross Tessien said: > > > First of all, I understand what you are saying. Further, I can > > stretch my brain and conclude that according to the current > > versions of SR that your appraisal is accurate. However, I still > > feel it is incorrect. > > Ah. All I am saying is that 1) I can keep general relativity out > of the picture, and 2) that special relativity requires causality > violations 3) in an experiment which can now be done/is being done in > the laboratory. Without a lot of engineering the experiment is > useless for communicating backwards in time, but it sure tests whether > causality or special relativity is a universal law. It is now down to > one or the other with action at a distance as a red herring. (Quantum > Mechanics is not a red herring it is fundamental to the experiment, > but that part of the experiment is already beyond question.) > > If you want to come up with a replacement for SR, be my guest. > In may be needed soon. But, IMHO, what is going to be needed is > something to replace causality. > > > Robert I. Eachus If you guys have time and interest in this topic, you really should read Huw Price's new book, "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point". I cannot do it justice describing it here; suffice to say it is an exceptionall careful critical analysis of time, quantum mechanics, and causality. See http://plato.stanford.edu/price/TAAP.html (the first chapter is online). I would say that both Ross and Robert can find support for their arguments here. Price is especially sharp at dissecting fallacious arguments, from Boltzmann through Hawking (who he is especially critical of) and Penrose. Bell's Theorem is argued to be a red herring too. Todd Heywood From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 10:26:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA23429; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608131514.LAA07752@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Todd Heywood (theywood@kgn.ibm.com) > I would say that both Ross and Robert can find support for their > arguments here. Hmmm. I'd like to think that we are having a discussion. ;-) But if it really is an argument, the neat thing is that experimental verification will be possible--one way or the other--soon. I put my money on causality falling, but when relativity tangled with quantum mechanics in the EPR paradox, QM proved out. However, I (and a lot of other people) have a lot more faith in special than general relativity. We will see, and for me that is the most interesting fact of all. My grandfather learned to fly from the Wright brothers, survived WWI as a fighter pilot, saw Lindburgh off to Paris, men walking on the Moon, and close-up pictures of Saturn. When I was born, the speed limit was the speed of sound... 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 Aug 13 11:25:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12984; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:53:49 -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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > > I would say that both Ross and Robert can find support for their > > arguments here. > > Hmmm. I'd like to think that we are having a discussion. ;-) But > if it really is an argument, the neat thing is that experimental > verification will be possible--one way or the other--soon. I put my > money on causality falling, but when relativity tangled with quantum > mechanics in the EPR paradox, QM proved out. However, I (and a lot of > other people) have a lot more faith in special than general > relativity. Conventional causality does fall in Price's book, as a consequence of an analysis into subjective and objective components. This feeds into Price's reinterpretation of QM, and things become much more intuitive/consistent. It depends on a form of backward causation, and "reverse radiation", but "backwards/reverse" is a subjective thing having to do with the relative relationship between events. Analogous to Ross's thoughts. SR isn't specifically addressed. Anyone thing Autodynamics (http://www.autodynamics.org) is interesting? It's based on a simple concept: that one of the frames in SR is superfluous and introduces artifacts; when eliminated you get a generalized theory in which SR is a special case. Seems more plausible than the other net-theories swamping the net. Todd Heywood From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 12:34:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA00517; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960813090925.2a1730ae@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 08:53 PM 8/12/96 -0700, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > Ross Tessien said: > > > First of all, I understand what you are saying. Further, I can > > stretch my brain and conclude that according to the current > > versions of SR that your appraisal is accurate. However, I still > > feel it is incorrect. > > Ah. All I am saying is that 1) I can keep general relativity out >of the picture, and 2) that special relativity requires causality >violations 3) in an experiment which can now be done/is being done in >the laboratory. Without a lot of engineering the experiment is >useless for communicating backwards in time, but it sure tests whether >causality or special relativity is a universal law. It is now down to >one or the other with action at a distance as a red herring. (Quantum >Mechanics is not a red herring it is fundamental to the experiment, >but that part of the experiment is already beyond question.) > > If you want to come up with a replacement for SR, be my guest. >In may be needed soon. But, IMHO, what is going to be needed is >something to replace causality. > > > Robert I. Eachus Replace causality? Sounds like if this is successful, there is no rush. ;-)X Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 13:39:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA20145; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960813202150_76216.2421_HHB83-1@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: aerogel critters X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thomas - > I would like to point out to readers that a form of > 'aerogel' has often been reported at sights of > intense UFO activity, such as those in Salida, CO, > one year ago. A material was reported falling from > the sky, as 'angel-hair'. This material > desolved(?), upon touching the ground, or in > some cases, a person's hands. Could you clarify that angel hair was in fact associated with the Salida sightings? I can remember a very intense fall of the stuff over my childhood home in Northern CA in the mid 50's. Much like spiderweb in that it was tough in tensile strength, but it would slowly disappear if you rubbed it between your fingers. If it is sublimating to a gas phase, it might be caught in an airtight jar that has very little volume left over after the stuff is packed tightly inside, as per Paul Hill's suggestion in "Unconventional Flying Objects". Strange to think that for all the clamor about there being no physical proof or artifacts from UFOs, I may have once hidden indoors to have kept from being literally covered with it. We're talking *thick* fall, sky simply full of it for miles. All the trees were draped with it like Christmas tinsel. It looked like yellowish smoke when viewed through to the distance. Never saw the source objects though, although they were reported around that time. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 13:58:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA24694; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608132044.PAA23925@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: small addition X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The EarthTech web page http://www.eden.com/~little/ now has a drawing of the cell we used in our Patterson replication experiments. The hyperlink is about 1 screen down on the first 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 Tue Aug 13 14:00:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA22300; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608132032.QAA08697@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) said: > Replace causality? > Sounds like if this is successful, there is no rush. ;-)X Ah, but there is. One of the constants about all the time machines that have been described in the last few years is that none of them will take you back before they were built. Built in a loose sense. If you have a spinning black hole, you can go back to anytime since the ergosphere was exposed. In the particular case I have been describing, you have to accelerate a very special waveguide to a relativistic speed. (Fortunately the moving parts may be on the order of a couple grams total. We can do that in a special accelerator.) So before building a time machine we may want to know just what the people on the other end (also us) can do. ;-) 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 Aug 13 14:17:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA27386; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608132056.PAA24947@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thus far the events of 1996 have been most frustrating. Late in '95 we hear of a 1000:1 power gain in a CF cell. We attempt to replicate this experiment and spend quite a bit of time and money in the process. We also attempt to get CETI to let us simply confirm their measurements, free of charge or obligation. Bottom-line progress to date: ZERO! I want an opportunity to test a "working" CETI cell in our new dual-method calorimeter (which was specifically designed for the CETI cell). Does anyone have any ideas as to how we could go about getting CETI to cooperate with us on this? 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 Aug 13 16:34:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA03246; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960813231135_100060.173_JHB70-1@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott, >> Does anyone have any ideas as to how we could go about getting CETI to cooperate with us on this? << Since you ask ! I'm getting a strong feeling that CETI / Patterson are barking up the wrong tree with electrolysis per se. It is possible that they are having difficulty replicating a strong ou performance and are desperately trying to find the magic wand. How's this for a new angle : Suppose that the ou effect is triggered by cavitation after all. Suppose that the physical activity of gas generation at the electrodes with bubbles - nascent H and O - when accompanied by some resonant current wave pattern of sufficient amplitude produces cavitation of such intensity and spread over the electrodes that the ou effect is produced. This could tie in with all the other cavitation processes, even Meyer (wash my mouth out). I've never been happy with the published geometry of the Patterson cell - far too high an aspect ratio (l/d) with the electrodes at each end of the tube in contact with such a small proportion of the beads. It would be interesting to build a cell with only a few beads thick and a diameter of say 10cm with the electrodes covering the whole area, having a porous separator to allow electrolyte and gas flow. It may be that the critical factor is the size of the beads to create maximum cavitation with some critical current density or potential peak due to the radius of the beads. Or - I could be babbling rubbish ! Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 16:34:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA03821; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <32110a5e.3403264@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:59:18 -0700 (PDT), Scott Little wrote: [snip] >Does anyone have any ideas as to how we could go about getting CETI to >cooperate with us on this? > > > >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) > > Scott, You are an expert in the field of x-rays. I suspect VERY strongly that the CETI device, and all other working CF cells produce x-rays. If I were in CETI's shoes, I would not want you to discover this before I had a well developed product, as it might severely restrict my market. In short, you have a snowflakes hope in hell of getting hold of a CETI device, until it is too late anyway. For my reasoning in this PLEASE see my new web page at: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa It is far and away the best theory that I have been able to put together so far, and answers so many of the un-answered questions about CF. 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 Aug 13 16:58:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA08033; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:43:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:43:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608132341.QAA24517@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: X-rays X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On 13 Aug 96 at 16:25, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > You are an expert in the field of x-rays. I suspect VERY strongly that > the CETI device, and all other working CF cells produce x-rays. I remember Vigier saying that x-rays were something to look for as well (I think he was arguing this in '93 or '94). Does anybody know off hand if there have been researchers who have measured and detected any x-rays in CF experiments? cheers, Bart Simon (bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu) If I > were in CETI's shoes, I would not want you to discover this before I > had a well developed product, as it might severely restrict my market. > In short, you have a snowflakes hope in hell of getting hold of a CETI > device, until it is too late anyway. > For my reasoning in this PLEASE see my new web page at: > > http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa > > It is far and away the best theory that I have been able to put > together so far, and answers so many of the un-answered questions > about CF. > 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. > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > ============================================ 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 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 Wed Jul 24 00:44:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA10137; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 00:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 00:39:18 -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: Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion" Effect X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, Akira Kawasaki wrote: > 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? Yes! You are, I believe, falling into the old trap of assuming that physics contains everything else; it doesn't. Chemists do know a few things physicists don't; that has been one of the problems of "cold fusion" - physicists trying to be [electro]chemists and vice versa. Read, e.g., the book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Rhodes (sorry if I have plugged this book before) and you'll see that a few nuclear chemists were instrumental in that effort; people like Otto Hahn, Glen Seaborg and Lawrence among them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 19:06:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA02969; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 23:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 23:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607240612.XAA29510@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: >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? > If you are a distance above the wing that is greater than the mean free path of the molecules, then yes. But that energy is transmitted downward, and the next layer of molecules takes over and continues the pressure conduction. This is not so if you approach super sonic flight. When the angle of recession as the foil moves forward exceeds the sound speed of the fluid, then the pressure can no longer be communicated downward and you wind up with a perfect vacuum on top of the wing (well, not perfect as even way out in space there are a lot of molecules / atoms bopping about.) In any case, the wedge that opens up as the wing receedes downward away from the air stream allows a low pressure region into which the air can accelerate. So, in short, the pressure still ends up being transmitted to the wing surface via a series of collisions. But then that is how the pressure is transmitted to the lower surface too. A series of mean free path collisions (MFP) of the air molecules. The MFP in the rarified air is greater than in the more dense air. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 17:20:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA14903; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 17:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 17:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608140005.KAA25719@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Robert: you keep referring to an experiment(s) that will test whether FTL signals can be sent. By implication I guess you mean via entangled Quantum Mechanical states in some generalization of the EPR paradox. My understanding of this field of extremely interesting research is that information transfer cannot be attained this way. Can you provide some references to the experiment(s) that are about to be performed? Thanks, Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 18:46:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA01652; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:29:08 -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: Weird electrostatic story update X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Latest musings: When tape peels from a spool, the tape is charged with one polarity, while the other polarity goes out as ionized air. After operating for awhile, the 3M building's air might contain a significant percentage of ions. The oppositely-charged ions are pulled into the area under the "tent" of charged plastic, and the electrostatic forces compress the air slightly and raise it's pressure. Anyone walking into the constrained bubble of high-pressure ionized air will be walking uphill against a pressure gradient! The above mechanism predicts a repulsion force on the human. However, I think it also predicts that the charged plastic film would be pulled inwards by an enormous net force. ...unless there was significant portion of ionized air *outside* the "tent" as well as within? This mechanism could be checked out by filling a chamber with ionized air, placing an oppositely-charged electrode inside, then searching for a small pressure gradient around the electrode. A Schlerien optical system could probably see any changes in air density. When I get a chance this weekend I'll try looking for distortions in the shadow cast by an electrode in an ion cloud. Laser + lens = instant Schlerien system. ....................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 Aug 13 20:04:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA17104; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I88SDERP7M8WZP6A@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: Need strategy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Subject: strategy needed >Tue, 13 Aug >Scott Little >...............>Does anyone have any ideas as to how we could go about getting CETI to cooperate with us on this? On Sun. August 13, Jim Dunn, Co-Executive Director: CTC NASA: Northeast Region, among others visited my lab. I don't know what to think of Dunn, as to whether he's for real. He talked a good story though. Claimed he was meeting with the Patterson on Monday the 12th. Said it was with regards to their problems with Motorola. He related their story, which is different every time I hear it, depending on the story teller. I'm up to my neck in work so I'll reserve the entire tale for another post. Bottom line though he claimed to know Scott Little among many other people like Bitterly at American, Satcom, United Tech, etc. (Dunn claimed he almost burned up the generator section of Bitterlys Flywheel system by dumping off 4 kilowatts hrs stored energy in one second,* gosh thats one tough "coffee cup size" generator, guys*). Since he knows you Scott and he has a direct line to Patterson's Lab perhaps you should e-mail him at jdunn@ctc.org and see if he can seek cooperation from Patterson. BTW let me know his response. Oh yeah, in closing he had three samples of the 'magnetic motor with the scooter' guy's magnets two of which got away from him during a meeting and third was left with a battery company. As I journey along my path, each new person in the energy field tops the last, it's interesting but scary as to who's around the next bend. Joe Flynn Flynn Research Inc. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 20:11:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA21473; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 20:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 20:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608140301.UAA04270@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: Funding Progress and ????? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: We just need money to buy the product and tie up territory >and then go shoot fish in a barrel. I am not interested in talking with VC >money because I have not the slightest desire to receive in this lifetime >any more rude behavior and insults from such quarters. I am only interested >in talking with real people with real money and I am interested in talking >only about money from $200,000 to $1 million. With such money I can >generate an equivilent return of about 200% per year for the investor. >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher Michael; Do you have a business plan on this one already, and do you have product designs that are not proprietary that I might look at. I cannot promise anything, but I do know some people that have involved themselves in smaller projects like this. They have been known to be really bothered by all the barrell fish in the world and keep on trying to get rid of them. Seems the fishermen keep on bringing in new barrels no one opened before. I can see if I can do anything depending on the kinds of things you will need. But even the little guys are going to need to see a business plan so by what you say I assume you already have something put together since you already know what is needed. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 20:20:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA21392; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 20:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 20:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608140300.UAA04266@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Todd wrote; >Conventional causality does fall in Price's book, as a consequence >of an analysis into subjective and objective components. This feeds >into Price's reinterpretation of QM, and things become much more >intuitive/consistent. It depends on a form of backward causation, >and "reverse radiation", but "backwards/reverse" is a subjective >thing having to do with the relative relationship between events. >Analogous to Ross's thoughts. This sounds interesting and I will try to look into it when I get a chance. The only thing I would say is that if they have anything that is deemed to "move backward in time" then again they have it causaly incorrect. What is so beautiful about the standing waves I am working on is that if you alter the phase angle by 180 degrees with respect to the structure of organized motions of space, then you have a particle that is the equivalent of a time reversed object in how it will interact with other objects as its waves head out and waves from the other object head in. It is sort of like directing one phased array radar beam at another such that they have the ability to phase and frequency lock to each other. There will be strong constructive and or destructive interference of the emissions if you measure the amplitude of the E fields right in the beam line. But if you move away from the beam, the emissions become increasingly chaotic and lack organization, especially along a 45 degree line. And, if the two beams are phase adjusted by 180 degrees, you will find that the constructive interference will switch to destructive interference and it will be as though neither beam were switched on. Think about that last comment carefully. If matter exists because it is highly pressurized, condensed aether droplets at the very center of the spherical convergence, what do you suppose such a high pressure condensate would do if the standing wave surrounding it all of a sudden were to destructively disappear? Blast the hell on out of there of course. And what do we call it when matter does this? Photon emission in one case, gluons in another, W's in yet another. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 20:22:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA21223; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 20:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 20:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608140300.UAA04228@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > But if it really is an argument, the neat thing is that experimental >verification will be possible--one way or the other--soon. I put my >money on causality falling, but when relativity tangled with quantum >mechanics in the EPR paradox, QM proved out. However, I (and a lot of >other people) have a lot more faith in special than general >relativity. > > We will see, and for me that is the most interesting fact of all. >My grandfather learned to fly from the Wright brothers, survived WWI >as a fighter pilot, saw Lindburgh off to Paris, men walking on the >Moon, and close-up pictures of Saturn. > > When I was born, the speed limit was the speed of sound... > Robert I. Eachus I think that the interesting thing about what you mention regarding your grandfather is how short a period it has really been since we have become so well learned in the behaviors of the universe. We really and truly believe that we know a lot of the principles of the behaviors of the universe, and yet I cannot help but to be confident that we still do not understand some fundamental principles. In other words, I don't think we have things a little bit wrong, but that we don't even know which ballpark we are playing in. Indeed, we don't have a clue as to whether causality is a principle or whether there exists an intrinsic randomness permeating all actions. Don't mistake what I say for any lack of appreciation for the tremendous power of comutation for all we do know, but simply understand that what we have are sets of equations that say, "If you crunch these numbers like this you will get the statistical outcomes of these processes". The entire process in between is deemed "not knowable". There is a vast difference between what is "knowable", and what is "measureable". One should IMNSHO be extremely careful to avoid claiming that measurements of outcomes are representative of what happened in between the start and stop of a process. In other words, "that they are all we can possibly discover or should discuss". I would put every penney I have on QM succeeding in one form or another as a tool of describing the probabilistic consequences of certain real, causal, processes. Simply put, QM is just a mathematical proceedure for getting around our extremely poor instrumentation such that we can observe the statistical behaviors of things which is all our crude devices can monitor. If we could monitor the progress of the waves in the aether, then we could describe things just as precisely as our tools and our definitions would allow. In other words, how would you describe the path of a tornado? Think about that for a minute, and then if you work with the types of wave energies to represent "particles" that I do, then you will understand the difficulty in pinning down position and momentum at the same time even if you could probe an electron like we can probe a tornado. By the way, it turns out that the model I have been studying was considered in a slightly different form before the turn of the century by Thomson (Lord Kelvin), Riemann, Bjerknes, Maxwell, Lorenz, and Helmholtz to name just a few. The thing is, Thomson took the concepts all the way to a structure they called a "vortex sponge". This structure permeating space is very much like the structure I came up with in my models. This work, however, was coming of age in the 1880's, and not very long after the entire concept of an aether was "disproved". Throughout this century, due to the tremendous successes of QM, if you even mention the word "aether" you are laughed at or refused a chair at a university. Bohm had that problem and was in essence, chased out of the US. I can accept that there are manners in which things can be induced to occur. I can accept that there are manners in which the above can come to pass for which I am ignorant of the manner in which to get the result to occur (FTL etc. and seeming violations of causality). However, I sit here and proclaim in all confidence, that if something occurs for which causality seems to have been violated, then we do not understand the laws of physics governing that device. Period. We should not be hiding behind the QM veil proclaiming there is nothing to learn because causality is violate, rather we should be working to figure out what is causing the things to behave in the manner they do. This entire century has been a tremendous success and a tremendous failure IMO. But our devices and instruments are almost good enough to get at the throat of the matter as you correctly suggest. But when the dust settles and all the feathers are plucked, I put my money of matter not existing as static, stationary, attractively held together peas. And instead, we will find that matter, photons, and all that exists is dynamic, just like the motions of our universes expansion which too will be finally considered to be cyclic, and we just happen to be living in one of the expansion periods of time. This is so important because it deals directly with the fundamental philosophical principles governing the functioning of everything around us. Today, we believe that philosophy cannot be measured. This is not accurate. Philosophy can be measured in how it performs qualitatively. And we have a very large number of yes no, more or less, answers for any philosophy to successfully respond to that almost any philosophy will fail the test. We need to get a firm foundation under our feet with a theory that incorporates just one force mechanism, one aether filling all of space, and a description of how that one substance and that one mechanism lead to all of the particles and forces we observe. This may sound tall, but I can almost taste it and feel that we will meet the challenge. Then philosophy can return to figuring out why that aether is there in the first place, and physics can get on down the road of enlightened progress. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 21:52:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA11252; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 21:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 21:47:09 -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: Need strategy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 22:45:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Need strategy To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: strategy needed >Tue, 13 Aug >Scott Little >...............>Does anyone have any ideas as to how we could go about getting CETI to cooperate with us on this? On Sun. August 13, Jim Dunn, Co-Executive Director: CTC NASA: Northeast Region, among others visited my lab. I don't know what to think of Dunn, as to whether he's for real. He talked a good story though. Claimed he was meeting with the Patterson on Monday the 12th. Said it was with regards to their problems with Motorola. He related their story, which is different every time I hear it, depending on the story teller. I'm up to my neck in work so I'll reserve the entire tale for another post. Bottom line though he claimed to know Scott Little among many other people like Bitterly at American, Satcom, United Tech, etc. (Dunn claimed he almost burned up the generator section of Bitterlys Flywheel system by dumping off 4 kilowatts hrs stored energy in one second,* gosh thats one tough "coffee cup size" generator, guys*). Since he knows you Scott and he has a direct line to Patterson's Lab perhaps you should e-mail him at jdunn@ctc.org and see if he can seek cooperation from Patterson. BTW let me know his response. Oh yeah, in closing he had three samples of the 'magnetic motor with the scooter' guy's magnets two of which got away from him during a meeting and third was left with a battery company. As I journey along my path, each new person in the energy field tops the last, it's interesting but scary as to who's around the next bend. Joe Flynn Flynn Research Inc. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Aug 13 23:11:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA25198; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 23:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 23:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960814055833_76216.2421_HHB32-1@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: aerogel critters X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace - > "Was the following posted to vortex by mistake?" Oops, yes, it was, sorry. That subject morphed out of Bill B.'s speculations about aerogels or gelled air or something somehow being involved in the intense repulsive field in the plastic film story. This led to angel hair and the Salida Colorado UFO sightings, but I hadn't realized that the thread was by then on freenrg-l. I'm not even sure now where the bifurcation point was, as these things tend to be very sensitive to initial conditions. :) Nebbermine, den - unless someone has something on the angel hair. I always thought it was spider silk, but in the massive quantities we used to see, it was almost biblical. And there weren't any spiders in it. And spider silk doesn't just evaporate after sitting around for a while, nor dissolve when you rub it. Bizarre. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 00:03:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA03557; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 23:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 23:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3211798F.74D8@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: Actual variation of gravitational constant? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Dear Achim Schumacher (U. of Wuppertal), I like your lively WWW page. I'm an intellectually open amateur appreciator of science, having received a B.A. in physics and history at M.I.T in 1964, and a M.A. in psychology at Boston U. in 1967, and now live near Santa Fe, New Mexico. The article on the remarkably wide scatter in high precision measurements (100 ppm claimed) of G in March, 1996 "Discover," fascinated me. I looked up "Getting the Measure of Gravity," by George T. Gillies and Alvin J. Sanders in April, 1993 "Sky and Telescope", and then drove 65 miles to the excellent library at Los Alamos National Laboratory, to zerox three reports: W. Michaelis, H. Haars, and R. Augustin, Metrologia, 32, 267-276, 1995/96. M.P. Fitzgerald and T.R. Armstrong, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 44(2), 494-497, April, 1995. and your group, H. Walesch, H. Meyer, H. Piel, and J. Schurr, above, pages 491-493. The experiments are very painstaking. I am reminded of Samuel Johnson's famous definition in his dictionary, the first major dictionary of the English language, of "lexicographer": "a harmless drudge". I called Gabriel G. Luther (luther@lanl.gov) at LANL and Riley D. Newman, Laboratory for Gravitational Research (rdnewman@uci.edu) at U. of California at Irvine, and both assured me that there was nothing "screwy" about G. The measurement is just so very difficult and tricky... The Michaelis data, for a period of seven months, for Series A to H with tungsten masses varies from a low of 6.713 to 6.716, and in Series A to H with Zerodur masses from 6.712 to 6.725, while a graph of ten Fitzgerald results over a period of five months shows a low of 6.664 to a high of 6.6665. Doesn't this raw data, if taken at face value, suggest a variation of about .001 in a week? If this level of variation is actually there, whether in G itself or in an unknown force, then measurements at higher precision than the presently claimed ~ 100 ppm will not converge, but will show scatter in time and by location. Data points that do not "fit in" should be treasured, not discarded. Experiments should be run in duplicate at the same location over a year, and their variation correlated. The same duplicate apparatus should be additionally duplicated at different distances for simultanous measurements for the year. The faster the time response of the apparatus, the better. One data point per hour would be enough to scan for correlation with astronomical sources. The present level of 100ppm accuracy would be enough to prove the variation. Paul J. Steinhardt (U. of Pennsylvania) and Clifford M. Will (Washington U.) have published "High-frequency oscillations of Newton's constant induced by inflation," Physical Review D, 52(2) 628-639, 15 July, 1995: the abstract states, "We find conditions for which the oscillation energy would be sufficient to close the Universe, consistent with all known constraints from cosmology and local test of general relativity." I have no idea whether their "high frequency" includes the range from 3 X 10E-6 Hz (one light-month) to 3 x 10E-7 Hz (one light-year) to 3 X 10E-8 Hz (ten light years). I also have no idea if such background gravitational radiation, even if relatively intense, would affect the various laboratory measurements of G. You may have heard of these papers: H.E. Puthoff (Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, Texas 78746, puthoff@aol.com) "Gravity as a zero-point fluctuation force," Physical Review A, 39(5), 2333-2342, March 1, 1989. Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, and H.E. Puthoff, "Inertia as a zero-point Lorentz force," Physical Review A, 49(2), 678-694, Feb., 1994. According to his derivations, full of rather long equations that are actually fairly simple calculus, both the gravitational mass and the inertial mass of a particle may result from that particle's subquark level structure of charged particles (partons) interacting with a real vacuum zero point fluctuation electromagnetic energy of cosmic origin, a literal expression of Mach's Principle. The observed mass of the particle turns out in this model to be directly related to the "parton's" charge squared, and inversely related to G and to the parton's "bare mass". Thus, variations in G may be a direct window into the most fundamental levels of structure. To prove the existence of this variation is feasible in the near term. It is a straight shot at the Nobel Prize. Whoever first intends to explicitly and efficiently search for this variation will win. Substantial institutional support might well be available to grasp such a possible plum. Rich Murray Room For All HCR 70 Box 515 Pecos, NM 87552 505-757-6145 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 04:58:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA12694; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 04:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 04:54:31 -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: FTL and tangled coaxial cable X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: a) is any of this in response to the FTL phase [signal phase, not state phase] change in coaxial cable? b) and if so what do Electron Spin Resonance experiments have to do with (a) ? On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Martin Edmund Sevior wrote: > Robert: you keep referring to an experiment(s) that will test whether > FTL signals can be sent. By implication I guess you mean via entangled > Quantum Mechanical states in some generalization of the EPR paradox. > My understanding of this field of extremely interesting research is > that information transfer cannot be attained this way. If we are speaking of the cable exp. It has been performed many times. Posted recently. Can you provide > some references to the experiment(s) that are about to be performed? > > Thanks, > > Martin Sevior > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 07:35:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA11401; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 07:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 07:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608141408.KAA10610@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Martin Sevior (msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.edu.au) asked: > Robert: you keep referring to an experiment(s) that will test whether > FTL signals can be sent. By implication I guess you mean via entangled > Quantum Mechanical states in some generalization of the EPR paradox. The experiment has been done and replicated. I keep intending to bring in the PRL references, but it is relatively recent (last fall?). Of course the titles of the articles had little to do with the content. Something about macroscopic quantum tunneling. In any event what happens is very straightforward QM, all you have to do is try it. Create a waveguide of high frequency microwaves, with a narrow section which won't pass microwaves below a certain frequency. Use a nice linear amplifier to put a modulated microwave beam in one side. Of course most of the beam is reflected by the narrow portion, BUT some photons tunnel through. The number of photons that tunnel drops exponentially with the length of the forbidden region. The time to tunnel is independent of the length. The recent experiments have used sensitive amplifiers and high power tranmitters to tunnel about 8 inches, in 80 odd picoseconds, transiting the forbidden region at over six times light speed. The next step, going on now, is to build a "waveguide" consisting of forbidden zones and in-line maser amplification that can propagate a signal over longer distances, at an average FTL speed. With a long enough pipe, you can verify FTL propagation of information counting from point of creation to final receiver. Hardly likely to fail given that the current experiments have used a modulated beam, but a worthwhile conformation. The step after that is to design a system where the fields that constitute the pipe are all immaterial, and generate a virtual pipe moving at relitivistic speeds, or actually move matter pipes at relativistic speeds to test the effect. Even orbital velocity is fast enough for measuring the effects, but true causality reversal experiments will require lots of engineering. Remember one of the "details" needed for all this is to be able to amplify a signal millions of times in one short straight through pass. Can be done at optical freqencies, but maser technology needs a big push. > My understanding of this field of extremely interesting research > is that information transfer cannot be attained this way. Can you > provide some references to the experiment(s) that are about to be > performed? I think that theory will change (for EPR). If causality violation is "easy," then there is no strong evidence for the special case conditions which prevent EPR from propagating FTL information being required. But in any case, the experiments above are different. There is no question that the FTL channel can be and has been used for communication. The open question is whether there is a "cosmic censorship" that will pop up when the information must reach the reciever at FTL speeds. In the reported experiments, the path length from signal source to receiver was short enough that the information could have crossed the distance slower than light, if you evision some virtual communication channel. 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 Aug 14 07:45:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA16783; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 07:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 07:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/13/96 14:17 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: strategy needed I know how to get CETI to "Cooperate", but it involves medical experimentation on one Jim Redding, and one Dennis Cravens. I don't think it would be considered "legal" under the current set of laws in this country. (If, however, they could be lured to Outer Mongolia---but then again, that in itself may help:-) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 08:27:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA25562; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608141508.IAA26056@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: Actual variation of gravitational constant? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Dear Achim Schumacher (U. of Wuppertal), > > I like your lively WWW page. I'm an intellectually open amateur >appreciator of science, having received a B.A. in physics and history at >M.I.T in 1964, and a M.A. in psychology at Boston U. in 1967, and now >live near Santa Fe, New Mexico. > >The article on the remarkably wide scatter in high precision >measurements (100 ppm claimed) of G in March, 1996 "Discover," >fascinated me. I looked up "Getting the Measure of Gravity," by George >T. Gillies and Alvin J. Sanders in April, 1993 "Sky and Telescope", and >then drove 65 miles to the excellent library at Los Alamos National >Laboratory, to zerox three reports: > >W. Michaelis, H. Haars, and R. Augustin, Metrologia, 32, 267-276, >1995/96. > >M.P. Fitzgerald and T.R. Armstrong, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation >and Measurement, 44(2), 494-497, April, 1995. > >and your group, >H. Walesch, H. Meyer, H. Piel, and J. Schurr, above, pages 491-493. > Could you by chance post this data? I checked out their report as much as I could but do not have ready access to U libraries so have not read their reports on this. I did read the Discover, and several other accountings of the error. What I also did was to seek any gravitational shielding effects. The reason is because my model of space leads me directly to the presumption that gravitation is not an attraction at all, but rather a differential push down from wave energy arriving from space. Sort of like waves push a driftwood log toward shore in the absence of wind due to the interference between the bobbing frequency of the log and the incident wave frequency. But here is the rub. I went to the world map and found that each of the test cites have some mountains in the not so distant locale. I think the lowest value had the greatest shielding, but the results were not clear and a close look at the orientations of the devices and proximity of the mountains would need to be put together to come to any conclusion. Put another way, I would be real interested in any accounting of the orientation of the device (east/west, N/S, or whatever it actually is). Then take the local vertical vector. There will always be a saddle or a trough in the gravitational field shape in 3D at any location. From that you can get an idea of the magnitude of the shielding. But, if you have raw data, I would love to see it because there are additional lunar effects that might be apparent as the moon gets in line with their apparatus. So, if there are dips at moon rise and moon set, sun rise, sun set, and moon coincidence with the sun etc., this would be very interesting. These variances might be overlooked by the researchers since any lack of symmetry in their devices can induce these celestial effects and they are just averaged out as they consider that the "sun" is pulling on their device too. But, if you have a device that is getting its attraction from a local mass to another local mass, there should be no interjection of additional perturbation by the sun since both are falling in that field together. However, if their masses are not only falling toward the sun, but are sheilded from energy arriving from deep space which is blocked by the sun, then not only are all masses in their system induced to fall toward the sun along with the earth, but additionally, there is less of a compressive thrust available from space to induce the "attraction" they measure. In any case, I would really love to get copies of that information to look at it in light of my model. Thanks, Ross Tessien email tessien@oro.net Fax (916) 273-5119 Phone (916) 273-8807 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 08:29:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA25650; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608141508.IAA26066@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: Need strategy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: As I journey along >my path, each new person in the energy field tops the last, >it's interesting but scary as to who's around the next bend. > >Joe Flynn One would sort of think that despite our (humans) continually believing that what we know is most of what is available to know, (ie the "we are way more advanced than any one has ever been, but it seems like we made it to the end now that we know the earth isn't flat" syndrome). In other words, you would think that with all of the advancements over the past hundred years that we would simply learn to expect even greater advancements in the coming century. But instead, we are continually confounded by the magnitude of things that seem to be claimed. I don't mean to say that we shouldn't scrutinize all of this, and mean nothing negative about the above comments. I thought they were well put. It just sort of struck me that rather than be surprised by the numbers of new things being claimed recently in so many fields, that we instead should get a feeling that our understanding of the universe is what is preparing for a paradigm shift. Once this shift in our perception of physical events is completed, then perhaps devices like "anti gravity", will be regarded as amazing that any one ever believed that there existed no manner in which to couple to space and accelerate right on up to and through the light speed barrier via shocking the quantum vacuum. This is really not any greater a stretch for us than was the development of anti gravity earlier in this centery. Of course we call these devices helicopters and jets, and not anti gravity devices now that we know that it is possible to shear air. Wonder what they will be called when we know that we are not getting over unity, but rather just tapping into the energy filling and driving the oscillations of space's aether which were there all the while as we, like rooky ice skaters just slip our skates to and fro and derive no net thrust. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 08:32:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA26983; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608141511.IAA00334@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Which would be more scary? NASA takes this subject seriously, or NASA does not take this subject seriously. As for cooperation, Which matters more to CETI, money or important results? In their case, and the case of Motorola, a fair answer is both. Personally, I don't believe they are selfish folks, but it's getting harder and harder to avoid the conclusion that they don't really have anything, or at least not a clue about what they really do have. For a real clue, watch Motorola. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 09:41:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA11434; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608141600.JAA29413@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > I think that theory will change (for EPR). If causality violation >is "easy," then there is no strong evidence for the special case >conditions which prevent EPR from propagating FTL information being >required. But in any case, the experiments above are different. >There is no question that the FTL channel can be and has been used for >communication. The open question is whether there is a "cosmic >censorship" that will pop up when the information must reach the >reciever at FTL speeds. In the reported experiments, the path length >from signal source to receiver was short enough that the information >could have crossed the distance slower than light, if you evision some >virtual communication channel. > Robert I. Eachus Below are some excerpts from the cited reference. This is a fairly technical reference on the development of the theories involving aether that have been considered over the past several centuries. The interesting thing about it (aside from my having found references to theories similar to mine which corroberate the assertion I have made in this section that attractions and repulsions can be induced by spherical pulsations that are phase coherent, or phase inverted, ie 0 and 180 degrees) as pertains to this thread is that the manner in which vortices are created leads to their being non local phenomena. By this I do not mean that the energy transport is non local. It is local and causal throughout the "vortex sponge" described breifly below. But rather, like a smoke ring, the compression waves move out to create a three dimensional field of compartmental motions that give rise to the macroscopic form. If you take the compatments to be at the Planck scale, then you get little cells at E-35m. The point is this. if aether exists, then it is very likely that it has more than one mode of energy transport. Transverse waves typically travel at 1/1,000, the velocity of compression waves. For water, for example, the sound compression waves move at about 1,500 m/s while the transverse waves on the surface move at perhaps one m/s. This is typical of transverse waves and examples can be found in thermal inversions in the atmosphere, bars of steel, and on and on. The precise ratio depends on the geometries of the transverse waves and in the aether this is not as of yet apparent. Simply put, if there is more than one mode of propogation in the aether filling the universe, then it is reasonable to expect more than one velocity of propogation. We understand c, and have come up with wonderful tools to analyse the devices we know how to construct. But this absolutely does nothing to help us understand other potentials of which we are as yet, ignorant. To think that "causality" has been violated simply because a signal or an effect propogated faster than "light" is to restrict ones perceptions of the potential at our disposal of which we are ignorant. It matters little to me if the effect is carried through our universe or through some dimension that is not currently accessible to us. If there is an affect over there, that was instigated over here, then I want to know how it occured no matter what the rate of propogation. And if causality is violated, then we are just so many puppets without control of anything we do. So, we can just all shoot ourselves in the head, or get to figuring out what is wrong with the current formulations of physics. If we are puppets, then it really wasn't us who pulled the triggers, and if we are not and FTL signals indeed get there, then there are things we do not have included in our concepts which we should. I much prefer the latter solution, so here is some reading that will be nebulous at this time but at least you will have an inkling about all of the tremendous work that was done prior to aether becoming a dirty word in just this century. By the way, the manner in which QED is required to make all of the calculations for all of the possible paths is exactly what one would expect to need to do from all of the partial reflections that would exist in an aether sponge. Ross Tessien >From "A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" by Sir Edmund Whittaker American Institute of Physics "The vortex-atom hypothesis is not the only way in which the theory of vortex motion has been applied to the construction of models of the aether. It was shown in 1990 by W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) that in certain circumstances a mass of fluid can exist in a state in which portions in rotational and irrotational motion are finely mixed together, so that on a large scale the mass is homogeneous, having within any sensible volume an equal amount of vortex motion in all directions. To a fluid having such a type of motion he gave the name *vortex sponge*." (his emphasis, my inclusion of Kelvin above) elsewhere; "In the nineteenth centery it was objected to the vortex theory that the virtual inertia of a vortex ring increases as its energy increases; this fact, however, fits in with later discoveries regarding the connection of mass an energy, and would therefore now be regarded as highly favourable." elsewhere; It is possible that hollow vortices are better adapted than ordinary vortex filaments for the construction of models of the aether. Such, at any rate, was the opinion of Thomson (Kelvin) in his later years 1. The analytical difficulties of the subject are formidable, and progress was consequently slow; " **** "but among the many mechanical schemes which were devised in the nineteenth century to represent electrical and optical phenomena, none possesses greater interest than that which pictures the aether as a vortex sponge." ***** 1) Proc. Roy. Irish Acad, i (30 Nov. 1990), p. 340; Kelvin's Math. and Phys. Papers, iv, p 202. 'Rotational vortex cores,' he wrote, 'must be absolutely discarded; and we must have nothing but irrotational revolution and vacuous cores.' **(Point of note, my model goes in the opposite direction. I treat the aether as able to undergo a convergent build up in pressure, or energy density. Further, I treat the aether as able to condense at a sufficiently high energy density which I have calculated to be about E111 eV/m^3 from some rough derivations. But I did explore the concept of holes in the aether along with the concept of build ups and condensations in my model prior to attaining this book. I seem to think that neutrinos are examples of "holes" in the aether as they are sort of the rarefaction form of my aether convergence electron models. So, I see value in both concepts)** From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 09:57:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA16147; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608141633.JAA00473@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: Actual variation of gravitational constant? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On 13 Aug 1996, Richard Thomas Murray wrote to the Vortex List: > Data points that do not "fit in" should be treasured, not discarded. > Substantial institutional support might well be available to grasp > such a possible plum. No shit, Richard. One might well think like this. But one might be wrong. Thanks for the references about variances in local measures of G. Of all our "constants", this one has proved to be unusually difficult to pin down. There is a remarkable variance in existing measurements. But always an excuse, and little or no regard for the possibility that it might not be constant. Copied below is a forwarded message with some related references and info, about the experiments recently conducted in Tampere Finland, where a 2% change was detected in the gravitational "constant" above a Meissner levitated, and rotating, superconductor disk. I am also sending directly to you a copy of a message posted here in early August, which has other references and ideas about the Tampere experiments. Regards, Robert Stirniman ====================================================================== Forwarded Messsage. Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 19:05:58 -0400 From: Giovanni Modanese To: Robert Stirniman Regarding: Tampere Experiments Dear Robert, Thank you very much for sending me the updated information. My paper "Theoretical analysis ...", in the improved version which you can find in the hep-th archive, nr. 9505094, will appear in Europhysics Letters. The paper "Role of a 'local' cosmological constant ..." (hep-th/9601160) will appear in Physical Review D. The third paper, "Updating the theoretical analysis ..." (supr-con/9601001) is still under consideration by another journal. As you might remember, the latter paper was conceived as an answer to the puzzle of the weak height dependence of the shielding. C.S. Unnikrishnan was not convinced of my explanation and he recently wrote a paper asserting the "inconsistency" of the observed phenomenon. It will appear in Physica C. I have not seen the paper yet, although I had an earlier exchange of opinions with Dr. Unnikrishnan. I must also mention just to be objective the short paper of Bull and De Podesta recently appeared in Physica C (I can give you more precise references next week). They hypotesize that the effect could be due just to buoyancy. I absolutely do not believe in this hypotesis, for a number of reasons. In your message you said that the Finnish scientists work now for a canadian institution. Do you know this for sure? I tried several times to get some more information from Dr. Ning Li about the status of the experiment at NASA, but they just keep answering that they "are in progress". I think you are right: the microgravity business is too important to allow them to handle this matter in a "free", public way. Best Regards, G. Modanese From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 12:33:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA21402; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 12:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 12:18:45 -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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: > Todd wrote; > > >Conventional causality does fall in Price's book, as a consequence > >of an analysis into subjective and objective components. This feeds > >into Price's reinterpretation of QM, and things become much more > >intuitive/consistent. It depends on a form of backward causation, > >and "reverse radiation", but "backwards/reverse" is a subjective > >thing having to do with the relative relationship between events. > >Analogous to Ross's thoughts. > > This sounds interesting and I will try to look into it when I get a chance. > The only thing I would say is that if they have anything that is deemed to > "move backward in time" then again they have it causaly incorrect. No. Price's arguments are atemporal, as he puts it. "Backward" is just a subjective label, relative to "forward", and neither have meaning in themselves. In fact, much of the book shows how physicists get the arrow of time by assuming it in the first place, and this is what makes QM + causality a quagmire. > What is > so beautiful about the standing waves I am working on is that if you alter > the phase angle by 180 degrees with respect to the structure of organized > motions of space, then you have a particle that is the equivalent of a time > reversed object in how it will interact with other objects as its waves head > out and waves from the other object head in. Yes, this seems coincide with Price's thinking (IMHO). Price is a philosopher, taking on mainstream physics from an outsider's perspective, using carefully crafted logic and reasoning. The care has made him publishable, and he certainly has their attention. It would seem to me that a "fringe theory" could make some inroads by being related to Price's work. (But most of the people here don't care about infiltrating the physics establishment :-)). Todd Heywood From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 12:46:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA18800; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 12:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 12:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608141850.NAA13637@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 16:24 8/13/96 -0700, Robin wrote: >For my reasoning in this PLEASE see my new web page at: > >http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa I've printed yr paper out and am trying to digest it, Robin. Will revert for discussions later. 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 Aug 14 12:47:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA21827; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 12:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 12:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608141900.OAA14583@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 16:22 8/13/96 -0700, Norman wrote: >Since you ask ! I'm getting a strong feeling that CETI / Patterson are barking >up the wrong tree with electrolysis per se. OK, Norman but Step 1 is to confirm that they even have an effect. I want to get a "working" cell from them and see it "work" in my calorimeter...i.e. see it produce several watts of excess heat output that registers on BOTH my flow calorimetry AND my NLC calorimetry SIMULTANEOUSLY. I need a strategy. For example, suppose I wrote a careful, rational paper explaining how the observed CETI effect could easily be a curious assemblage of measurement errors. I could go on to explain how one could determine whether or not the "effect" was due to measurement errors, and then I could reveal that I have designed, built, calibrated, and verified a dual-method calorimeter specifically for this purpose. I could then send copies of this paper to all the labs that are currently exploring the CETI cell (Motorola, U of Ill, O of Mo, etc.) Do you think that the guys in those labs would then turn to CETI and say, "Hey Mr. Reding, WE'D like to see you send a cell to Mr. Little"? 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 Aug 14 15:16:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA28892; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:53:39 -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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >Thus far the events of 1996 have been most frustrating. Late in '95 we hear >of a 1000:1 power gain in a CF cell. We attempt to replicate this >experiment and spend quite a bit of time and money in the process. We also >attempt to get CETI to let us simply confirm their measurements, free of >charge or obligation. Bottom-line progress to date: ZERO! > >I want an opportunity to test a "working" CETI cell in our new dual-method >calorimeter (which was specifically designed for the CETI cell). > >Does anyone have any ideas as to how we could go about getting CETI to >cooperate with us on this? > > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Maybe the first step in defining the strategy should be to define the goal. Since this group is diverse, that may be difficult. Personally, the reason I blew $2000 on a bunch of stuff that has since found interresting but alternative use is that I wanted proof in my own hands that the energy nut had been cracked. I hoped to have an experience like 20 years ago when my wife and I assembled an Altair on our kitchen table. I wanted to be witness to the paradigm shift, and maybe even play some small role in it. Of course there was this psychological matter of becoming involved in the s.p.f. dichotomy, of sliding over into the true believer camp, and wanting to help the true believer "home team" win the day. I had the true believer faith in ultimate victory. Still do, but that faith is not with the CETI patents. All indications are that there must be some problem there not yet brought to light. I confess that my interest wained in pursuing this beginning with the first negative reports on the ersartz beads. My personal feelings about the calorimeter are now that I enjoy mowing the grass more than working on it. I don't like having the feeling that what I am doing is a complete waste of time. I get much more joy from watching mysterious little things happening in xenon tubes. Life is short and I am not young any more. It's an immature or maybe senile attitude, but it is one that can be enjoyed when retired and having no financial strings attached. Working on verifying patented technology like the CETI cell is mostly charity work. It is not likely to have any immediate financial reward for the "outside" participants. If the goal is to facilitate financial success through collaboration then the research strategy should be to *avoid tightly held intellectual property*, unless easily circumvented. Financially speaking, if there is no way to get on board, why not look for another train. If Muller's motor is genuine and he should be open about his invention and reasonable about sharing the wealth, open to development for those with the wherewithall, why not support him instead? The same for the Correas, etc. To the degree the technology is inaccessable it should be avoided. I think this is true whether the goal is financial reward or for the more altruistic goal of bringing clean energy to the world as soon as possible. On the other hand, if the goal is mainly scientific curiosity, if it is to know the truth, to see and experience a new paradigm or show it to be bogus, a different strategy seems appropriate. That is intellectual warfare. A systematic attack on the intellectual property is called for. Hopefully, this could be attained without moving the battle to Mongolia. To some degree, this is already accomplished. The patents have less strength with each failed attempt at replication. The key is establishing that the bead fabrication is done by one "skilled in the art" and that the replication follows the teachings in the patent. We have not been diligent in that aim. To further this goal and strategy I think we would have been well served to follow the patent more closely. For example, it would have been much better to have used the sulfated plastic beads with a copper underlayer. Since all results outside the CETI circle seem to be negative, it is appropriate and reasonable to take a negative stance about the claimed results. It is reasonable to assume the device does not work as a practical energy source, and that the patent is invalid because it does not teach anything of utility. Of special note is that for the large COP cells there is a lack of any long term experiment data which is required to prove "beyond chemical" energy production. It is fairly clear that this group, with equipment specifically designed to overcome the profusion of objections and criticisms of the CETI demo posted on s.p.f., no matter how trivial and rediculous, is also well equipped to find any flaw very quickly and surely. CETI knows this. This gives reason to believe a reluctance on the part of CETI to have their work confirmed charitably, or at almost no cost in money or time to them, is a tactic to cover up something. It would appear they are afraid to run this gauntlet. The only active and legal method available I can think of to test the beads is to make the alternative to CETI worse than providing access to the beads, to put on a trial in absentia. This requires a common goal for the participants, a relentless attack of negative results, the assistance of someone clearly, legally, "skilled in the art," and the expense of one or more very good replications of the beads. This is a lot to bite off. Are some of us ready for this? Personally, I would have to do some real soul searching before commiting to something like that. There is so much positive stuff to do, and right now I am doing such. The passive alternative, wait and see what happens, will also eventually work. The truth will out. There are other fish to fry. Maybe some are bigger than CETI's. However, it has make me sad to see the delay cause sci.physics.fusion lose all it's zest. It is the looking, the dreaming, the thinking, the experimenting, and the cooperating that is really the important thing when it comes to energy. Maybe the focus should be on developing a very inexpensive kit to enable many more people to experiment on their own, to try lots of combinations of materials. Then even some high school kid might find a better solution. Along these lines I have an idea for a very inexpensive kit. An inverted Thermos with metal rod through the lid to conduct heat at a fixed rate for a given delta T to an ice water bath. Inside the Thermous an electrolysis cell with gas vent tubes and a gas barrier between electrode compartments. The electrode compartments could be configured so that electrolysis bubbles cause the electrolyte to circulate - like a perculator. No need for flowing calorimetry. Through the Thermos lid (test platform) two flexible plastic gas vent tubes, one for H2, one for O2, a pressure relief valve, two wires for electrolysis, two for a thermistor, and two for a Joule heater/calibration resistor. A FAQ and CF write-up could be included. I think such a kit, with power supply, could be put together for under $50. It would require a separate VOM, or maybe a kit complete with meters could be put together for under $100. Maybe a sample experiment, based on the NASA Niedra, et al experiments, i.e. light water potassium carbonate nickel electrode cell, could be included. At least NASA got positive results, even if small and open to debate. A form and a central mailing location could be provided to write in results for posting or publication. A contest could even be provided. The entrepreneurs could then pounce on, er, excuse me, cooperate with the lucky winners. This is a longer term solution, but it is very positive and may work to get some otherwise unattainable results. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 16:05:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA08554; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 15:37:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 15:37:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <32124C90.167EB0E7@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: Results from another CETI-type experiment run X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Well, I just completed another run of my CETI cell experiment (for full details on the device, see httP://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/CF ) Here is the executive summary (I haven't yet added these new details to my web page): I experimented with preheating; It didn't ``work'', but I did identify another new artifact to add to my collection of things that can produce spurious excess heat readings. Though, again it is two orders of magnitude below what could explain CETI's demos. --- I tried an augmented configuration, based on Cravens comments at the IFNE meeting several months back: * I doubled the anode area, by adding another Pt mesh to it * I preheated the electrolyte to 50 C using the inline heater element described on my web page. * I used a 1 Molar solution * I reconfigured the elements to have the T probe tips closer to the cell, and used thermal insulation. (I did this because of the preheating). also, * this time I did not wash the beads first. Still, I saw no effect. The experiment ran for ~ 30 hours, terminating when it developed a serious leak. During that time, the parameters stayed nearly constant at 10 ml/min flow, 3.0 V applied cell voltage and I = 20.3 mA of cell current. The delta T was around - 1.4 C (negative because the flow is preheated and then cooling down), and showed no sings of any significant increase during the run. I did identify another artifact that can appear to give a large transient excess heat: if the inline heater power supply dies (as mine did for a moment), it will send a pulse of cold fluid up the system. During the ~ minute it takes for this to move from the inlet T probe to the outlet T probe, a large +dT will register as the hot fluid exits the cell and cold comes in. This can easily result in transients dT of + severaldegrees C. If one were to slowly ramp down the preheating from 50 C to room temp (25 C), at a rate of 1 C per minute, one could probably maintain a dT of + 1 C over ambient for 25 minutes. Amusing artifact, but still no real impact on the CETI demos. I also did some microscopy one the beads, before, during and after the experiment. Interesting observations, which I'll report in a later note. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 16:12:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA10893; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 15:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 15:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960814182050_179065692@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Corporate I don't know how to get CETI to coporate. If and when I get going, I'll coporate, I want Scott and Hal on my team to improve the product. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 18:13:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA07011; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960814235500_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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott, >> I could then send copies of this paper to all the labs that are currently exploring the CETI cell (Motorola, U of Ill, O of Mo, etc.) Do you think that the guys in those labs would then turn to CETI and say, "Hey Mr. Reding, WE'D like to see you send a cell to Mr. Little"? << To be honest - No. They have probably painted themselves into a corner and are on the same Tiger as the Japs are with P & F. They have to flog on with their proteges come what may. IMHO. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 19:41:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA26448; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 19:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 19:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9608150201.AA20263@joshua.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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: >> I could then send copies of this paper to all the labs that are currently exploring the CETI cell (Motorola, U of Ill, O of Mo, etc.) Do you think that the guys in those labs would then turn to CETI and say, "Hey Mr. Reding, WE'D like to see you send a cell to Mr. Little"? << Well< I don't think there are any strong credible errors that one could cite. Potential errors I have found---theremal stratification, fluctuations in inline heater power--are way too small to explain the demos. Hypothetical errors such as an exotic heat pump have more potential effect, but really don't seem very likely....not likely enough to make folks who have the device in their lab petition CETI to give you one. Perhaps CETI will someday offer their experimenters kit, and you can cough up the $5,000 (or is EarthTech a company, in which case its $20,000) to lease a cell. Personally, I don't plan on paying $5,000 for one of their cells. If they can't find a way to give an interested scientist one for free loan or at cost initially, then I doubt either their credibility or their management strategies. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 20:24:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA10767; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608150235.TAA10498@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: Funding Progress and ????? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 08:06 PM 8/13/96 -0700, you wrote: >Michael; > >Do you have a business plan on this one already, and do you have product >designs that are not proprietary that I might look at. I cannot promise >anything, but I do know some people that have involved themselves in smaller >projects like this. They have been known to be really bothered by all the >barrell fish in the world and keep on trying to get rid of them. Seems the >fishermen keep on bringing in new barrels no one opened before. > >I can see if I can do anything depending on the kinds of things you will >need. But even the little guys are going to need to see a business plan so >by what you say I assume you already have something put together since you >already know what is needed. > >Later, Ross Tessien > > Yes I do Ross - have quite a bit. Tommorrow I am going to work feverishly in putting a website together for the technology aspect. I will also revise the business plan we have at the moment to reflect the on-site scouting my partner has just finished in Texas. That should not take long so I will make that available to you as well, over the internet as an email attach ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 20:35:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA11031; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608150248.TAA11614@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: At 12:20 PM 8/14/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 16:22 8/13/96 -0700, Norman wrote: > >>Since you ask ! I'm getting a strong feeling that CETI / Patterson are >barking >>up the wrong tree with electrolysis per se. > > > >OK, Norman but Step 1 is to confirm that they even have an effect. I want >to get a "working" cell from them and see it "work" in my calorimeter...i.e. >see it produce several watts of excess heat output that registers on BOTH my >flow calorimetry AND my NLC calorimetry SIMULTANEOUSLY. > >I need a strategy. For example, suppose I wrote a careful, rational paper >explaining how the observed CETI effect could easily be a curious assemblage >of measurement errors. I could go on to explain how one could determine >whether or not the "effect" was due to measurement errors, and then I could >reveal that I have designed, built, calibrated, and verified a dual-method >calorimeter specifically for this purpose. I could then send copies of this >paper to all the labs that are currently exploring the CETI cell (Motorola, >U of Ill, O of Mo, etc.) Do you think that the guys in those labs would >then turn to CETI and say, "Hey Mr. Reding, WE'D like to see you send a cell >to Mr. Little"? > > >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) > > You never know what your fishin' line might bring up. But you know I have the eerie feeling no one is listening because they are talking about something else. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 20:43:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA15428; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608150326.UAA15734@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: better world technowledgeies has web site search alta vista X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 05:42 PM 8/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >re Mark McCoy, > >alta vista found web page >site @http://www.hitznet.com/bwt/indexmn.htm , >hope helpful. mike slivinski. > > I found it but I sure doubt it is useful...Dennis Lee has been in bigger doodoo than Newman. His story just does not ring even close to truth and frankly, every Christ-On-My-Shirtsleeve Christian that I have met and interacted with enough to get to know has proven out to be ethically dishonest. I suppose however that someone is going to get the material and review it... ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 21:00:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA18669; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608150338.UAA17425@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Be it to me to say anything........ Why don't you start with something that works. After that, then one can develop the reason why it doesn't work! _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 21:53:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28153; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 21:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 21:31:31 -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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: >I want >to get a "working" cell from them and see it "work" in my calorimeter...i.e. >see it produce several watts of excess heat output that registers on BOTH my >flow calorimetry AND my NLC calorimetry SIMULTANEOUSLY. > >I need a strategy. [snip] >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. OK, I get it. The goal is for Scott Little to have one CETI cell to test. How about an open letter published here, on s.p.f, and other places challenging CETI's results and signed by those of this group and members of s.p.f. who are interrested, calling on CETI to provide/loan such to Scott Little at a reasonable cost? If you want media involvement that can be stirred up also. It is bothersome, though, that even if that is achieved and the results are positive, then Scott Little merely joins the ranks of Miley, etc., true? There is only one small increment of progress. Scott Little will be satisfied, but what about the scientific community as a whole? It is a travesty against the people of the world to keep this bottled up if it truly works. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 21:58:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA27900; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 21:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 21:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3212A664.1B1D@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: [Fwd: Actual variation of gravitational constant?] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4476157F6158 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I want to add that my original inspiration for questioning whether G is a variable comes from "Seven Experiments That Could Change the World: A Do-It Yourself Guide to Revolutionary Science," 1995, Riverhead Books, New York, by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, author of "A New Science of Life" and "The Presence of the Past", famous for his novel theory of "morphogenic resonance" as a proposed new mode of causality. Ross Tessin, sorry, I don't have access to any raw experimental data on G. That's one of the problems in the field. What is published are a few data points which each average experimental runs of days and weeks. Probably data that is too abruptly far out of line is simply not included. What is needed is a central archive of all available raw data. I want to emphasize the vision of a research strategy in which a reasonably portable (can be moved on a flat-bed truck) duplicate instrument is designed to be automated, simple, robust, and mass produced, much the way superconducting magnets are for particle accelerators, leading to great economies of scale. Response time should be a data point every hour or faster. If the design can allow response to be directional, so much the better. International cooperation might support ten or twenty identical duplicate instruments, I guess for a cost per duplicate instrument of $ 1 to 10 million. Rich Murray --------------4476157F6158 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <3211798F.74D8@rt66.com> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:00:31 -0700 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: 547, Franklin, Avenue, Santa, Fe, NM, 87501, USA Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5a (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: schumach@wposl.physik.uni-wuppertal.de CC: puthoff@aol.com, rdnewman@uci.edu, luther@lanl.gov, vortex-l@eskimo.com, 74750.1231@compuserve.com Subject: Actual variation of gravitational constant? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Achim Schumacher (U. of Wuppertal), I like your lively WWW page. I'm an intellectually open amateur appreciator of science, having received a B.A. in physics and history at M.I.T in 1964, and a M.A. in psychology at Boston U. in 1967, and now live near Santa Fe, New Mexico. The article on the remarkably wide scatter in high precision measurements (100 ppm claimed) of G in March, 1996 "Discover," fascinated me. I looked up "Getting the Measure of Gravity," by George T. Gillies and Alvin J. Sanders in April, 1993 "Sky and Telescope", and then drove 65 miles to the excellent library at Los Alamos National Laboratory, to zerox three reports: W. Michaelis, H. Haars, and R. Augustin, Metrologia, 32, 267-276, 1995/96. M.P. Fitzgerald and T.R. Armstrong, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 44(2), 494-497, April, 1995. and your group, H. Walesch, H. Meyer, H. Piel, and J. Schurr, above, pages 491-493. The experiments are very painstaking. I am reminded of Samuel Johnson's famous definition in his dictionary, the first major dictionary of the English language, of "lexicographer": "a harmless drudge". I called Gabriel G. Luther (luther@lanl.gov) at LANL and Riley D. Newman, Laboratory for Gravitational Research (rdnewman@uci.edu) at U. of California at Irvine, and both assured me that there was nothing "screwy" about G. The measurement is just so very difficult and tricky... The Michaelis data, for a period of seven months, for Series A to H with tungsten masses varies from a low of 6.713 to 6.716, and in Series A to H with Zerodur masses from 6.712 to 6.725, while a graph of ten Fitzgerald results over a period of five months shows a low of 6.664 to a high of 6.6665. Doesn't this raw data, if taken at face value, suggest a variation of about .001 in a week? If this level of variation is actually there, whether in G itself or in an unknown force, then measurements at higher precision than the presently claimed ~ 100 ppm will not converge, but will show scatter in time and by location. Data points that do not "fit in" should be treasured, not discarded. Experiments should be run in duplicate at the same location over a year, and their variation correlated. The same duplicate apparatus should be additionally duplicated at different distances for simultanous measurements for the year. The faster the time response of the apparatus, the better. One data point per hour would be enough to scan for correlation with astronomical sources. The present level of 100ppm accuracy would be enough to prove the variation. Paul J. Steinhardt (U. of Pennsylvania) and Clifford M. Will (Washington U.) have published "High-frequency oscillations of Newton's constant induced by inflation," Physical Review D, 52(2) 628-639, 15 July, 1995: the abstract states, "We find conditions for which the oscillation energy would be sufficient to close the Universe, consistent with all known constraints from cosmology and local test of general relativity." I have no idea whether their "high frequency" includes the range from 3 X 10E-6 Hz (one light-month) to 3 x 10E-7 Hz (one light-year) to 3 X 10E-8 Hz (ten light years). I also have no idea if such background gravitational radiation, even if relatively intense, would affect the various laboratory measurements of G. You may have heard of these papers: H.E. Puthoff (Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, Texas 78746, puthoff@aol.com) "Gravity as a zero-point fluctuation force," Physical Review A, 39(5), 2333-2342, March 1, 1989. Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, and H.E. Puthoff, "Inertia as a zero-point Lorentz force," Physical Review A, 49(2), 678-694, Feb., 1994. According to his derivations, full of rather long equations that are actually fairly simple calculus, both the gravitational mass and the inertial mass of a particle may result from that particle's subquark level structure of charged particles (partons) interacting with a real vacuum zero point fluctuation electromagnetic energy of cosmic origin, a literal expression of Mach's Principle. The observed mass of the particle turns out in this model to be directly related to the "parton's" charge squared, and inversely related to G and to the parton's "bare mass". Thus, variations in G may be a direct window into the most fundamental levels of structure. To prove the existence of this variation is feasible in the near term. It is a straight shot at the Nobel Prize. Whoever first intends to explicitly and efficiently search for this variation will win. Substantial institutional support might well be available to grasp such a possible plum. Rich Murray Room For All HCR 70 Box 515 Pecos, NM 87552 505-757-6145 --------------4476157F6158-- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 23:46:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA25261; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 23:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 23:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608150634.XAA05570@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: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Does anyone in the group have access to a reasonably precise Cavendish balance for the determination of G? About a year ago, when I was first formulating my aether model, it occured to me that gravitation (based on the model) could not be an attraction mechanism. Rather, it had to be a repulsion of some sort, which eventually led to gravitational shielding which is mathematically the exact same formula as we use today. The more precise term would be differential gravitation where one measures how hard one is pushed down toward earth, and subtracts how hard one is pushed away from earth and the difference would be gravitation. In any case, an experiment occured to me that might settle the debate once and for all. If anyone in the group has access to a Cavendish balance, or the ability to design and construct the electronics, I have the time, and inclination to perform this test. I can also machine components to build a Cavendish type balance, or better, a pendulum type device that determines a change in the period of the oscillation of a pendulum in the presence of secondary masses. More on this below, but if anyone has access to the equipment, please let me know. Ross Tessien *********************************************************************** To understand the following, a refresher in the function of the Cavendish balance is in order. This is a torsional pendulum. In essence, use a vertical thread or wire (or quartz fiber) to support a horizontal cross bar with two masses, one at each end. A dumbell configuration such that the dumbell is free to rotate in the horizontal plane. Next, bring two masses close to the dumbell masses, but such that they are on opposite sides of the dumbell masses. The "attraction" of the secondary masses will induce a rotational torque on the suspended masses and this will force the dumbell to rotate and that winds up the dumbell just like a torsional pendulum by inducing stress in the fiber suspending the dumbell. The amount of rotation gives you the force. By using two masses like the above, you eliminate any assymetries of the system like charge or magnetism etc. The assumption is, however, that the gravitational effect is due to the interaction between the two dumbell masses, and the two "attracting" masses. In other words, the gravitational effect is local between the masses involved. If, otoh, the force of gravitation is due to the compression of matter by the QVF (aka ZPE), (quantum vacuum fluctuations , zero point energy), THEN, the effect of the Cavendish balance and all other gravitational devices probing for the value of G ARE NOT LOCAL. What this means is that their view to free space becomes a parameter of the experiment. And this parameter is (due to current beliefs) not accounted for. For example, each of the three laboratories has different geographies surrounding their laboratories. All three have mountain ranges, but of different elevations and proximities. One has lots of water surrounding it (New Zealand). And their labs are at somewhat different elevations as well. Each of these parameters affect the view factor to space from where I think the red shifted QVF are arriving and which impose the effect we know as gravitation. It occured to me that if one Could conduct the experiments in a gravitational saddle, then it might be possible to determine between these mechanisms. I can imagine a manner in which a positive result would not be found even if the precepts in my concepts are innaccurate, but the possibility is worth investigating. It so happens that I live about 50 miles from one of the best gravitational saddles on the west coast. Donner Summit in the Sierra Mountain range. I also have a friend with a cabin right on the summit where an experiment could be set up. I also have access to the public water works and could gain access to some of the dams in the mountains which would provide yet another gravitation shape like a horseshoe. The thing about the saddle shape for the crest of the Sierras is that you would have a lot of shielding along a north south line, and very little shielding along an east west line (since you would be up at 6,000 to 9,000 feet elevation depending on the cite and with a mountain range that is roughly north south). If gravitational shielding can be determined in this manner, then one should obtain consistent excesses of the gravitational constant when the test masses were aligned along the ew line and deficits in the potency of the gravitational force when the line connecting the centers of masses were along the ns line. Caution, current Cavendish devices (which are more sensitive) use an acceleration method. they measure how fast the suspended mass can be accelerated rotationally and this clearly would not work as a device. There is another excellent type I would really prefer to get hold of and that device uses a pendulum that swings back and forth. The period of the oscillation is altered slightly by the presence of the secondary masses, and this modulation of the period can be determined via electronic timing means to great precesion. In any case, I could put together the cites, and supply the labor. All I need is the device with which to conduct the experiment. The last device is a really excellent one since it can be small. One version uses a small half inch test mass suspended by a quartz fiber (just a fiber optic fiber I think, but probably a mono mode optical fiber so that the diameter is very small). The device is thus very compact which would be good. Alternately, if any one knows how to wire up a timing circuit, I could machine a tiny test mass and might be able to get a vacuum (low grade). I could also machine the structure of the device (ie construct a mount that could be induced to oscillate at some frequency via piezo crystals and then let the thing coast down while measuring the period change with some other sensor. I would build the device if someone could wire the thing up electronically. Of course, if someone happens to be affiliated with a lab that has one and could lend it out for this experiment that would obviously be the best solution. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed Aug 14 23:46:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA25749; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 23:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 23:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608150635.XAA05582@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: If I owned CETI, and I believed in my product, then I would not let others experiment with my device. The reason is because they would then be able to determine things about my device that perhaps I had overlooked. But then, I would not offer it for sale, period. I would allow companies like Motorola, or GE, or places like that test the heck out of it in order to raise production capital to take the product to market. There is a period where you want to prove the technology to the general public and this occurs because you have no funding to get the technology into the market. But once you succeed at the funding, you have a liability on your hands with alligators chasing your lead. As a mechanical engineer, there are extremely few patents that cannot be circumvented by altering this or that about the design and winding up with substantially the same performance. For example, it may not be their neat little beads that do the work in the first place. Maybe it is just that the thickness is x of the platings. And then if you just use a Pd powder that has particles of diameter x, maybe the same nuclear processes would take place. If this were so, then one could construct a device based on what is really going on where the new device does not look at all like the original and the patents would not cover the new device. There are just three reasons to demonstrate the device to the public or to let the public get their hands on any of them. 1) Raise serious funding from large corporations to commercialize their prototypes into production devices and to set up the sales and marketing structures. 2) To sell devices and get rich. (and 5,000 or 20,000 dollar devices will not do this for you. Their expense of fabrication of a prototype is probably on that order of magnitude unless they are selling a lot of them which I currently doubt) 3) To try to win a Nobel Prize. I would expect that 3 is out but who knows. I would expect that 2 is simply not viable. there would only be so many people who are going to spend that kind of money on something out of curiosity, and most of them are likely considering buying into the company. This leaves just one reason to show off the product. And we in this group do not, for the most part, offer any support on that front. So, I doubt we would ever get any devices to test until after the product is available to the general public. And this goes whether the device works or not! Of course, it will only make it out into the public if it does indeed work. But the fall back period from finding a funding entity, and taking the technology to the commercial phase is quite a large step and mostly performed behind closed doors. I wouldn't expect much, but then it never hurts to try. If you want to get a free device, all you need is to tell them you might be able to get them large amounts of funding if you could verify the thermal output magnitude. If they believed that comment, then it would be in their best interest to provide on to such an individual. (All of this of course assumes they are confident that their technology is real, and verifiable). Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 01:37:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA13344; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 01:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 01:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3212babb.19199948@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 14 Aug 1996 12:09:15 -0700 (PDT), Scott Little wrote: >At 16:24 8/13/96 -0700, Robin wrote: > >>For my reasoning in this PLEASE see my new web page at: >> >>http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa > >I've printed yr paper out and am trying to digest it, Robin. Will = revert >for discussions later. Thanks. [snip] Thanks Scott. Please take your time and don't be afraid to criticise freely. I have a tendency when writing to omit some steps in a line of reasoning, so it may be tough going for an outsider. Comments for all and sundry, are not only welcome, but eagerly awaited. 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 15 03:05:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA01053; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 02:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 02:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3212F289.349A@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: Actual variation of gravitational constant? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: You mention "differential push down from wave energy arriving from space". Any consideration that the differential may be the result of "thinning" of the aether between two objects? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Danny and Terry Hamilton hamltndt@cais.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 06:29:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA07302; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 06:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 06:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960815082227_100060.173_JHB59-1@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: strategy needed X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross, >> If you want to get a free device, all you need is to tell them you might be able to get them large amounts of funding if you could verify the thermal output magnitude. << I think we can all assume that this has been said ad nauseam to CETI. Its the chicken and egg syndrome - common to almost all marvelous new inventions. The best of the bunch is Jim Griggs who sells the device and invites outside investigation. He should be the model for all the others IMO. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 07:05:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA01381; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 02:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 02:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960815092501_100433.1541_BHG90-1@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: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Ross, I find your G test interesting, but cannot see why a mountain acting as a zpf shield would behave any differently from one which attracts. Secondly, if these various results are already available, why not use them, along with either local topographical maps or with earth-satellite gravitometric data? Far better, surely, to present your data as explanations of a thorn in the side of the experimentalists than to add your own data - which nobody would accept anyway. You could do the research and if there were indications of a 'shield effect' you would be in an excellent position to enquire of the research teams as to the orientation of the tests they did - or you could even ask them first. Also, I think but do not know that there are certain apparent anomlies already found on the cosmological scale. I did hear (I think) that the omega of a spiral galaxy is constant along its radius - sounds silly, and I may well be wrong. However, the notorious 'dark matter' problem is based on observation. That would imply that if the reason for the problem is a misunderstanding of the behaviour of gravity over a long range, it just might be that this is a test. Astronomical data is wonderful stuff because you have that big lab out there with everybody observing the experiments. Examples are numerous. And the last point is really for Hal Puthoff, in line with my last point. Does the zpf-shielding model account for orbital precession in the same way as relativistic space distortion? Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 07:55:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA00522; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608142248.PAA13183@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: FTL causality violation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Ross wrote: >> This sounds interesting and I will try to look into it when I get a chance. >> The only thing I would say is that if they have anything that is deemed to >> "move backward in time" then again they have it causaly incorrect. Todd wrote; >No. Price's arguments are atemporal, as he puts it. "Backward" is just >a subjective label, relative to "forward", and neither have meaning >in themselves. In fact, much of the book shows how physicists get >the arrow of time by assuming it in the first place, and this is what >makes QM + causality a quagmire. If you presume that there is no arrow of time, then there must be some error in that model of the universe. This is because we exist as creatures who fail to live out all of our past memories, one by one with the image of what we are about to do increasing day by day as we approach the instant at which the event will in our "past" is about to transpire. Even then the supposition would be incorrect. Only if we could freely move forward and backward could such a theory be correct, and only if all creatures and all things moved bidirectionally. This does not occur. In my model, the arrow of time is very simple. A huge ball of condensed aether breached confinement. It expanded outward, inflationary shock at first, and then a norm pressure expansion. All the while, the expansion being driven by the constant pressure evaporation of the condensed aether as it became atomized into droplets confined in the acoustic nodes and surrounded by standing waves. As the expansion, rarefaction of the aether, and thus the evaporation of those droplets continues, the universe has a definite direction in which it is progressing. ie, toward less and less confined mass due to exothermic reactions as the aether continues to boil in the current constant pressure expansion. This model of space and of time has an arrow. Any resonable model of the universe will have some mechanism for the arrow of time, or it is false, or it should bring forward evidence of people who live both forward and backward aging and then growing young over and over at will. > >> What is >> so beautiful about the standing waves I am working on is that if you alter >> the phase angle by 180 degrees with respect to the structure of organized >> motions of space, then you have a particle that is the equivalent of a time >> reversed object in how it will interact with other objects as its waves head >> out and waves from the other object head in. > >Yes, this seems coincide with Price's thinking (IMHO). > >Price is a philosopher, taking on mainstream physics from an >outsider's perspective, using carefully crafted logic and >reasoning. The care has made him publishable, and he certainly >has their attention. It would seem to me that a "fringe theory" >could make some inroads by being related to Price's work. >(But most of the people here don't care about infiltrating the >physics establishment :-)). > >Todd Heywood This sounds good and again I will check into his work. I do happen to care about making inroads because I am writing a book of my own. I am loving all of the wonderful research they were doing at the turn of the century and before. I think that they were almost there and then Heisenberg and others threw the baby out with the bath water. Trading the efficacity of crunching equations in ignorance for the possibility of attaining knowledge based on a firm foundation. I highly doubt that there was such a furor of debate over the equations Newton provided following their having been accepted. they worked so well that they overturned all sorts of other bizarre theories. And physicists and philosophers were really one and the same, so the search for a higher understanding of the mechanisms was getting into full swing. Unlike today where the search for higher understanding of the foundations of physics is deemed a dumb thing to seek, and impossible to attain. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 09:14:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA29910; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 08:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 08:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608151439.HAA23598@dfw-ix5.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: how to build a H2/O2 recombiner X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To Scott Little and other vortexians: Saw this post on the spf and thought it interesting enough to repost directly to you Scott and also to all vortexians who have essentially written off the spf for content. I thought the post valuable for giving the source for solid Palladium (and Platinum) beads. Patterson beads were designed to to give a maximum surface area exposure for a given amount of Pd. The inner layer of Cu and Nickel were artifacts of enabling Pd to be plated to the plastic bead. I do not know the exact reasoning behind the outer Ni layer except that there were cells using Ni in non CETI excess heat experiments. I believe the control cell at the Power-Gen using nickel beads did not quite act as an inert cell. Perhaps using solid Pd beads under a Patterson Cell setup (using D2O or H2O should say something). I have not seen the name Alfa Aesar posted on the vortex as a supplier. Although the post is in reference to a H2 O2 recombiner, it gives causual mention of an excess heat observation. Dennis Letts wrote: >I have had excellent results using Palladium pellets embedded in a small Teflon rod;the pellets can be purchased from Alfa Aesar, 800-343-0660, stock no. 89114, 25 grams cost $74.40 and will last through many experiments. Platinum pellets are also available but I haven't tried them. >Request the 1995-96 Aesar catalogue and look on pages 947-49 under the catalyst section. >My approach is simple: drill 5 holes through a 1.25 inch x 3/8 inch diameter Teflon rod.Insert a pellet in each hole, except the last. In the last hole place a nylon tie strap to secure the Teflon rod to the electrode holder at the top of the cell. The pellets must remain dry to work properly. A Teflon shield at the base of the Teflon rod will deflect the spray away from the pellets and keep precipitate from building up on the pellets. A good design for the Teflon rod would be to machine a small protrusion at the bottom of the rod to serve as a built-in shield. You can use more pellets if you desire--just drill more holes in a longer rod. The pellets can be replaced in minutes with a pair of needle nose pliers and a small screwdriver to dislodge the pellets. >I have used this method of recombination for hundreds of experiments without incident but use caution and always provide a venting port into a bubbler or direct to the atmosphere. If you use a bubbler, be aware that when you reduce the electrolysis current, the cell will cool and quite often will try to draw the contents of the bubbler into the cell. A small check valve solves this problem--or you can simply disconnect the bubbler when the cell current is to be changed. After the cell has stabilized--15-20 minutes, the suction problem disappears. >I have produced apparent excess heat using this recombination method and immediately removed the recombiners, switching to an open cell configuration--the excess heat persisted, showing that the source of the excess heat WAS NOT the recombiner. >Internal cell space is always a problem--if you need a larger cell, >If you need more help, email is dletts@mail.utexas.edu >Good Luck Dnnis Letts From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 09:45:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA10872; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 09:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 09:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608151514.AA26882@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: Tunneling Particles Can Interact with the Medium X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi all, I am probably off base with this post, but I noted the discussions ongoing about tunneling particles and whether or not they interacted with the medium they were moving through. I gathered people thought not. However I know of at least one case whhere they clearly do. That is the technique know as Inelastic Electron Tunneling Spectroscopy, which I have attempted in a prior life. In that method, a metal-oxide-metal junction is prepared by vapor depositing aluminum, air or water oxidixing that film, and depositing a lead film on top of that. Aluminum naturally oxidizes to a depth of about 50 Angstoms, which just happens to be the perfect thickness for tunneling electrons. The MOM junction is immersed in liquid helium, which makes the Pb superconducting, and the IV curve is scanned from 0 to .5 volts. If the junction is good, i.e. no pinholes allowing ohmic conduction, the current is due to tunneling. About 1% of those electrons inelastically interact with the mediun, and peaks and valleys develop in the IV curve. Those peaks and valleys for a vibrational spectrum of the medium. With just the MOM, the alumina phonon spectrum is observed. But you can also expose the alumina layer to a variety of chemicals prior to depositing the Pb electrode, and you will then see the vibrational spectrum of the chemical as well. People have looked at small molecules all the way up to DNA in this fashion. In any case, I am probably not following the discussion correctly, but I thought I'd chip in my 2 cents. Please let me know what I didn't understand. Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 12:22:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA05236; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 12:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 12:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608151623.JAA24724@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: Actual variation of gravitational constant? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >You mention "differential push down from wave energy arriving from >space". Any consideration that the differential may be the result of >"thinning" of the aether between two objects? > >Danny and Terry Hamilton Absolutely not. Many people think that pressure differences are sufficient to push them down. But the reality is that a pressure gradient tends to buoy them up. In any case, that is a static concept and I have zero hope that any one can get it all to work with any static aether concept. If you are going to use an aether, or a vortex sponge as I mentioned in an earlier post, then you are trying to figure out how aether, matter, forces, photons, and on and on are all created in and created from the aether. When you attempt to do that it slowly becomes apparent that if the aether must provide not only the substance of a thing, but as well the motivation for that thing moving, that you cannot within that substance have any portion of the substance that is held together like a particle. That would be like swimming in the deep ocean and seeing balls of water say one foot in diameter, just floating around and bashing on one another and yet remaining coherent as balls. It just won't happen. The only manner in which you can come up with a particle in a fluid, made of that fluid, and where forces are transmissions of wave energy exchanged through that fluid; is if you consider matter and photons to be resonances, and not "particles". This hurdle I think is going to be like getting over the concept of a static universe when Hubble showed that it was expanding. Einstein found out that the universe could not be static in his equations, but couldn't bring himself to believe it despite all of the other warping of space and time in his GR. Today, physicists have developed an entire model of space time matter etc. which is dependent on the concept of "particles" where these so called particles are additionally surrounded by this other concept called a "field". But no description is given for what any mechanism might be for the force exchanges save that the probability of a particle getting bashed from here to there is P. If you cannot have a static, nice little particle (impossible to imagine for most physicists today), then there is no particle that is attractively held together. When you put that into the pie, and then consider the nuclear force, we are all huge bombs with our pinky finger tips about the equivalent of an H bomb (if completely converted to energy vs real bombs which convert just a tiny fraction of the reactive mass to energy). And yet we remain together, why? Well, if you consider just one particle, the only solution if all you allow yourself is aether, is that following the explosion outward of your "particle", there was another subsequent explosion inward (ie convergence). But that cannot be stable, so another explosion out, implosion in ..... and right away you find yourself with a resonant standing wave in a compressible but highly rigid fluidic medium. Now the physicists of the late 1800's had figured this all out already. They had also figured out that if the oscillations were at 180 degree phase angles, that there would be attractions, and if at the same phase angle, repulsions. So we see that Maxwell, Kelvin, and many of their contemporaries had already figured out that you would get the concept of positive and negative "charge" out of an aether. Sorry for all the background, but without that you would not understand the following. Your question is about gravitation and a pressure gradient. first of all, gravitation is simple. Coupled oscillators frequency lock together with the most regular arrivals of energy. If all particles are standing waves, then the most regular frequency is that which is common, locally. And that would have been common to all of the universe during the inflationary period of the big bang. But following that, the continuing expansion gives rise to red (Doppler) shifting of the energy arriving here from galaxies way out there. But that wave energy must be in the same aether ocean since that is all there is, period. Matter standing waves here will thus filter out and attenuate some of that wave energy. In doing so, the standing wave will be thrust in a direction opposite that arrival of energy. But if there is a body nearby like the earth, the earth has filtered some of that energy prior to the waves getting to us from beneath. And so we are pushed up and off of the earth, less forcefully than we are pushed down. All of this by the energy interfering with our matter. Now, the first reason there is no pressure differential (well, not much of one), is because matter standing waves are swimming in an ocean of aether, practally all alone. ie, the earth at a wavelength of E-35 meters (the Planck scale) is in essence a clear, transparent, crystal ball that only slightly alters our ability to see deep space through the earth beneath our feet. This is not how we like to think of walking but we really are floating on a bunch of energetic waves, and not on solid ground. So, the earth is a trivial obstruction to the aether as it must be since all of the matter in the earth is made of aether too. There is a bit of an increase in density, and this is what accounts for the refraction of light due to the change in density of the aether. And stars are emitting freshly released aether and we see it all the time in coronal mass ejections that blow and accelerate particles away from the sun for up to 5 solar radii. Think of that one. particles **accelerate** away from the sun for up to 5 radii. HMMM? maybe there is an aether. There is only one place I can think of where there is a large pressure gradient and that appears to be a black hole. When a star collapses, it creates a rarefaction region sort of like a spherical shell. The aether begins to accelerate inward from the surrounding space. But there is (in my model) a pressure at which the aether can condense (this is how my model differs from those explored in the 1800's). That pressure is an energy density of E111 eV/m^3. Large to say the very least. The derivation of this has been posted and you can look it up in dejanews.com by using my name as an author filter. The point is, if a very large star collapses with sufficient energy to induce a condensation, then all of the aether that was the star would crunch down into a new more energetic phase just like water vapor into liquid water in a constant T and P condensation process under a piston. In this case the stars own matter is the piston and the vapor. But you would expect that this is a highly pressurized thing that just like our particles above would explode. And you would be right. That is the source of energy behind supernovae, failed black holes. But, we ignored the in rush of aether from the rest of space in the above concepts. That is going to follow the collapse inward due to the rarefaction of the surrounding space. So, therefore, if there is a radius at which that in rushing aether attains a velocity of c, then it will have sufficient kinetic energy to condense itself at some smaller radii when the previous aether core is encountered. But since the inrushing aether can condense itself, there will be no escape of the aether and there will develop a constant flow of aether into that black hole, complete with event horizon. We wind up with a growth in the diameter of the condensed core, and a rarefaction of the surrounding space. But the extent of the growth of the rarefaction is keeping pace with the growth of the core, and so the system is balanced and should (ideally) persist forever. But this is not an ideal universe, and there are practical ends to things and so we should expect that the aether eventually becomes too rarefied to maintain the confiment and you should expect an explosion of one form or another. First, one would expect to breach confinement via the jets that would normally form just like in your bathtub except here it is aether flowing down the drain. The tips of those tornado like vortices should touch down on the core and find a big surprise, and the universe would then find a huge jet being emitted into space. That should thrust the core of the black hole off center. And that should expose the other side of the core to a less energetic convergence and so the second polar jet should breach. Thus, with the second stronger than the first (easily shown), the core is thrust back toward the center of the convergence again as it spews out all of its contents into space. (see NGC 4261 for a black hole core with a single jet that is 20 light years off center and see lots of examples of dual jets coming out of active galactic nuclei, AGN's. Also, see quasars as examples of cores that ran out of stuff inside and have dropped that convergence velocity to sub light such that we now see the most awesome power houses in the universe exposed to the outside onlookers along with the million light year long stable jets trails and huge lobed galaxies that were expelled and the bizarre signature that is just synchrotron radiation and not like any other atomic spectra as I have been told, still looking for more on that). But there is another manner in which the explosion might take place. The core might completely breach confinement and explode all at once in a large, singular, Big Bang. And with that I have brought you right on back to the beginning where all of the aether that had condensed originated. The expansion and boiling of that condensed aether ball would have broken the condensate into smaller and smaller droplets that would have been confined in the acoustic nodes. And the nodes would be at 0 and 180 degree phase angles relative to one another. So there is your origin of charge and of matter all over again. Coupled oscillators, that's the ticket. And so if the condensed aether was evaporating in essence, that means that the aether of the universe is being rarefied. So, to maintain a constant pressure evaporation we would expect there to be a preference for reactions that release aether to the universe. And now you know why exothermic reactions are mass reducing reactions rather than mass gaining (the current models all acknowledge this as what happens, but there is no requirement that mass had to be reduced. The current reactions are symmetric and should equally go in both directions. In my model there is just on direction in which the reactions can go in order to keep the pressure of the universe up). And one more point and then I need to get to work. If exothermic reactions release some of the aether confined in the convergent standing wave pressure amplifiction (and density of the aether amplification), then the release of that aether should alter the pressure of space in and around stars and groups of stars. There should be a flow of aether out of stars. But we indeed see a flow of particles that can be accelerated at great radii from stars in the acceleration of particles in coronal mass ejections. But most of all, we see the acceleration away from stars dropping off as we move outward and away from a galaxy. But we do not think of it in these terms since we do not know of aether any more. So what will a reduction in an outward thrust in opposition to gravitation appear to be? An increase in the potency of gravitation as you move out of a galaxy. And this will lead you to look for another mystery of the universe according to Garp and the current view, "Dark Matter". But you won't find it because you missed the point that space was flowing out of stars. And to date, each and every place they have looked, no dark matter. So, what is the matter? Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 12:30:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA09501; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 12:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 12:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608151734.KAA00692@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: gravitation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On 14 Aug 1996 John Schnurer wrote: > I have only recently been in knowledge of the work of Giovani M > and Dr. Li. Oh oh, John -- looks like you may have caught the bug. I've had a compulsive fascination with this for about 16 months. It's not going away. > I would appreciate any information you can give me. You might take a look some of the things at David Jonsson's elektromagnum website. http://www.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum >I talked with Li on the phone ..... she seemed nice, but then did >not write E mail, as we had spoken of. Later I sort of maybe 'shamed >her' into writing when I wrote to her that Gio had not heard much from her. It seems a startling admission to me that she told you NASA is currently building a large superconductor disk to do the experiment. Doing it is no surprise, but admitting it is unusual. American Glasnost? Hope springs eternal. >I too would like to know of the Finns. Me too. Someone on this list may know. Where have they landed? >Any Idea who/what NASA MSFC are? Not sure. It might be a typo for MSPC, which stands for: Materials Science Physics & Chemistry. The MSPC group works in development, manufacture, and testing of materials in a microgravity enviroment. You can find more about the MSPC group from the web page of Ning Li and Douglas Torr. I don't have the exact URL but it used to be something like this: http://isl-garnet.uah.edu/RR93/uahmatsci.html The ending may be wrong. If so, you can probably find it with the RR93 part, or by using a web browser. Here's an interesting paragraph from the above site: ---------------------- Can gravity be 'made' in the laboratory? A theory that might lead to the creation of measurable manmade gravitational fields has been developed by physicists at UAH. If the theoretical work is borne out in the laboratory, it will prove that physicist Albert Einstein was correct in predicting that moving matter generates two kinds of gravitational fields: gravito-magnetic and gravito-electric. The 'artificial' gravitational field would be generated inside a container made of a superconducting material, said Dr. Douglas Torr, a research professor of physics and director of UAH's Optical Aeronomy Laboratory. "I think we can at the very least generate a microscopic field ..." If Einstein was right, the amount of gravito-magnetic energy produced by an object is proportional to its mass and its movement, explained Dr. Ning Li, a research scientist in UAH's Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research. To create the artificial gravitational fields, Torr and Li propose placing a superconducting container in a magnetic field to align ions that are spinning or rotating in tiny circles inside the superconducting material. Their theory predicts the existence of ionic spin or rotation in a superconductor in a magnetic field. ----------------------- In the above paragraph there is brief mention of "aligning ions" in material. In one of Ning Li's technical articles she elaborates on this idea, and discusses the analogy between mu -- the magnetic permeablility of material, and mu_g the magneto-gravitic permeability of material. Just as in magnetic material, where alignment of unpaired electron spin, results in a high value of mu -- in gravito-magnetic material, alignment of unpaired nucleon spin results in a high value of mu-g. This seems to be a revelatory idea with great practical value. The real news is, it's not news. An engineer with General Electric, Henry Wallace, invented an "anti-gravity" machine in the early 1970s based on the same principle. He was awarded three US patents. The machines themselves, and other articles or information about them, have disappeared. I'm sending a file by direct email about this. This file can be found at the elektromagnum site. Anything done over the last forty years that provides any kind of nuts-and-bolts insight to gravitation, has an unusual habit of disappearing and/or being completely ignored in the science press. Hardware, articles, and theories. Biefeld-Brown, William Hooper, Henry Wallace, Tampere Experiments, the "Maxwell" equations for gravitation, and many others. We are permitted to study gravitation as geometry. But, methods of cause, effect, control, and manipulation are apparently not allowed in open discussion. Is it a result mainly of national security issues, born from socio-political events of the last forty years? Maybe so. But, it is also part of larger pattern that has been going on for thousands of years. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 13:48:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA05980; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 13:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 13:22:51 -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: Tunneling Particles Can Interact with the Medium X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Kirk Shanahan writes: > >I am probably off base with this post, but I noted the discussions ongoing >about tunneling particles and whether or not they interacted with the medium >they were moving through. I gathered people thought not. However I know of I think "people" was me. >at least one case whhere they clearly do. That is the technique know as >Inelastic Electron Tunneling Spectroscopy, which I have attempted in a prior >life. > >In that method, a metal-oxide-metal junction is prepared by vapor depositing >aluminum, air or water oxidixing that film, and depositing a lead film on >top of that. Aluminum naturally oxidizes to a depth of about 50 Angstoms, >which just happens to be the perfect thickness for tunneling electrons. The >MOM junction is immersed in liquid helium, which makes the Pb >superconducting, and the IV curve is scanned from 0 to .5 volts. > >If the junction is good, i.e. no pinholes allowing ohmic conduction, the >current is due to tunneling. About 1% of those electrons inelastically >interact with the mediun, and peaks and valleys develop in the IV curve. >Those peaks and valleys for a vibrational spectrum of the medium. With just >the MOM, the alumina phonon spectrum is observed. But you can also expose >the alumina layer to a variety of chemicals prior to depositing the Pb >electrode, and you will then see the vibrational spectrum of the chemical as >well. People have looked at small molecules all the way up to DNA in this >fashion. > >In any case, I am probably not following the discussion correctly, but I >thought I'd chip in my 2 cents. Please let me know what I didn't >understand. > >Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} I do not see how you can be sure the "inelastic" interaction was not due to two stage hop? The electron, instead of leaping across the gap could, with some probability leap to an intervening atom. The phonon exchange at the intervening site would depend on the average delay of the electron at the intervening site, true? The situation in my 10 meter cell experiment is a bit different. A 10 V signal is passed through 10 meters of electrolyte. That's about 1 V/meter. Your field gradient has a maximum value of 0.5 V/(50 x 10^-0 m) = 1 x 10^8 V/m. In my experiment the gradient is 8 orders of magnitude less. Yet the charge equalization occurs at a speed approaching 0.1 C. How is this? I do not believe protons or heavy nuclei can equalize charge that quickly through the mechanisms suggested in the literature, i.e. simple ion migration through diffusion, or "ion drift". I have suggested the possibility that there is an electron tunneling chain involved, that there is a charge exchange that occurs over many links simultaneously. this gives an average time per link of zero, thus no local phonons can be generated except at the first and last links. Bill Page has suggested charge transport via proton tunneling, i.e. that electrolytes contain proton conduction bands and represent liquid state semiconductors. My position is that protons are 3 orders of magnitude more massive that electrons, thus must be at least 1000 times slower at equalizing charge in the electrolyte, unless of course there is some non-conservative wonderful new inertia free instantaneous mass transport capability presented through the proton tunneling, which I consider a good possibility. If protons are 3 orders of magnitude more massive than electrons, and electrons equalize charge at about 0.6 C in a conductor, then protons should only be able to equalize charge at a speed of .0006 C, and large ions even more slowly. Following tunneling, a masive particle will have a much lower probability of tunneling again. A longer average delay could be expected. The 0.0006 C equaliztion rate does not appear to happen. The proton tunneling, if it exists, must therefore also occur in chains. My experiments on this are incomplete but continuing. That's it in a nutshell. Either way, electron tunneling chains or proton tunneling chains, I would expect some "unaccouted for energy" in conduction through electrolytes. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 15:52:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA20297; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608152135.OAA05712@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: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Chris Wrote; >I find your G test interesting, but cannot see why a mountain acting as >a zpf shield would behave any differently from one which attracts. If you think in terms of what we are used to, ie attractions, then there is no difference. But, if you eliminate attractions, then there are only compressions. A bar of steel is compressed inward and when you pull you releive some of the pressure by providing the bar with some shielding to incoming wave energies. Now, for gravity. Remember that these devices use two masses to produce a completed system (or so they think). But if you have mass A over here, and bring mass B toward it, with "attractive" gravitation you will expect the effect to be contained between them. outside mountains will not interfere. If, however, the thrust pushing them together originates out in deep space, then the mountains alter the amplitude of the incoming radiation. And so if you remove some of the radiation, the effect of thrusting the two objects will not be as great. This leads to one measured force in line with the mountains, and a different measured force at right angles to the mountains. This is not the simple leaning of a pendulum toward the mountain syndrome. I hope the above makes this clear. There is one potential error in the concept due to frame dragging. I had taken a step back from this effect being detectable and still allow that the structure for the nodal structure of space may not be quite right just yet. But given some of the claims about other phenomena like the spinning super conductive ceramic altering (measureably) the gravitational field it seems to me that the effect I wanted to try to measure last fall should actually be measureable. That is why I hope someone in this group has access to a device. > >Secondly, if these various results are already available, why not use >them, along with either local topographical maps or with earth-satellite >gravitometric data? The measurements are too difficult (G) and you would get conflicting predictions. You would need to know the precise composition of the land masses etc. inside of the earth in order to perform a complete calculation of the resultant force. The best way to do the determination is to set up an experiment somewhere with a large assymetry to the horizontal field strengths in a gravitational saddle. Then, by rotating the experiment you settle it once and for all as to whether or not the energy can be measured in this simple a manner. Seems prudent to try to me even if it does not work just to eliminate the possibility. > >Far better, surely, to present your data as explanations of a thorn in >the side of the experimentalists than to add your own data - which >nobody would accept anyway. Try to imagine the potential for density variances due to ore compositions underneath the horizon and inside of the earth in the various locales of the experiments. And, if I am able to get hold of an instrument, this measurement should be fairly simple. It should be able to measure G to better than 2 decimal places or it wouldn't work as the effect will be a percentage of G. But anyone could then replicate the experiment. The thing is, I don't need to get an accurate value for G, which makes the design of the device much less complex. All I need is a relative value which can be determined so that the value obtained in one direction can be matched against the value obtained in the perpendicular direction. If there is a variance, there is trouble with current views. >Also, I think but do not know that there are certain apparent anomlies >already found on the cosmological scale. I did hear (I think) that the >omega of a spiral galaxy is constant along its radius - sounds silly, >and I may well be wrong. However, the notorious 'dark matter' problem >is based on observation. That would imply that if the reason for the >problem is a misunderstanding of the behaviour of gravity over a long >range, it just might be that this is a test. Astronomical data is >wonderful stuff because you have that big lab out there with everybody >observing the experiments. Examples are numerous. The dark matter problem is a different critter. See Galactic Dynamics by Binney and Tremaine. What may vary (at least you can explain dark matter away this way) is the magnitude of G. This has been evaluated as far as distance, and as far as G as a function of gravitational potential. The former almost works, but the latter can be made to fit perfectly at all cosmological scales with a single equation (Milgrom and Bekenstein). Now if you look at Milgrom's equation, what you find they did is to increase the potency of the gravitational constant, and therefore the effect, as the gravitational potential is reduced. Where does that occur? It occurs at locations where you are positioned equidistant between stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, or super clusters of galaxies. Now, for a moment, imagine that nuclear mass reduction reactions were aether emitting reactions (ie matter is made up of a concentration of aether induced by a resonant convergence). In this case, you will have an expansion of the universe that originates from inside of stars as aether is emitted. This is like the earths surface which originates at the separation boundaries on the ocean floor as magma comes out and becomes "earth surface". Likewise, aether comes out of stars and becomes "space". But if this is so, then you have a mechanism that is thrusting objects out of a galaxy or a solar system. We won't notice it from here since the sun is like a point source and the expansion will follow the same form as that of gravitation, ie 1/R^2 in close to the sun ie out to perhaps one third the distance to the next nearest stars. If you don't know about the repulsive force, you will attribute the circular velocity profile to dark matter when what really happened was you were using the wrong masses for the stars in the first place. Also you have a continued slowing of the expansion velocity which continues to apply a braking effect on matter (ie to accelerate wrt space requires energy, and if space accelerates wrt matter, energy is input). Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 15:56:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA20418; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608152140.OAA05833@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: gravitation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >>Any Idea who/what NASA MSFC are? > >Not sure. It might be a typo for MSPC, which stands for: >Materials Science Physics & Chemistry. >The MSPC group works in development, manufacture, and >testing of materials in a microgravity enviroment. Don't know if you guys got it solved, but NASA GSFC stands for Goddard Space Flight Center. So if there is a different town that begins with M that is a part of NASA then that might be where this is. Ross Tessien From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 17:13:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA25022; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 16:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 16:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960815234424_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: gravitation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Ross, I think MSFC is Marshall Space Flight Center (note my use of US spelling!) at Huntsville in the fair State of Alabam [sic]. I may be wrong. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 17:23:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA28174; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608152347.QAA22530@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: Dallas System X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On August 14, 1996 tests verified that the Hg Cell operational in Dallas, Texas (this location is not associated with CETI) is producing Hf at a rate greater than 10 grams per day. The Hf is soluble in the electrolyte and is physically removed by sulfide precipitation. Confirmation on the presence of Hf was confirmed by Atlantic Pacific in Weldon, California. Additional "new" metals are becoming amalgamated within the Hg cathode. After four weeks of continuous operation, the system can still be forced to raise 3.0 litters of electrolyte from ambient to 100oC on demand with 50 watts DC input in less than ten minutes. This phenomena of accelerated energy increase occurs on demand. Since our intent is to produce precious metals, not scald the operators, we attempt to maintain the cell temperature at 70oC. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 17:58:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA06483; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608160038.RAA25827@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: The Covariant Theory X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Vortexers! Another interesting spf post! This time more oriented to Hal Puthoff's ZPE and similar ideas? It is beyond my grasp but it reads like something up Hal's alley (and others I'm sure). It should interest cold fusion theorists (I think). If these transplants are cluttering the vortex, my apologies. > THE COVARIANT THEORY In the last few chapters of "A Brief History of Time"(Bantam 1988), Stephen Hawking writes about an earlier idea of his concerning a new frame of reference in which to consider physical reality. In essence it is: - a four dimensional, non-linear frame, finite but unbounded, (like the surface of the earth, but with two more dimensions), - using imaginary time as a mathematical device, making the frame Euclidean, - the above producing no singularities and causing the distinction between time and space to disappear. >The above proposal appears to describe very closely a theory I have been interested in for the past 30 years. It is called "The Covariant Theory" and is not my own, but the work of another man. It is unpublished, the original author losing interest in it many years ago. Since I did show interest, he gave me his original writings, about 1500 pages, which I first organized into some 60 folders back in 1969. >In 1993 I retired from being a physics teacher (after 34 years!), and have just recently acquired a new computer. For fun, I've started to put the work into an electronic form, and am willing to share it with anybody who is interested. There is no copyright on the material and you can work with it, communicate, publish etc. as you see fit. >First let me assure you that it does indeed propose a change in the frame of reference in which to view reality. It is a unique non-linear four dimensional frame in which space and time are related in a covariant manner, and thus the name of the theory. It is because the theory is based on a frame change, that even though the draft was produced over 30 years ago, developments since that time , such as quark theory and the standard model for example, can be accommodated, in my opinion, within the theory. The central ideas then, seem to me to still be viable. >The frame appears to have the capability of unifying the forces of nature in a new way, since some of the initial predictions relate to meson masses and properties, nuclear binding energy and structure, and relationships between ionization potentials across the periodic table. >In addition, as a result of field geometry, various physical constants, such as "e", "h" and "c", are intimately co-related, thus predicting the existence and value of the fine structure constant. >The range of topics dealt with requires the potential reader to be comfortable with the quantum, electromagnetic, and relativity theories and their mathematical formalism. Generalized mechanics and knowledge of various nuclear models is also required. In general then it is the theoretical physicist, with a special interest in nuclear theory, to which this posting is directed, since rigorous scholarly review and assessment is required. >Now there are a number of problems associated with the preparation and transfer of the material as well as the central problem of communicating a frame change. You have to start some place however, and I have decided to prepare a pre-publication draft of the "Theory of Radiation, Matter and Nuclei", which comes from about 30 of the 60 folders. >If you are interested in looking into the Covariant Theory, please proceed via the WWW >to >where you will find a web site providing documentation that should be read before you access the theory. I have set it up this way to help you make a decision, since I do not want you to feel you are wasting your time. >Please do not e-mail me until after you have visited my home page. >Thanks - John From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 18:38:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA15281; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 18:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 18:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960815192926_72240.1256_EHB179-1@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: More confusion about Champion materials X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; Joe Champion > INTERNET:discpub@netzone.com; Tadahiko Mizuno >INTERNET:mizuno@athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp [This letter is addressed to W. Moreland, the man who sent me the samples of material that had been treated by the Champion process.] August 15, 1996 Mr. William Moreland Atlantic Pacific Trust Dear Mr. Moreland, In June you sent me some sample materials to be tested for nuclear transmutations. I am sorry it has taken so long for the tests to be done. I sent material to Prof. Mizuno at the University of Hokkaido, he sent it to Hitachi, they sent the results back to him for analysis, and finally some preliminary answers have come back through the chain to me. Attached is one of Mizuno's e-mail messages to me describing some results. He did an analysis on the two bags of ore (he refers to them as "ESM1" and "ESM2"), and on the sample you labeled "Bag #2, lead sample" (which he refers to as "Pb"). I am afraid these results are confusing and not conclusive. Perhaps an expert in SIMS and other analytical techniques could make more sense of them than I can. There is some indication of an anomaly, but the results are not as dramatic or clear cut as they have been in some cold fusion experiments I have seen. I do not have enough knowledge of nuclear physics or of the instrumentation to determine whether this might be an error or not. Furthermore, there is a great deal of confusion here, and much of it might be caused by a misidentification of one of the bags you sent! Let me try to explain, one step at a time. You sent me two bags of grey powder. Bag Number 1 you refer to in your letter as: "Sample Marked 'ESM Head Ore' is a sample from our mine. This sample was treated by a special electrolysis method." Number 2 you say is: "The sample marked 'ESM Treated' is the tails after the extraction of precious metals. The tailings are stable and can be leached readily." I was confused by this, because Joe Champion said this was not what the bags contained. He told me that the first bag contains untreated ore from the mountain, in its natural state. He and I discussed that at length. I should have gotten back to you to verify what is what. Let me put the question to you now, and resolve this confusion once and for all: Was the material in the first bag treated or not? Did you send me any samples of the untreated material in its natural state? Re-reading your letter and looking at the results from Mizuno, I guess I can answer my own question. The first bag was treated, the second back was extracted from the treated material, and you did not send any untreated ore. Right? The reason I say this is because Mizuno found some isotope shifts in both bags of ore, as well as in the sample of lead. In fact, he saw larger shifts in ESM1 than ESM2. This baffled me, because I assumed ESM1 was a control sample that should have had no isotope shifts. Champion must be confused about the origin of the material in the first bag. In effect, you might say that we ended up doing a "double blind" experiment, and we got anomalous results from ESM1 that we did not not expect! As I said, I do not know whether these isotope shifts are definitive or not, because I do not know enough about the instruments and techniques. However, as you see from Mizuno's data, the shifts are well outside the error range that Hitachi claims for their instruments, so I suppose they must be significant. After I get more data from Mizuno, I will ask expert scientists elsewhere whether they think the results are significant. Mizuno's note is a little difficult to follow. Let me summarize some the interesting results in a table. I will convert the numbers to percent rounded to one decimal place. This table shows: the isotope; the percent for that element; the error (according to Hitachi's analysis I believe); the natural abundance listed in Encyclopedia Britannica; the deviation from the natural abundance assuming the worst-case error. Please note that the deviation for 44Ca is small in percentage terms compared to all of calcium in the sample, but it is very large compared to the expected amount. Isotope Percent Error Natural Abundance Deviation Mg24 72.7% 0.8% 79.0% 5.5% Ca44 13.1% 0.4% 2.1% 10.6%; 6 times increase Ca42 1.8% 0.1% 0.6% 1.1%; 3 times decrease Ti46 17.6% 0.8% 8.0% 8.8% Ti48 57% 3% 73.8% 14% After you have had a chance to look over this letter, I will call you and verify once and for all the source of the material in the ESM1 bag. I am sorry for the confusion. Sincerely, Jed Rothwell Copy to: Joe Champion Takahiko Mizuno The Vortex-L discussion list Here is the e-mail message from Mizuno to me: CompuServe Mail Date: 12-Aug-96 01:35 EDT Fr: Mizuno Tadahiko > INTERNET:mizuno@athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp Su: SIMS results Dear Jed. Rothwell I almost finished the SIMS analyses. I show you the results of ESM1, ESM2 and Pb sample. The numerical values that are represented in following mean the isotopic abundance for each elements and error in parenthesis. ESM1; Mg24: 0.727 (0.031), Mg25: 0.131 (0.0081), Mg26: 0.141 (0.0082), Si28: 0.873 (0.013), Si29: 0.0777 (0.0021), Si30: 0.049(0.0019), Ca40: 0.828 (0.0041), Ca42: 0.018 (0.001), Ca43 0.023 (0.0014), Ca44: 0.131 (0.004), Ti46: 0.176 (0.0075), Ti47: 0.0718 (0.005), Ti48: 0.57 (0.03), Ti49: 0.043 (0.004), Ti50: 0.138 (0.026), Fe54: 0.0706 (0.0034), Fe56: 0.879 (0.013), Fe57: 0.039 (0.0023), Fe58: 0.011 (0.00196), Cu63: 0.66 (0.126), Cu65: 0.339 (0.055), Zn64: 0.564 (0.042), Zn66: 0.104 (0.0086), Zn67: 0.189 (0.013), Zn68: 0.074 (0.009), Zn70: 0.0684(0.004). ESM2; Mg24: 0.74 (0.056), Mg25: 0.124 (0.014), Mg26: 0.136 (0.014), Si28: 0.895 (0.037), Si29: 0.0646 (0.004), Si30: 0.041(0.0036), Ca40: 0.838 (0.0025), Ca42: 0.026 (0.0016), Ca43 0.023 (0.0015), Ca44: 0.113 (0.0058), Ti46: 0.194 (0.026), Ti47: 0.072 (0.011), Ti48: 0.59 (0.046), Ti49: 0.043 (0.003), Ti50: 0.099 (0.0046), Fe54: 0.053 (0.0037), Fe56: 0.878 (0.027), Fe57: 0.060 (0.0176), Fe58: 0.0085 (0.0010), Cu63: 0.688 (0.13), Cu65: 0.312 (0.046), Zn64: 0.511 (0.0557), Zn66: 0.109 (0.011), Zn67: 0.222 (0.0077), Zn68: 0.0556 (0.0065), Zn70: 0.103(0.008). Pb; Pb204: 0.0178 (0.0012), Pb206: 0.287 (0.0137), Pb207: 0.226 (0.011), Pb208: 0.469 (0.020). Other elements were such as Ni, Mo, Ge, Xe existed in ESM1 and 2, Kr, Xe and Ar rare gas were detected in Pb. However, isotopic changes were not estimated yet because the counting rates for these elements were under 1000, the error were so large as significant deviation of isotopic changes. You can evaluate the above mentioned isotopic value for the elements. I will show you if I obtain other estimations. Best regard, Tadahiko Tadahiko Mizuno Department of Quantum Energy, Graduate School of Engineering,Hokkaido University, Kita-ku, North 13, West-8, Sapporo 060 JAPAN Tel:81-11-706-6689, Fax:81-11-706-7835 E-mail:mizuno@hune.hokudai.ac.jp From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 18:52:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA18744; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 18:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 18:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960816010046_72240.1256_EHB50-1@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: Moreland explains Champion material X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Okay, Bill Moreland called me and explained what is what with this material. The picture is much clearer now, but some questions do remain. First, let me set this confusion to rest once and for all: ESM1 *is* definitely, raw, unprocessed ore, just as Joe Champion claimed. It is blasted out of the mine, taken to the surface, and run through a mechanical grinder. No special processes are applied. ESM2 is taken from an electrolysis machine invented by Atlantic Pacific Trust, which has nothing to do with Joe Champion. The only thing Mizuno tested having to do with Champion's claimed transmutations was the lead sample. Okay so what are the anomalies in the Hitachi data for ESM1? I suppose there are two possibilities: 1. An error. More about this below. 2. A naturally occurring isotopic anomaly. As far as I know, this can only be caused by high concentrations of radioactive elements. Moreland says there is a radioactive uranium deposit about 1,500 feet. His grandfather took a sample of the ore back in the 1950s and determined that it was not worth mining. I suggested he take a Geiger counter down into the mine. It might be a health hazard. Joe Champion wrote to me that he thinks the anomaly in ESM1 is caused by the explosives blasting in the mine to free up the ore. He says this is another example of the thermal transmutations that he worked with years ago, based on medieval alchemy. Moreland and I think this is unlikely. Chris Tinsley pointed out that if it was that easy to shift isotopes with heat, they would different everywhere you look since rocks, minerals and metals often come from volcanoes. Champion and Moreland are already taking steps to test this hypothesis. They are taking a 12 foot core sample from inside the mine. They will ship this to a Shell Oil laboratory that has offered to look at the isotopes. A core sample is not exposed to oxygen, explosives or high temperatures, which Joe thinks cause transmutations. If the core sample shows no isotope shifts and another blasted-out sample *does* have shifts . . . then I guess Joe must be on to something. Well, I cannot speculate about the likelihood of either an error or a naturally occurring isotope shift due to unusual circumstances. Whatever is happening -- if anything -- I doubt it is caused by man-made transmutations or excess energy. This discussion appears to have little to do with over-unity energy and it involves machines I do not understand so I will bow out. However, let me tie up a few loose ends first. I have some more notes I might as well publish here. Here is the Mizuno data for the Pb sample that *did* have something to do with Champion: Isotope Percent Error Natural Abundance Deviation Pb204 1.8% 0.1% 1.4% 0.3% Pb206 28.7% 1.3% 24.1% 3.3% Pb207 22.6% 1.1% 22.1% Insignificant Pb208 46.9% 2.0% 52.4% 3.3% . . . to which I say: Humph. I'll leave it at that. Okay, regarding errors, Moreland had some general comments that may shed light on the subject. He is an experienced miner who seems to know a great deal about hands-on geology, chemistry and related subjects. Naturally, he has never attempted to determine what isotopes he is digging out of the ground, and he has no experience with SIMS machines. But he does have a lot of experience using high tech equipment to assay raw ore for precious metals. He says this high tech equipment is not reliable with some grades of ore. It works well with fairly pure ore, but complex ores and impurities, particularly sodium, magnesium and strontium, make the machine go haywire. He gave two examples. The first is obvious: when you make a spectrograph of ore containing many different elements where gold is only a tiny fraction of the whole, it is drowned out by the other peaks. You purify the sample chemically, run it again, and this time you can see the gold. A SIMS looks at a much narrower section of the spectrum, so perhaps the other peaks from other elements are screened out. I don't know . . . and neither did he, but we wonder if an impure sample would throw the analysis off. Maybe SIMS machines are designed to run with pure material and not dirt goulash? The second example Moreland related was his experience with high tech Atomic Absorption (AA) machines that are supposed to give you a reading down to fractions of parts per million. To make a long story short, they don't work well in the field with complex ores. The machines analyze a sample of ore in a liquid solution, which is run through an aspirator. He described a sample that was later shown to have 42 ppm of gold. The first time it was run through it registered only 0.3 ppm. The 10 ml liquid solution was mixed with 100 ml of distilled water and 10 ml from that put back in. This time it registered 1 ppm. That was repeated and it registered 3 ppm -- all crazy readings. Again, this only happens with some complex grades of ore. It is difficult to extract the precious metals from these ores, he says. They will put it in a chemical bath and get, say, one ounce. Then they run it again and get 2 ounces! Then 3, then back to 1, then nothing. With a different ore they would get all 7 ounces the first time. It sounds a bit like trying to wash the dirt out of my kid's socks. He also talked about the many ways a sloppy technician can screw up the readings, but I doubt anything like that is happening at Hitachi. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 19:24:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29652; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 19:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 19:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9608160216.AA11276@joshua.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: Moreland explains Champion material X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Jed: Any comment on why the mass spec shows *no precious metals* in these ores taken from a gold mine? It seems to only be registering those elements that are present at a few percent level or above. Also, why is the lead sample just *lead*? If this is from champions process, it has been adultarated by large amounts of other elements, at least at a few % level, and so these should show up... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 22:28:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA13332; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 22:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 22:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I8BOKWJ3428X0PCI@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: Mossbauer effect X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: I meant to ask if any one knew about the Mossbauer effect and gravitational red shift? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu Aug 15 22:33:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA13268; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 22:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 22:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I8BN9G5AEQ8Y884E@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: Mossbauer Effect X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: Does anyone have information on the Mossbauer effect? Joe Flynn Flynn Research From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 05:32:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA14960; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 05:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 05:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608161226.AA25575@gateway1.srs.gov> Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 08:15:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: Mossbauer effect To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 08:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"F3gFg3.0.gf3.Ac65o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > > Does anyone have information on the Mossbauer effect? > > Joe Flynn > Flynn Research Mossbauer Spectroscopy is a useful tool for studying iron chemistry. I have a book with a basic desrciption of the technique. Maybe that has some info to help... What is your question? (Be prepared for me to be unable to answer it...) Kirk Shanahan {{My opininions...noone else's}} From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 06:26:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA24380; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 06:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 06:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 08:21:35 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199608161321.IAA23897@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Mossbauer Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"Ul6Fx2.0.my5.eN75o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 22:24 8/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >Does anyone have information on the Mossbauer effect? It has to do with the gamma absorbtion characteristics of some nuclei, notably Fe-57. In the typical setup, a Co-57 source is arranged to shine through a Fe-57 foil onto a detector. When the source and detector are stationary w.r.t. each other, not much 14.4 keV radiation gets thru the Fe-57 foil because it is absorbed in the Fe-57 nuclei. However, when the source is moving w.r.t. the foil at velocities of only a fraction of a cm/sec, the Doppler shift in the gamma's energy is enuf to cause a measureable change in the absorbtion of those gammas in the Fe-57 foil! This effect was used in a clever and famous experiment at Harvard in 1960 by Pound and Rebka to measure the gravitational red shift caused by the Earth's gravity. 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-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 06:35:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA27011; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 08:30:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199608161330.IAA24692@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? Resent-Message-ID: <"fFLDw.0.yb6.nW75o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 15:19 8/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >That is why I hope someone in this group has access to a device. Well, Ross, I've got something but it may not be suitable. A while back I built a crude Cavendish balance. Here are it's specs: mass of dumbell weights: 6.5 lb separation of same: 24 in length of suspension wire 5 ft dia of same .011 in tensile stress in wire 140,000 psi natural period 14.3 minutes When I positioned a single 140 lb mass 8.5in away from one of the dumbell massses (on a circle thru both of them), the thing twisted up a whopping .0028 radians which caused the dumbell mass to move circumferentially 0.034 in!!!! Needless to say, I became EXTREMELY impressed with the work of Cavendish after constructing this thing. For example, it took a couple of days for me to get the thing settled down initially so that the support wire held the dumbell rotated to the correct position (I have the dumbell enclosed in a long narrow box to keep air currents away...the box prevents free rotation of the dumbell. I suppose my apparatus could be made to measure G pretty accurately if I equipped it with a device to precisely measure the location of the dumbell masses. As it is now, there's just a thin wire pointer that lies close to a ruler and you just look at it to tell where things are. 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-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 11:20:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA08151; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 11:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 11:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: 16 Aug 96 13:55:09 EDT From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Vortexians Subject: Dallas System Message-ID: <960816175508_75110.3417_CHK8-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"PAADb1.0.A_1.iWB5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Joe, On Aug 15 you said: >> After four weeks of continuous operation, the system can still be forced to raise 3.0 litters of electrolyte from ambient to 100oC on demand with 50 watts DC input in less than ten minutes. This phenomena of accelerated energy increase occurs on demand. Since our intent is to produce precious metals, not scald the operators, we attempt to maintain the cell temperature at 70oC. << Unless your process can't be brought down in cost and mass produced or the transmutations are a negative side effect, the energy output is far more valuable than any transmutations that occur. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 11:52:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA19714; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 11:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 11:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:39:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199608161839.NAA18772@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Dallas System Resent-Message-ID: <"pbfhx2.0.vp4.U1C5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/5 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 17:06 8/15/96 -0700, Joe wrote: >After four weeks of continuous operation, the system can still be forced to >raise 3.0 litters of electrolyte from ambient to 100oC on demand with 50 >watts DC input in less than ten minutes. This phenomena of accelerated >energy increase occurs on demand. Since our intent is to produce precious >metals, not scald the operators, we attempt to maintain the cell temperature >at 70oC. Joe, that's about 1570 watts of thermal output! I looked at yr web page description of this device...it sounded like you have 3 liters of Hg in there...is that right? If so, that's quite a bit of fuel to oxidize. How can you be sure that your anomalous heat output is not chemical energy? 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-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 13:16:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA14251; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 12:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 12:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608161951.MAA29018@nz1.netzone.com> X-Sender: discpub@netzone.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 12:58:33 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Dallas System Resent-Message-ID: <"ocpXl.0.PU3.dAD5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Joe, that's about 1570 watts of thermal output! I looked at yr web page >description of this device...it sounded like you have 3 liters of Hg in >there...is that right? If so, that's quite a bit of fuel to oxidize. How >can you be sure that your anomalous heat output is not chemical energy? > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Scott, Under no circumstance am I claiming total nuclear energy. I am claiming that nuclear events are occurring. This is obvious from the new metals which are continuously produced. Also, in the system we form Mg and other compounds which create chemical energies. So if you have a nuclear transmutation of (X) into Mg + (Y) and generate a chemical energy from the newly formed Mg it becomes a secondary event to the primary transmutation. In answer to your question of Hg, the cell contains ~1.5 liters with a surface area of 410cm2. FYI -- we are able to achieve the similar results with cathodic surfaces other than Hg. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 13:45:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA26132; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> Cc: Vortex-L Subject: RE: Moreland explains Champion material Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:39:00 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UzeFR.0.DO6.-oD5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed An important item missing from the evaluation of whether anything significant has been done is the errors or spread of the "Natural abundance" distribution of isotopes. Do you know where/how this "Natural data" was obtained? Who did the analysis, where was it originally published? I don't know much about metallurgy, but do know some statistics. The t-statistic, the ratio of the "signal" to the "noise" is commonly used in testing hypotheses about whether the result obtained is "statistically significant" at some confidence level.For example If the natural distribution of Pb204 is 1.4% +- 0.5%,the fact that the difference observed was 0.3% probably doesn't mean much. Mizuno's error estimate is only part of what is needed to to make a determination. I know you don't have these statistics at your fingertips, but maybe someone in the group has some information. Hank ---------- From: Jed Rothwell To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Moreland explains Champion material Date: Thursday, August 15, 1996 6:34PM To: Vortex Here is the Mizuno data for the Pb sample that *did* have something to do with Champion: Isotope Percent Error Natural Abundance Deviation Pb204 1.8% 0.1% 1.4% 0.3% Pb206 28.7% 1.3% 24.1% 3.3% Pb207 22.6% 1.1% 22.1% Insignificant Pb208 46.9% 2.0% 52.4% 3.3% . . . to which I say: Humph. I'll leave it at that. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 14:06:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA28285; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Joe Champion Cc: Vortex-L Subject: Re: Dallas System Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:47:00 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0k0_l1.0.rv6.QwD5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Joe Could you give us some more information about the process? What is the electrolite you are using, at what concentration? How much current are you putting through it? What anode and cathode materials are you using? Is this the same process using NaCN and NaBr described in your excellent home page? Are you ready to disclose enough information so some of us can try and duplicate your results, or is the inventors disease still infecting you? Hank ---------- From: Joe Champion To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dallas System Date: Friday, August 16, 1996 12:58PM > >Joe, that's about 1570 watts of thermal output! I looked at yr web page >description of this device...it sounded like you have 3 liters of Hg in >there...is that right? If so, that's quite a bit of fuel to oxidize. How >can you be sure that your anomalous heat output is not chemical energy? > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Scott, Under no circumstance am I claiming total nuclear energy. I am claiming that nuclear events are occurring. This is obvious from the new metals which are continuously produced. Also, in the system we form Mg and other compounds which create chemical energies. So if you have a nuclear transmutation of (X) into Mg + (Y) and generate a chemical energy from the newly formed Mg it becomes a secondary event to the primary transmutation. In answer to your question of Hg, the cell contains ~1.5 liters with a surface area of 410cm2. FYI -- we are able to achieve the similar results with cathodic surfaces other than Hg. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 14:45:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA13059; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 14:37:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 14:37:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: 16 Aug 96 17:35:59 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Chatter? Message-ID: <960816213559_100433.1541_BHG93-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"PPWS2.0.zB3.ieE5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I am now hopelessly confused. We seem to start things and never finish anything. Not always our fault, but we seem to have long threads with lots of talk, then everything dies. Maybe I've missed messages. I'm still not sure if we have agreed on a definitive method of determining whether the Ampere or Lorentz law is correct. Or whether a wing works by pressure differential between the upper and lower wing surfaces or by some kind of Casimir attraction. Or whether the push theory of gravity explains orbital precession. And, after all this talk about Champion's stuff, we actually get results *direct from an independent lab*. I for one cannot interpret them, but they appear to be based on very high counts and they show figures which are *way* outside the error bars for the standard isotope ratios. That means to me one of three *logical* (but not necessarily sane) possibilities: 1. Natural isotope abundances are highly variable - beyond those elements which are well known to vary for very good reasons. That would of course be contrary to all teaching, but I include it for reasons of logic. 2. This macroscopic sample has unnatural abundances and these are artificially induced by either a new process or by deliberate 'salting' of the sample with some very expensively but conventionally separated isotopes. Not suggesting fraud, simply including this for logic. 3. The type of measurement used by Dr Mizuno is unsuited to this kind of work, or Mizuno is not able to operate it correctly - again, I include that last one for reasons of logic, I'm not doubting his competence. In fact, I would suggest that the likely possibilities are that the sample is not anomalous and the test method is inappropriate - or that the samples have been isotope-ratio modified by a new process. Surely somebody here can interpret this, or can ask somebody's opinion? We have here gathered what *may* be clear evidence of anomaly - for what amounts to the first time here - and we seem to be sitting on it without any comment. Don't forget that however good the calorimetry, nobody ever cares. The Dallas thing mentioned is calorimetry. Crazy isotopes are different. So - are they crazy or are they not? -------------------- To add light relief - or even reason - to this note, I hear that in Australia this week a Cessna developed a landing-gear fault while airborne. It was necessary to hold on to one passenger's legs while he hung out of the 'plane at 4000ft and fixed it. The passenger later commented, "I wasn't afraid they would let go, I borrowed money from them first." Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 15:11:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA19741; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 14:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 14:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: 16 Aug 96 17:55:39 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: RE: Moreland explains Champion material Message-ID: <960816215539_100433.1541_BHG33-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"yn2Ez3.0.Kq4.FyE5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Henry comments: > An important item missing from the evaluation of whether anything > significant has been done is the errors or spread of the "Natural > abundance" distribution of isotopes. Do you know where/how this > "Natural data" was obtained? My source may be weak (the Britannica) but it is solidly clear on this point. Almost all elements (it says) have fixed isotope ratios, usually determined to *four decimal digits*, sometimes five (three occasionally, for very rare isotopes). The exceptions (it says) are very light elements (helium, lithium) and those whose isotope ratios are locally distorted by radioactive decay. Thus if uranium decays in a lead-free locale, the lead as a decay product will be of abnormal ratios. Otherwise - it says - ratios are rock-solid and immutable. It may be wrong, but it is damned certain of itself. I await comment from an expert on these matters. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 15:30:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA25985; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 15:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 15:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: 16 Aug 96 18:21:38 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Moreland explains Champion material Message-ID: <960816222138_72240.1256_EHB158-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qPzdV3.0.tL6.9KF5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Henry Scudder asks: "An important item missing from the evaluation of whether anything significant has been done is the errors or spread of the 'Natural abundance' distribution of isotopes. Do you know where/how this 'Natural data' was obtained?" As I noted in my letter to Moreland posted here the natural abundance numbers came from Encyclopedia Britannica. Chris Tinsley posted them here. According to every reference I have seen, natural abundance for heavy elements varies far less than any of the numbers I posted for magnesium, calcium or titanium. Even lunar samples do not vary this much. Either the Hitachi instruments are screwed up or we have a Gigantic Anomaly here, but it isn't an energy anomaly per se and it has nothing to do with Joe Champion's claims (which is what I originally set out to verify). So honestly, I couldn't care less about it, and I have no intention of pursuing the matter. Other people who are interested in such things should get in touch with Champion, Moreland, Mizuno and Hitachi directly. I guess I have failed to verify Joe's claims, but I did not disprove then either. The picture remains muddled. That is what usually happens when you try to get to the bottom of something like this. At least I can say that Joe has been 100% cooperative and helpful at every step. Dan York writes: "Unless Mike Moreland has a brother named Bill that I have never talked to you might have got his name wrong." The fellow I talked to is William M. Moreland. That is how he signed his letter to me. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 15:30:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA24879; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: 16 Aug 96 18:18:13 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Chatter? Message-ID: <960816221813_76216.2421_HHB75-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"X3jNn2.0.f46.0GF5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > "[...] Or whether a wing works by pressure differential > between the upper and lower wing surfaces or by > some kind of Casimir attraction." I'm building the two-chamber setup suggested by Dean Miller and others to have a look at this. I've forced myself to a little bit of discipline in setting aside at least an hour every evening to work on it and other projects like the long-stalled BB HV rig. I want to get the wing test done as soon as I can before it drags out too long and is forgotten, then move back on to the BB test. Doin' what I can with my limited resources; somebody else will have to figure out what gravity is. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 15:57:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA03404; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 15:50:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 15:50:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608162243.PAA15609@nz1.netzone.com> X-Sender: discpub@netzone.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 15:51:18 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Moreland explains Champion material Resent-Message-ID: <"_P7dU.0.4r.biF5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote: > [snip....] Either the Hitachi instruments are >screwed up or we have a Gigantic Anomaly here, but it isn't an energy anomaly >per se and it has nothing to do with Joe Champion's claims (which is what I >originally set out to verify). So honestly, I couldn't care less about it, and >I have no intention of pursuing the matter. Other people who are interested in >such things should get in touch with Champion, Moreland, Mizuno and Hitachi >directly. Jed, You were given nine samples for analysis. Three of them from Moreland and six regarding my *direct* research. What happened to the rest of the samples? What other material was found with the single Pb that was tested. Other reports have confirmed that there are numerous other elements associated with the Pb. >From my perspective, I would like to have a closure to these tests. My work can not be proven correct or in err unless it is tested! In closing, regarding Moreland's material, he sent you untreated, treated and the refined Au and Pt from the treated material. The last time we talked you said that the refined Au and Pt was in England. Isotopic analysis of this Pt is extremely important to my claims of transmutation. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 16:26:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA09999; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: 16 Aug 96 19:20:24 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Moreland explains Champion material Message-ID: <960816232024_100433.1541_BHG42-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Un-qH1.0.7S2.9BG5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/15 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Joe Champion writes: > The last time we talked you said that the refined Au and Pt was in > England. Isotopic analysis of this Pt is extremely important to > my claims of transmutation. Yes, I do have a portion of the "Au/Pt" metal sample here. If anybody anywhere will guarantee to test it and publish the results credibly here then I will send them a part of it. I lack strings to pull in the UK to get it tested for free here. The hope was that there would be sufficiently clear evidence from Japan to allow me to use such limited clout as I have to persuade that to happen. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 16:26:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA09987; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: 16 Aug 96 19:20:20 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Chatter? Message-ID: <960816232019_100433.1541_BHG42-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"0EPTq.0.vR2.8BG5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/14 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde writes: > > "[...] Or whether a wing works by pressure differential > > between the upper and lower wing surfaces or by > some kind > of Casimir attraction." > > I'm building the two-chamber setup suggested by Dean Miller and > others to have a look at this. I've forced myself to a little bit > of discipline in setting aside at least an hour every evening to > work on it and other projects like the long-stalled BB HV rig. I > want to get the wing test done as soon as I can before it drags > out too long and is forgotten, then move back on to the BB test. > Doin' what I can with my limited resources; somebody else will > have to figure out what gravity is. I am seriously impressed, Rick. Were you inspired by your accidentally receiving some misdirected private email from myself and 'another person'? It's just that I like to feel that I've been making myself useful... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 18:27:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA04002; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 18:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 18:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32151DD4.5004@interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 21:18:12 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Little CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scott's Cavendish balance References: <199608161330.IAA24692@natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"MrIcb2.0.S-.-tH5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/16 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > masses. As it is now, there's just a thin wire pointer that lies close to a > ruler and you just look at it to tell where things are. Scott: If you could attach a $40 laser pocket-pointer to one of the masses, and point it to a graduated target across the room, you would have a pretty sophisticated test instrument! Feeling-gravity-more-than-he-used-to,--------Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 19:20:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA12584; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: 16 Aug 96 22:02:27 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Chatter? Message-ID: <960817020227_76216.2421_HHB49-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"KSAEZ.0.Y43.bYI5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/17 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris - > Were you inspired by your accidentally receiving > some misdirected private email from myself and > 'another person'? Well, that *was* "inspiring" now that you mention it, but it's actually disgust with myself over failing to complete projects and get ideas off the drawing pad and onto the benchtop in a reasonable amount of time, which inspires me on the experiments here. I'll update as I get it up and running. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 19:42:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA18922; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:37:10 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dallas System Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 02:36:33 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <321783b4.60042336@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199608152347.QAA22530@nz1.netzone.com> In-Reply-To: <199608152347.QAA22530@nz1.netzone.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"g0QI_.0.Yd4.L1J5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/19 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:08:37 -0700 (PDT), Joe Champion wrote: [snip] >After four weeks of continuous operation, the system can still be forced= to >raise 3.0 litters of electrolyte from ambient to 100oC on demand with 50 >watts DC input in less than ten minutes. This phenomena of accelerated >energy increase occurs on demand. Since our intent is to produce = precious >metals, not scald the operators, we attempt to maintain the cell = temperature >at 70oC. [snip] By my calculations, and assuming no losses, this means about 25000 eV per atom of Hf formed. Not much if this is a nuclear reaction. On the other hand, if David Hudson is right, then this might be a reasonable amount to expect from de-spinning high spin atoms (i.e. from a complete re-arrangement of electron shell configuration). In other words, you might just be making existing atoms detectable, rather than creating new ones. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 19:42:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA18898; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:37:08 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 02:36:28 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32167dcd.58531435@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199608152135.OAA05712@li.oro.net> In-Reply-To: <199608152135.OAA05712@li.oro.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"Pdy4M3.0.6d4.I1J5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/18 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:10:47 -0700 (PDT), Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >Now, for gravity. Remember that these devices use two masses to produce= a >completed system (or so they think). But if you have mass A over here, = and >bring mass B toward it, with "attractive" gravitation you will expect = the >effect to be contained between them. outside mountains will not = interfere. =20 [snip] Actually, I would expect outside mountains to interfere. If the mountain is behind A, then B will feel the attraction of both A and the mountain, hence I would expect them to be apparently more strongly attracted to one another, than if there were no mountain. So as far as I can see it is still impossible to distinguish between this and your theory. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 20:36:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA28817; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 20:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 20:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: 16 Aug 96 23:28:10 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Moreland explains Champion material Message-ID: <960817032810_72240.1256_EHB108-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"cdS2g.0.A27.2oJ5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/20 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Joe Champion writes: "You were given nine samples for analysis. Three of them from Moreland and six regarding my *direct* research." Yes, I now understand that. It is a shame you did not explain that two months ago. It took me three phone calls to Moreland to puzzle it out. "What happened to the rest of the samples?" I sent some of each to Mizuno, except for the gold, unfortunately. I wasn't sure what to do with that or what it was for. Mizuno asked which one to test. I asked you, and you said start with the lead. So he did, and he also ran the ore samples. So far the ore appears to be the only material with significant anomalies. I suppose the results are probably due to instrument error, but let us not jump to conclusions. We will get more data back and a fuller explanation. I will be meeting Mizuno next month; we can hash it out in person much more easily than in late night phone calls and e-mail. I must say, if this does turn out to be an instrument error, it calls into questions Mizuno's earlier claims of transmutations within his cathode. Those changes were much larger, but still . . . Well there is no point in speculating about it at this stage. "What other material was found with the single Pb that was tested." I do not know. I have asked him. I suspect the answer is: nothing anomalous. "From my perspective, I would like to have a closure to these tests. My work can not be proven correct or in err unless it is tested!" Yes, I would like that too. "The last time we talked you said that the refined Au and Pt was in England. Isotopic analysis of this Pt is extremely important to my claims of transmutation." Yes. It is a darn shame you did not explicitly *tell me that* when all of this began. You dropped a bunch of samples into my lap with no explanation. *Now* you finally tell me that three samples had nothing to do with your work. Not to criticize, but I think you need to brush up your communication skills and learn to spell things out and provide explicit descriptions and instructions. I will ask Mizuno if he is still interested in pursuing this project, and if he would like the gold sample. I still have half of it. I suppose he will have to relay that message to Hitachi, which is footing the bill. I will try to find out what they think of their results so far, and whether they are interested in doing more tests. Maybe they will say their equipment cannot cope with this material and the results are not meaningful. It is impossible for me to guess what they are up to. They could be gasping with wonder at these miraculous numbers, or shrugging their shoulders and saying this machine was never designed to work with dirt for thus and such reasons. I do not know enough about SIMS machines to hazard a guess. I suppose if they think the stuff really is anomalous, they will be anxious to pursue the matter. Most scientists would, I guess. After all, this would be worth a Nobel Prize, or at least a fat journal article showing how to spoof a SIMS machine. It would interesting either way. Maybe they don't want to pursue it though, considering what happens to heretics these days in the science biz. It isn't a pretty sight. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 16 23:44:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA27859; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 23:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 23:39:13 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SIMS Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 06:38:33 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32185b44.3274149@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"q7lVX3.0.Bp6.GaM5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I found a SIMS page on the Web at: http://www-sims.nist.gov/frames.html this page is a good intro: http://www-sims.nist.gov/division/microbeamms.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 04:04:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA17871; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 03:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 03:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: 17 Aug 96 06:19:00 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Isotope ratios Message-ID: <960817101900_100433.1541_BHG63-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"GXQKx3.0.5N4.gpP5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I think it was Ross who commented that isotope abundances vary a great deal in nature (I was a bit bleary-eyed this morning and a bit quick with the delete key, sorry). So off I went to the library again, and read up the Britannica's Macropedia on "Atoms" and "Earth Sciences". I'll try to digest what it says. I'm not saying any of the following is true, but they are all we have to go on until somebody can give better references than these. Firstly, there is the matter of extra-solar isotope ratios. These do differ considerably from those found in the solar system - presumably because the solar system condensed from a separate sample. Within the solar system there is supposed to be a graduated variation with distance from the sun - especially with light elements, presumably because two isotopes of a light element have a greater percentage difference in their masses. That's mass fractionation - used to argue that the recent Antartic meterorite is of Martian orignin. Similarly, the Moon and Earth show almost identical isotope ratios; that argues that their origin was at the same distance from the Sun. The Earth Sciences section refers to the 16O:18O ratio as very useful in oceanographic palaeothermometry, and to the K:Ar ratio and other radiometric techniques for determining the age of a sample. Throughout the section on isotopes, it is made clear that these are exceptions and can be used with high precision to trace the history of samples. If there were a significant variation in isotope ratios in common samples, none of these techniques would be of much value. The Atoms section states that although there are variations through the solar system, but these are usually less than 1%. And that is *through the solar system*, not from place to place on Earth. "Whatever their size, they provide geologists and astronomers with valuable clues as to the history of the objects under study." Again, they explain that these variations are due to mass fractionation or radioactive decay processes. Thus the terrestrial *atmosphere* (not the planet) has proportionally far more 40Ar than is general in the solar system - because of 40K decay. For mass fractionation, only oxygen is mentioned *at all*. For "other causes", only speculative suggestions are made - high energy particle bombardment, injection of matter packets by novae or supernovae - but these appear to refer to specific anomalies, and astronomical ones at that. Again I say that everything I can find on this subject (and I've not looked far) says that on this planet, and even within the solar system, isotope ratios are fixed to a degree that Mizuno's results would appear (if accurate, which they may not be) to run a coach and horses through; but there are specific exceptions which are believed to give high-precision information about the history of a given sample. That's the best I can do so far. Perhaps Ross can help here by giving his own references; this is not an argument but an attempt to find out what is the right answer to what looks like a simple question. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 07:15:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA29844; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 06:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 06:19:07 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mizuno results Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 13:18:28 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32197981.11016813@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960812144304_100433.1541_BHG110-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <960812144304_100433.1541_BHG110-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"gX7ju3.0.EI7.ARS5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/23 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 09:06:16 -0700 (PDT), Chris Tinsley wrote: >Jed, > >Of the isotopic abundances you list, it may be that the following are a >bit odd, I'm not impressed by the others. > >Ti46 @ 0.194 instead of 0.08 >Ti48 @ 0.59 instead of 73.8 - with the other isotopes pretty = accurate... > >Zn66 is 0.109 instead of 0.279 >Zn67 is 0.222 0.041 >Zn68 is 0.0556 0.188 > >Some of these do look interesting. I think? > >Chris I have been looking at the way that SIMS is done. It seems that what is actually measured is the mass/charge ratio. It is therefore possible (and it happens frequently), that ions that are 2+ instead of 1+ are produced and measured. Consider therefore the following: Ion Mass Charge Mass/Charge Difference Mass/Difference Ca43 42.9588 1+ 42.9588 Sr86 85.9093 2+ 42.9547 0.0041 10000+ Ca44 43.9555 1+ 43.9555 =20 Sr88 87.9056 2+ 43.9528 0.0027 16000+ Ti46 45.9526 1+ 45.9526 Mo92 91.9068 2+ 45.9534 0.0008 57000+ Ti50 49.9448 1+ 49.9448 Mo100 99.9075 2+ 49.9537 0.0089 5600+ Zn67 66.9271 1+ 66.9271 Ba134 133.905 2+ 66.9525 0.0254 2600+ IOW, Sr86 can easily be mistaken for Ca43 etc. I have not analyzed all the anomalous isotope ratios presented, as I considered that this was a sufficient sample to make the point. Jed, would you consider asking Dr. Mizuno if the device used to determine the isotopic ratios had sufficient resolution to ensure that the possible contamination here described did not occur? Possible solution: I am a novice in this field, and consequently am unsure as to whether or not what I am about to propose has already been done. But just in case this is an innovation, I will now set forth my idea. It would appear from the above, that such analyses would be much simplified, if one could be certain that one was only dealing with ions with a single positive charge (when analyzing for metals at any rate). To facilitate this consider the following addition to the SIMS device. Instead of leading the ion stream normally produced directly into the magnetic field of the mass spec., it could first be neutralised by passing it through a small sharp edged hole in a negative electrode. This would allow electrons from the electrode to tunnel to some of the ions neutralising them. The beam that came out the other side, would then be separated in a magnetic field, and the remaining ions discarded. The neutral atoms would then be irradiated by UV light with an energy of 9.9 eV. This would only be sufficient to remove the first electron from most of the elements in the periodic table. Thus one could be assured that the resultant ion beam, contained only 1+ charged ions, removing the above problem in large degree. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 07:21:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA00951; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 06:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 06:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 08:30:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199608171330.IAA03657@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Robin's web page X-Mailer: Resent-Message-ID: <"HaSr13.0.iE.IcS5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/24 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin, I get the gist of your theory...but I am not qualified to discuss the validity of it. Does anyone else out there feel that adjacent nuclei in a lattice vibrating in phase with each other would be likely to fuse as Robin has suggested (see http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa/#type1)? I can offer a nearly useless experimental observation: In our attempts to explore the Piantelli experiment, we heated a Ni rod in a H2 atmosphere to just above the Debye temp and "soaked" it there for days while applying various stimuli to the lattice (mechanical shocks, magnetic pulse, etc) and we could observe no sign of excess heat generation. I deem this observation "nearly useless" because, until we know whether or not CF is real, all negative experiments can be successfully argued to be due to procedural errors. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 07:39:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA09976; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 07:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 07:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: 17 Aug 96 10:34:03 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Mizuno explains more Message-ID: <960817143402_72240.1256_EHB108-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"nZHAy2.0.oR2.sYT5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/25 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Okay, Mizuno-san just got back from the Obon holiday. He sent me greetings and the attached technical information about the SIMS readings. He says he now has to pay Hitachi for continued testing (not much, but it comes out of his pocket), so I think we should give this a rest. I did offer Mizuno the mixed Au + Pt sample, but he has not had a chance to respond yet. I doubt he is interested in it. I do not understand the technical details of his message, but I gather it means more-or-less what I predicted yesterday: the Hitachi technicians say their instruments were not designed to work with dirt, so the readings are not significant. Anyway, here is his message, minus personal greetings: . . . I show you the SIMS measurement methods of Hitachi Instrument Engineering Co. They have no obligation and interesting in the data,they just finished according with my order because they only contract the measurement with one estimation by 50 thousand yen. They used the primary ion of O2+, beam diameter 400 micro meter, ion energy 10.5 keV ,ion current 100 nA, scanning mass range from 0 to 220, system vacuum was 2*10^-7 Pa, all the sample were attached by melting In metal and so on. The mass spectrum calibration were treated by high pure metals some times I mixed the several pure metals such as Li, B, C, Al, Si, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Sr, Nb, Mo, Pd, Ag, Cd, Sn, Ce, Sn, Hf, W, Os, Pt Au and Pb; each count intensity for the mass isotope peaks have 10^5 to 10^6 counts and no isotope abundance change over the error of 3 % than the table of 'pure and applied chemistry' were observed. For example, Cr50, 52, 53 and 54 were 4.35, 83.80, 9.50, 2.35 % , Cu63, 65 were 69.2 and 30.8 %, Pd102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110 were 1.04, 11.16, 22.66, 26.67, 26.27 and 12.2 %, Pt190, 192, 194, 195, 196 and 198 were 0.01, 0.79, 32.90, 33.80, 25.30 and 7.20 % and Pb204, 206, 207 and 208 were 1.4, 24.2, 22.0 and 52.4.Forethermore, other elements isotope abundance were almost same as the table, it was impossible to fined any isotopic changes in proper materials. However, you know the results that I sent, the count rates for each mass spectra were so low as my Pd results, the reason may be arise from the difference the material; the samples that you sent me were little bit powder like form, that means the density was smaller than the bulk metals and technician of Hitach were difficult to obtain enough counts intensity. Sometimes, the count rates were less than 1000, it means the error over 3% at optimum conditions. Another reason was arised that the counting rates were so fluctuated at irradiating the oxygen ions to the powder sample; the error of the counting rate sometimes over several 10 percentages. So I just show you the only confidencial datas which were stable and small error of counting rates. But I think it is too early to determin that some transmutational reaction had occured or not occured. I have to accomplished more estimation experiment and calculations. For example, I still not sure the isotope abundances which have mixing existed in mass number 46 and 48 where the two elements exist of Ca and Ti. According with the above mentioned explanations, It can be say that some reaction had taken on the sample if the deviations for the isotope abundance exceed far than several times the each errors of counting rates. Other elements except which I had show you were so small counting rates,it was difficult to mention the isotope abundance because of these large fluctuation and error. I can not say the data of Oxygen and Carbon because their counts were only order of less than 10. I am recalculating the difference between ESM1 and ESM2 because I can see some difference in their data. In case of the Pb result, I can say something strangeness. The major mass peak were confirmed at 23 as 480000 count rate, 46 as 200000, 62 as 200000, 124 as 100000, and other peaks were coincidented with Rb, Xe, Kr and Ar. However, you know the counting efficencies were so small at rear gas such as He and Xe, so I need more time. You can see large isotope change at Cu, the result was same as my Pd. I did not find any other elements in the Pb sample. best regard, Tadahiko Mizuno Tadahiko Mizuno Department of Quantum Energy, Graduate School of Engineering,Hokkaido University, Kita-ku, North 13, West-8, Sapporo 060 JAPAN Tel:81-11-706-6689, Fax:81-11-706-7835 E-mail:mizuno@hune.hokudai.ac.jp [end of Mizuno's message] Well . . . Let me make a few more observations here: 1. The previous message from Mizuno was, as I said when I posted it, *preliminary*, and nothing to get worked up about. I hope all readers understood that, and nobody holds anything against Mizuno for the belated details. He was on holiday. All of Japan goes on holiday the first two weeks of August. 2. I am not sure what he could mean by "I did not find any other elements in the Pb sample." There were lots of other things mixed up in the lead; it was visible to the naked eye . . . I really don't know enough to speculate, but perhaps the other material was literally mixed in macroscopic chunks. I suppose the SIMS machine only take a tiny sample which would turn out to be 99.9% lead plus random contamination. This whole business looks like a tempest in a teapot to me. It is a shame I wasted Mizuno's time with the ore and lead samples. I wish I had had a macroscopic sample of purified, supposedly isotope shifted metal. Champion now informs me that is what the gold was supposed to be, but gold has only one isotope (which is why I ignored it), and there is only a little platinum in there. You can see whitish chunks under the microscope; I suppose that is Pt. It seems to me that the moral of this story, if there is one, is this: If you want to prove something you should put your best evidence on the line and provide explicit, complete instructions for dealing with it. Speak up! Make your point! I have watched many CF scientists fail to communicate, especially during conferences. They stand up in front of the crowd and mumble about this and that. They spend their allotted 20 minutes talking about calibrations, and their time runs out before they get around to presenting results and conclusions. The Abstract describes interesting stuff but you never hear about it during the lecture and by the time the Proceedings show up 10 months later you have forgotten. Look at what happened here, from my point of view. I got this bewildering assortment of ores and chunks of lead mixed with who-knows-what. I asked Joe which of these samples should have the most obvious anomalies. He said the lead would. Who knows, perhaps it does, but they do not show up with ordinary techniques. Joe and his former business associate lynch mob all claim that they are transmuting into platinum with peculiar isotopic ratios. Both Joe and the lynch mob asked me if I could help verify these anomalies. Yet neither of them sent me a macroscopic sample of platinum! I realize the stuff cost ~$400 per ounce, but they claim they are transmuting it for a fraction of that, so I suppose they could have spared a few grams. Haven't they refined a sample? The lynch mob sent me a package of mysterious gray dust labeled "Lead - hazardous" (don't breath it). Joe sent me all kinds of stuff, and two months later he informed me that the samples Mizuno chose to test had nothing whatever to do with the claims. These people were given a golden opportunity to have their claims verified by a major industrial lab, but they muffed it by sending the wrong stuff and not telling anyone what to do with what they *did* send. Many cold fusion scientists and product developers make the same mistake. Learn to put your best foot forward! - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 08:53:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA22210; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 08:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 08:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 11:47:32 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960817114727.326f2354@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Mossbauer Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"v3X-F.0.yQ5.qdU5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/27 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:21 AM 8/16/96 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >At 22:24 8/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >>Does anyone have information on the Mossbauer effect? > >It has to do with the gamma absorbtion characteristics of some nuclei, >notably Fe-57. In the typical setup, a Co-57 source is arranged to shine >through a Fe-57 foil onto a detector. When the source and detector are >stationary w.r.t. each other, not much 14.4 keV radiation gets thru the >Fe-57 foil because it is absorbed in the Fe-57 nuclei. However, when the >source is moving w.r.t. the foil at velocities of only a fraction of a >cm/sec, the Doppler shift in the gamma's energy is enuf to cause a >measureable change in the absorbtion of those gammas in the Fe-57 foil! > >This effect was used in a clever and famous experiment at Harvard in 1960 by >Pound and Rebka to measure the gravitational red shift caused by the Earth's >gravity. > >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) > > Mossbauer effect: a good emitter is a good absorber however, the nuclei sitting within alloys are not quite coupled at rest because of slight differences in the lattice. this occurs via nuclear-lattice connection through the s-orbitals the tiny Doppler change from movement, given the narrow peaks involved, allows coupling to finally occur. the Doppler equation correction can be used to then derive the shifts produced by the lattice. the effect demonstrates that the nucleus is very weakly coupled to the lattice in some condensed phases where Group VIII transition metal nuclei are bathed in s-orbitals. this was discussed at length in s.p.f., and refs were given best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 08:57:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA22165; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 08:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 08:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 11:47:58 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960817114753.2e677cb8@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Robin's web page Resent-Message-ID: <"Y2Wf53.0.FQ5.edU5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/26 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:30 AM 8/17/96 -0500, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote: >Robin, I get the gist of your theory...but I am not qualified to discuss >the validity of it. Does anyone else out there feel that adjacent nuclei in >a lattice vibrating in phase with each other would be likely to fuse as >Robin has suggested (see http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa/#type1)? > >I can offer a nearly useless experimental observation: In our attempts to >explore the Piantelli experiment, we heated a Ni rod in a H2 atmosphere to >just above the Debye temp and "soaked" it there for days while applying >various stimuli to the lattice (mechanical shocks, magnetic pulse, etc) and >we could observe no sign of excess heat generation. > >I deem this observation "nearly useless" because, until we know whether or >not CF is real, all negative experiments can be successfully argued to be >due to procedural errors. > > > cf is real, and the problems tend to reflect inability to focus on loading (amongst other things), and purity of materials did you measure the loading of your Ni rod (or its uptake)? what was the source of your Ni rod and how was it prepared compared to the Piantelli experiments which you explored? what was the sensitivity of your system? best wishes, Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 10:04:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA05567; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 09:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 09:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 96 12:44:44 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: RE: Robin's web page To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"TQ5fc3.0.jM1.zfV5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/28 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Robin, I want to thank you for the insight that you offer on your page. I have been searching for over 25 years for a link that would explain an experiment performed using electrical excitation of water vapor in the audio frequency range. Keep up the good work. I enjoy so seeing the grears in your graymatter swirl. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 10:34:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA10492; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 10:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 10:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 09:33:56 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Charge transport in electrolytes revisited Resent-Message-ID: <"zVpUg1.0.rZ2.f6W5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/29 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 12:41 PM 8/12/96 -0700, Horace Heffner wrote: >>>At 05:36 8/12/96 -0700, Mitchell wrote: >>> >>>> Regarding only the material science: >>>> There is probably no basis for assuming that the electrons conduct 5% of >>>>the electrical current through an aqueous water solution. is there? >>>> (imho, it is nothing like 5%) >>> >>>I agree...it's probably very very tiny. I got Dieter Britz, who knows >>>something about electrochemistry, to agree on this point a few months ago. >>>Horace was just speculating, as he tends to do >> >>Yes, I was speculating, as usual. However, I did previously post here some >>data from experiments I did using a 10 meter long 1 m Li2SO4 electrolysis >>cell with Pt and nichrome electrodes that indicated some of the current >>(excluding the electrode/electrolyte interface) of the cell must be carried >>by electrons due to the velocity of charge equalization throughout the >>cell. As I posted, I believe there has been extensive work done on charge >>exchange at the interface and very little on actual mechanisms of charge >>transport in the intermediate electrolyte because it is just assumed the >>central charge transport occurs by diffusion. > > > There has been much literature on this. I've cited references in my >papers on the "Quasi-one-dimensional model of isotope loading" > > > Mitchell Swartz Mitchell, Could you summarize the conclusions of relevence? Are you saying there are generally accepted conclusions other than ion diffusion is the method of charge transport? Do you or does anyone know of any studies which focus on the rate of charge equalization, i.e. the rate at which a long wavelength DC pulse propagates? Do any studies use methods which avoid electrode/electrolyte contact, yet use sufficiently long wavelengths to rule out dielectric transmission modes and guarantee actual charge transport? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 11:52:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA24857; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 11:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 11:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 13:46:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199608171846.NAA17587@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: CF is real - Piantelli Resent-Message-ID: <"eM1VU1.0.H46.eEX5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/30 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:47 AM 8/17/96 -0400, Mitchell wrote: > cf is real, Do you have experiments going which show this? Can you produce excess heat upon demand? If so, would you be willing to either teach me to do it or send me a cell that will do it so I can measure excess heat in my calorimeters for the FIRST time? It be a tremendous shot in the arm for me to actually see excess heat in my own lab. I expect that, following such an event, I would be able to contribute significantly to the development of CF. As it is now, however, I cannot muster the enthusiasm because I simply don't believe the excess heat results. >and the problems tend to reflect inability >to focus on loading (amongst other things), and purity of materials I'm certainly willing to admit that my experiments to date may have all been flawed in some fatal way that prevented me from seeing anything at all. > did you measure the loading of your Ni rod (or its uptake)? I tried to observe the uptake by observing H2 pressure drop but the situation was a bit clouded by temperature changes and leaks. I need to consult my notes but I think that my Ni rod did not take in very much H...and that seems to be consistent with popular lore about Ni and H...apparently they don't form a hydride readily. H diffuses thru Ni foil pretty easily but I don't think Ni soaks up lots of H like Pd does, for example. > what was the source of your Ni rod and how was it prepared compared >to the Piantelli experiments which you explored? I bought the rod from Alfa...it is 99.96%, I think (will check and let you know) and I tried the following: using it as received (shiny); polishing it with rouge on a cloth wheel (shinier); and etching it in acid (matte). > what was the sensitivity of your system? Let me check and get back to you, Mitchell. I know it was good enuf to see heat generation equal to 10% of the power I was putting in to heat the rod, maybe better. Piantelli reported seeing heat powers of >100% of the input power...in fact, he talks about having to deliberatly shut the thing down...i.e. he claims it can self-sustain. I have also tried thin Ni wires in small cell filled with H2 gas. I heated them by passing a current thru them. There I was able to see a change in resistance but, again, it was somewhat clouded by the fact that the resistance changes dramatically as the wire heats up anyway. These little cells worked EXACTLY like carbon-comp resistors in my calorimeter and you can see the beautiful power/energy balance I typically obtained off them on my web page (http://www.eden.com/~little). Never-seen-excess-heat-but-not-for-lack-of-trying -- Scott Little From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 12:40:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA05866; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 12:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 12:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 11:33:27 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Time is up! Resent-Message-ID: <"zI-IA.0.aR1.isX5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/31 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Now Mizuno's SIMS investigation of Joe Champion's transmutation results join the ranks of many anomaly investigations. Results by a major lab are clouded by miscommunication regarding sample contents, study objectives, etc. More studies are needed. Much debate is possible. On sci.physic.fusion this would have been the makings of at least a month's worth of debate, both scientific and otherwise, including numerous immaterial forms of derision not tolerated in this forum. Jed Rothwell says one moral to the story is this: "If you want to prove something you should put your best evidence on the line and provide explicit, complete instructions for dealing with it. Speak up! Make your point! I have watched many CF scientists fail to communicate, especially during conferences. They stand up in front of the crowd and mumble about this and that. They spend their allotted 20 minutes talking about calibrations, and their time runs out before they get around to presenting results and conclusions. The Abstract describes interesting stuff but you never hear about it during the lecture and by the time the Proceedings show up 10 months later you have forgotten." What Jed says is very true. Lack of clarity and miscommunication is often the problem in getting to the bottom of things in the arena of cold fusion (CF) and other anomalies. However, confusion, miscommunication, amateur scientific efforts, lack of rigor and clarity, are part of the phenomenon. Cold fusion and similar investigations are now almost exclusively outside of the accepted scientific channels. Scientific efforts by trained scientists are usually out of pocket or via use of very limited discretionary funds of a government organization. Other efforts, which are the bulk of the present activity, are born not by scientists, but by engineers and others pursuing energy on a private company or amateur basis. Lack of scientific rigor not only should be expected to be the norm, but are essential to very process of exploring this regime. It is necessary to throw off the mantle of the assumptions of modern science to even begin the exploration of these things. Clarity and precision are the guts of analysis, not creativity. The point? I think there is also another lesson to be learned here. We in the USA and others need government funding for examining claimed scientific anomalies and either proving them out or dismissing them. It takes big bucks and perseverence, staying power, to get to the bottom of things. The results should be published, with appropriate delays for the patent process if necessary. This is all especially true regarding energy producing devices and transmutation claims - the cold fusion arena. Think of the private funds that could be saved if investors could demand this government funded examination of new processes before investing. We were looking for a strategy to examine the CETI cell, maybe this could have helped. If such an effort cost 100 million US dollars a year it would be a bargain. However, it could be done for much less. I also think such could be accomplished via a combined government and private effort. Government agencies like NIST, NASA, and the national labs should be involved, but funding for labs like Earthtech should also be provided on a competitive basis. An international effort would be even more productive. Last year I almost posted an adaptation of the private correspondence which follows. It was held up waiting for permission to quote a passage from Gene Mallove's book, which neither came nor was acknowledged by refusal. I wish I had simply posted what follows. Maybe it would have made a difference. I paraphrased the quote from Mallove's book in the first paragraph below. The correspondence was part of a lengthy private debate between myself and one of the regular posters on sci.physics.fusion. The only change is the paraphrased quote in the first paragraph. Seeing old thoughts like this is somehow renewing for me. Maybe it will be for others. Here they are: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Time is up! According to Gene Mallove's book, "Fire from Ice", in October, 1989, Carl Sagan guaranteed that in 5 years from then we would have definitive proof or disproof, without contention, of the existence of cold fusion discovered by Fleischmann and Ponns, that the stake were too high not to obtain an answer. He was referring to deuterium and palladium on a tabletop, at room temperature, the Ponns and Fleischmann experiment. We are now approaching the sixth anniversary of his prediction. Was he right? Was positive proof or disproof, without contention, in existance by five years? Is it now? It seems like there remains too much debate to say yes to a definitive proof or disproof. The issue of fusion in a bottle seems small compared to the greater issues of whether the behemoths of conventional fusion will ultimately be practical, and, if so, when. If funding is not slashed severely, perhaps definitive answers for conventional fusion will be available in five years. Even more important, though, is finding a definitive answer to the question "is there a small cheap way to generate energy". A definitive answer to that question involves searching an almost infinite solution space. The process can therefore not end definitively until the answer is yes. The search of this solution space does not preclude a simultaneous search of the conventional fusion solution space. There is no reason for researchers in differing areas to destructively compete for much needed research funds by calling each other frauds, crooks, etc. Everybody will be the worse off for it, especially our children. The cliche that scientists make lousy polititions is being well proven in this newsgroup. The key to success in the political arena is unity, and there seems to be anything but unity here. As we approach the six year anniversary of Carl Sagan's prediction, we have an opportunity to renew the vigor and cooperation of six years ago. We can work together to broaden the search for energy. We have taken so much from our children. Today as I write this, September 10, 1995, confirmation of global warming was announced on TV. Here in Alaska, evidence has been plainly visible of warming for some time, through the sudden bizarre behaviour of glaciers that have been stable for 10,000 years. If the warming continues indefinitely the earth will end up like Venus. We have created a financial and environmental debt so massive that the only way we have to pay it off may be through investment in energy research. I may be an amateur, and my paycheck is my pension, but I can plainly see that the time has come to support energy research of all kinds. It may not be too late to affect the DOE research budget. Please write your senator now. You won't regret it. Regards, Horace - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I have the feeling perhaps we are now getting to the nut of the issue. I want to thank you for your insightful, educational and thought provoking correspondence. For the sake of clarity and brevity, I will take an advocational point of view, leaving caveats and appropriate expressions of doubt out of this communication. It is clear that your stance is very correct regarding scientific inquirey into the subject of fusion, or energy in general. Bad science is misleading and therefore less than worthless to the cause of science, the seeking of truth about nature. I would include mathematics in the definition of science because of my belief that the constructs of mathematics have an existance outside of human experience, are part of nature itself, and, as logic, an integral part of science. Even though maybe not explicitly dichotomized or recognized in most of the debates in sci.physics.fusion, there is another, seemingly opposing, but valid, not contradictory, point of view. I would like to call the other point of view the engineering point of view. For the purposes of brevity, I would like to include in the definition of engineering all the physical and psychological human processes involved in the creation of mechanical devices to solve a problem. The problem spaces of science and engineering, though related, are different. The goals of creating knowledge vs. creating machines are different. Yet the two processes are so similar, and mutally supportive, the distinction is often not drawn. Engineering is required for science. Every tokamak installation has associated engineering. Engineering is the application of science and quantification to the creation of devices. Engineering has progressed primarily through the advancement and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Engineering and science are the yin and yang of human progress. The distinction between science and enginering is most relevent because what is "Pathological Science" is often very good engineering. Creating machines is primarily a creative process. There is a large body of literture regarding the creative process. Included in the psychology of creativeness is the technique of brainstorming. This is the conscious act of suspending contradiction, of making flights of fancy, flights of the wildest most unconstained imagination. Negativity of any kind is not allowed, it poisons the process. Truth is not the goal, a complete unconstrained search of the problem space is the goal. Randomness is an integral part of this creative technique. If multiple people are involved (the best option) then synergy, positivness, and building on other ideas, no matter how fanciful or intuitive, is the method. The idea is to maintain the critical mass of excitement and focus of attention. The technique involves a separate analytical (critical) stage where some ideas are thrown out, the problem is more narrowly defined, and another brainstorming session scheduled. There is some supporting evidence for this technique provided by mathematics, namely optimization theory. There is a proof that as the number of variables in an objective function get large, the efficiency of a stochastic search vs. a deterministic search improves. At some problem domain size, if you have no other useful knowledge of exactly what the objective function is, only a black box to evaluate it, the stochastic method is the best approach. This method involves multiple evaluations of the objective function using input variables sampled (pseudorandomly generated) from distributions with assumed variances. Following generating statistics on the calulated function values, input variable variances are increased or decreased based on whether feasible solutions were found and, if so, how much the best candidate solution input values differed from the mean of the feasible candidate solutions input values in terms of variance. The process continues untill every input variable variance is within some pre-specified delta. The theory of genetic algorithyms extends this notion to the range of logical constructs, and therefore must also apply to physical constructs, because information is embodied in and mirrors the physical world. Though there is some applicability of creative techniques to the generation of scientific theory, science is a far more constrained field than engineering. What Edison did was not science, but it was effective. The search for truth is far more constrained than a search for something that works. Thus your position, advocating an orderly approach building on previous knowledge, while true from a science perspective, is less than optimal from an engineering perspective. I think this difference in perspective partly accounts for much of the disunity and misunderstanding going on in sci.physics.fusion. The problem at hand, working our way out of the scientific and sociopolitical problems of the energy maze, is primarily an engineering problem. We need practical solutions whether the truth and knowledge comes with them or not. However, present established scientific principals are not sufficient to solve this engineering problem in a timely way. A combined science and engineering approach is required. To tackle a difficult problem, you must believe you can, and be highly enough motivated to see it through. It is too bad that many of the names in the early heady days of sci.physics.fusion are gone. The excitement, the cooperation, the synergy is gone. It is really inspiring to read through the old posts and to see (now contentious) people working in a positive constructive way. For many, especially scientists, the motivation is gone. Most of the scientists are gone. What remains of the usually lesser educated engineering mentality is considered by the scientists to be "lunatic fringe". History tells us that most any problem tackled with sufficient resources can be overcome. It is merely defining the problem and being motivated enough to bring the needed reources to bear on the problem that counts. All that is lacking is a basis for hope, some unifying principles, a useful method of cooperating, some organization and some resources. Carl Sagan was only wrong is his estimation of how resolute scientists (and engineers) would be in reaching a definitive answer, how long we would see it as important. He foresaw the lack of cooperation, but he didn't see how limited in imagination we might be in exploring the degrees of freedom, and therfore how quickly we would lose interest. I agree with you that there is no particular reason to direct our efforts and our resources to the study of one system, the Pd + D system. This is far too limited a scope for either science or engineering. It should not be excluded from investigation or engineering though, as the Kasagi experiment demonstrates. Who knows what surprise, what wrinkle, lurks around the corner? Pons and Fleischmann's legacy is a problem domain rich in degrees of freedom. It is really not even limited to issues of fusion. I disagree that this is like a lottery. This is not a zero sum game. Either everybody loses or everybody wins, even the players not yet born. If there is one winner, we are all winners. This of course refers to solving the big problems, not to whether or not somebody or group makes a a lot of money, which is a totally minescule issue by comparison. Nor do I agree that a succession of seemingly disconnected efforts is misguided. People actively experimenting, however lunatic, have some degree of knowledge of science and technology. The number and quality of those experimenting on their own may soon be greatly enlarged by the demise of the academic fusion community in the USA. This potential increase in the number of independent researchers is the only bright spot in the immediate future! The intuition and diversity in the behavior of people is our strength. Especially if we have a good feedback mechanism. The points generated by a random optimization scheme looks at first disjointed and crazy from the perspective of someone who knows the answer. However, there is an unseen order in the feedback mechanism that quickly homes in on the solution when the local range is found. Darwin had a pretty good handle on this. I agree that we can not just give money to anyone who says he is doing research on energy! However, there is so much undone in the way of building an infrstructure for technology exchange. This might include: Additional internet resources, like complete periodical articles. Access to patent information How to information, like how to build neutron detectors, power supplies, etc. Online supplier catalogs (chemical, metal, electronic, glasware, etc.) Surplus equipment lists Mentor programs Equipment discounts and loaner pools Venture capital access programs Computer based tutorials Consulting network Amateur and professional group meeting facilities (by town or region) Device (claim) testing and verification Funding for stage two: follow on research to claims showing value and verified Much of this is now provided by sci.physics.fusion on a voluntary basis. These capabilitites can be expanded with funding. Many private researchers are or will be unemployed or retired. Every little bit of help possible is needed to make real and to instill the feeling of the possibility for success. Most important, though is not to regress, not to lose the level of effort we already have. Infighting will surely accomplish this. Cooperation and like mindedness, unity, is the only way to save the day. We must keep up the level of interest, the critical mass. A failed result in one area should only be motivation to try another approach. No need for true believers, only true workers with faith in the future. Regards, Horace Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 16:49:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA14352; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 16:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 16:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:44:42 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960817194437.12f7da2a@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Charge transport in electrolytes revisited Resent-Message-ID: <"pKViO1.0.4W3.bcb5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/32 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:33 AM 8/17/96 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: >>>>At 05:36 8/12/96 -0700, Mitchell wrote: >>>> >>>>> Regarding only the material science: >>>>> There is probably no basis for assuming that the electrons conduct 5% of >>>>>the electrical current through an aqueous water solution. is there? >>>>> (imho, it is nothing like 5%) >>>> >>>>I agree...it's probably very very tiny. I got Dieter Britz, who knows >>>>something about electrochemistry, to agree on this point a few months ago. >>>>Horace was just speculating, as he tends to do >>> >>>Yes, I was speculating, as usual. However, I did previously post here some >>>data from experiments I did using a 10 meter long 1 m Li2SO4 electrolysis >>>cell with Pt and nichrome electrodes that indicated some of the current >>>(excluding the electrode/electrolyte interface) of the cell must be carried >>>by electrons due to the velocity of charge equalization throughout the >>>cell. As I posted, I believe there has been extensive work done on charge >>>exchange at the interface and very little on actual mechanisms of charge >>>transport in the intermediate electrolyte because it is just assumed the >>>central charge transport occurs by diffusion. >> >> >> There has been much literature on this. I've cited references in my >>papers on the "Quasi-one-dimensional model of isotope loading" >> >> >> Mitchell Swartz > >Mitchell, > >Could you summarize the conclusions of relevence? it is a complicated field in which there is a significant literature both from the continuum side (e.g. Continuum electromechanics, Melcher MIT Press, ibid) and the molecular side (e.g. Dielectrics and Waves, von Hippel, MIT Press, ibid). from the molecular side, the study of ionic transport is vast. wish there were time to discuss this further. > Are you saying there are >generally accepted conclusions other than ion diffusion is the method of >charge transport? > Thanks for the interest, Horace. Not certain what you mean. You were given by email the following few refs to get you started a week ago. Did you have the opportunity to check any of them, or the secondary refs, out? M. Swartz, "QUASI-ONE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF ELECTROCHEMICAL LOADING OF ISOTOPIC FUEL INTO A METAL", Fusion Technology, 296-300 (1992). M. Swartz, "ISOTOPIC FUEL LOADING COUPLED TO REACTIONS AT AN ELECTRODE", Vol. 4, Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion", (1994). M. Swartz, "ISOTOPIC FUEL LOADING COUPLED TO REACTIONS AT AN ELECTRODE", Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (December 1994) M. Swartz, "Generalized Isotopic fuel Loading Equations", "Cold fusion Source book, International Symposium on Cold Fusion and Advanced Energy systems", Ed. Hal Fox, Minsk, Belarus, May (1994). Best wishes. Mitchell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 18:13:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA09804; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 18:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 18:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32166D7A.6BA2@interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 21:10:18 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: DISCONTENT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"PkIJE.0.6P2._rc5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/36 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ah! 1. Horace is waxing more philosophical than I have seen him! 2. Scott is suffering from working-device-deprivation! 3. Mitchell assures that all is well with cf - if you twist your mouth just so when prepairing devices. 4. Frank Z. is lost out west with Potapov! 5. My capacitors gather dust in my garage while I remodel our house. Now is the winter of our discontent! (And it's only August!) Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 18:26:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA14882; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 16:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 16:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:45:45 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960817194540.12f73d6e@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Cold Fusion Information Resent-Message-ID: <"VgoIl.0.Re3.Qfb5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/33 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Cold fusion is real. Many laboratories have demonstrated the reality. these are summarized in the COLD FUSION TIMES which has more info available at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html and includes this issue on data from EPRI, NASA, and US National Labs. =========================================================== The Cold Fusion Times presents hard-core science and engineering issues, with analysis of developments in the field. Discussions 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 The covers have been posted at the CFT/VR site and at the CFT web page. - 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 and more COLD FUSION TIMES's URL http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 18:30:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA14926; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 16:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 16:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:45:07 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960817194502.12f7cb66@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Robin's web page Resent-Message-ID: <"zAX8_1.0.1f3.Yfb5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/34 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:30 PM 8/17/96 -0500, Scott Little wrote: > >> cf is real, > >do you have experiments going which show this? a paper was submitted to, was accepted by, Fusion Technology, and hopefully will be published soon. meanwhile there are other sources demonstrating the reality. these are summarized in the COLD FUSION TIMES which has more info available at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html and includes this issue on data from EPRI, NASA, and US National Labs for starters. >> what was the sensitivity of your system? > >Let me check and get back to you, Mitchell. I know it was good enuf to see >heat generation equal to 10% of the power I was putting in to heat the rod, >maybe better. Piantelli reported seeing heat powers of >100% of the input >power...in fact, he talks about having to deliberatly shut the thing >down...i.e. he claims it can self-sustain. > >I have also tried thin Ni wires in small cell filled with H2 gas. I heated >them by passing a current thru them. There I was able to see a change in >resistance but, again, it was somewhat clouded by the fact that the >resistance changes dramatically as the wire heats up anyway. These little >cells worked EXACTLY like carbon-comp resistors in my calorimeter and you >can see the beautiful power/energy balance I typically obtained off them on >my web page (http://www.eden.com/~little). > >Never-seen-excess-heat-but-not-for-lack-of-trying -- Scott Little > > looking forward to that info on sensitivity, or your input power level to calculate it. were there other differences between your setup and Piantelli? best wishes Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 18:52:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA14858; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 18:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 18:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608180137.SAA06039@nz1.netzone.com> X-Sender: discpub@netzone.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 18:45:02 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Information regarding Moreland Resent-Message-ID: <"Xa37O2.0.4e3.yKd5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/37 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To Vortex, THE FOLLOWING WAS POSTED WITH THE PERMISSION OF MR. WILLIAM (MIKE) MORELAND Allow me to explain in detail what I feel is occurring in the mineral samples of Mike Moreland. Before starting, the process utilized by Moreland was developed by designed by his organization. I had nothing to do with its conception. However, I am fully cognizant of its design and it varies little from processes I have reported in numerous texts. The reason for these samples being presented to Jed were to validate that accelerated transmutation of geological deposits are not only possible, but occur under laboratory conditions. Moreland is a third generation miner. His grandfather being a chemical engineer put Moreland to work in their laboratory at the age of eleven. Now at the age of 47 he has had a lifetime to observe numerous anomalies. During the past years, Moreland has worked on the specific recovery of precious metals from ore bodies which for all intents are barren of precious metals. To clarify this statement, he has attempted to reclaim Au and Pt from ore bodies that analyze at less than 15 ppm of total precious metals. The question one should ask is -- Why try to reclaim something that doesn't appear to exist? The answer is simple -- for when Moreland places any type of energy to 500 gram samples of this and similar deposits he is able to physically reclaim 60==>400 ppm of Au and Pt group metals. Energy can take on many forms such as; high chloriniztion electrolysis, Brown's Gas, thermal excitation, kinetic excitation, etc......... Now why should he process a proven mineral reserve that is one mountain away that has $100.00 per ton of precious metals, when he can develop esoteric processes from this mineral which produces from $1,200.00 to $4,000.00+ per ton? The answer to this one is more complex. Technologies exist today for one to reclaim the $100.00 of precious metals per ton. In respect to the$1,200.00 to $4,000.00+ per ton ore, he has not been able to develop a procedure which exceeds processing more than a pound at a time. Scientists have studied this occurrence and have not labeled it transmutation. I felt strong enough with the consultation that I am supplying to Moreland that his observations are indeed that of transmutation. Hence, I requested that he supply samples of this material (ESM-1 & ESM-2) to Jed along with products from my process. The observations of Moreland have been made by "sleepers" inside this forum. At some time in the future I hope that they speak out. Conclusion: It is my opinion that the Soviet Academy of Sciences would not send teams of researchers to Weldon, California unless they were in observation of an anomaly. Furthermore, I can direct you to numerous other deposits and mineralogists who are observing transmutation on this fundamental level. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 17 22:12:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA20329; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 22:07:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 22:07:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 22:07:34 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Big change at VORTEX-L Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"4tCm.0.Vz4.TKg5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/38 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Without much warning the staff at eskimo.com had to port all email lists to Smartlist software. I'm told that this was to fix the mail choke-ups being periodically caused by Listproc. Smartlist is said to be much better software. We'll see. The main change is to subscribe/unsubscribe commands. New instructions are below, as well as the current set of Vortex-L rules. Some good news: the mail archive for "Current Month" on the Vortex-L website is now being auto updated in realtime as messages are received. In the future, if you lose contact with vortex-L (and if the rest of the list is still operating,) you can read current messages off the webpage. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page The Vortex-L list was created for discussions of professional research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.) Skeptics beware, the topics also wander to any anomalous physics such as "Cold Fusion," reports of excess energy in "free energy" devices, gravity generation and detection, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims. Please see the rules below. This is a public, lightly-moderated listproc list. Interested parties are welcome to subscribe. There is no charge, but donations towards expenses are accepted. Admin addr: vortex-L-request@eskimo.com Mail addr: vortex-L@eskimo.com Webpage: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html Moderator: billb@eskimo.com William J. Beaty 7040 22nd Ave NW Seattle, WA 98117 206-781-3320 USA *********************************************************************** Vortex-L subscription instructions: Send an empty email message to vortex-L-request@eskimo.com with the follwing in the subject line: subscribe Insert your name of course, with no brackets. You will get an automatic greeting message in response. Once subscribed, send your email to vortex-L@eskimo.com. To unsubscribe, send a empty message to vortex-L-request@eskimo.com with this in the subject line: unsubscribe ************************************************************************** Vortex-L Rules: 1. If VORTEX-L proves very useful or interesting to you, please consider making a $10US/yr donation to help cover operating expenses. If you cannot afford this, please feel free to participate anyway. If you would like to give more, please do! Direct your check to the moderator, address above. 2. This is not the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup; ridicule, debunkery, and namecalling between believers and skeptics are forbidden. The tone should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board! (For a good analysis of the negative aspects of debunkery, see ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by D. Drasin) 3. Small email files please. The limit is set to 40K right now, those exceeding the limit will be forwarded to Bill Beaty. Some members are on limited service, or have to pay for received email. Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to me or John Logajan and posted on our webpages for viewing. 4. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: when you reply to a message DON'T include the ENTIRE message in your reply. Always edit it a bit and delete something. The entire message should only be included if: (A) you are replying to a message that is many days old, or (B) you are doing a point-by-point reply to many parts of a message. Many vortex users must pay by the kilobyte for receiving message traffic, and large amounts of redundant messages are irritating and expensive. So, when including a quoted message in your reply, ALWAYS DELETE SOMETHING, the more the better. 5. "Junkmail" email advertizing will not be tolerated. While not illegal yet, widecasting of junk-email ads to listservers is against the Unwritten Rules of the Internet. Anyone who spams vortex-L with junkmail will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team. ;) Occasional on-topic advertizing by long-time vortex-L users is acceptable. - Bill B. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 18 01:21:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA11812; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:18:23 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Charge transport in electrolytes revisited Resent-Message-ID: <"JJOV53.0.Tu2.i3j5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/39 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >> Are you saying there are >>generally accepted conclusions other than ion diffusion is the method of >>charge transport? >> > > > Thanks for the interest, Horace. > > Not certain what you mean. > > You were given by email the following few refs >to get you started a week ago. > Did you have the opportunity to check any of them, or the secondary >refs, out? > > M. Swartz, "QUASI-ONE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF ELECTROCHEMICAL LOADING OF >ISOTOPIC FUEL INTO A METAL", > Fusion Technology, 296-300 (1992). > > M. Swartz, "ISOTOPIC FUEL LOADING COUPLED TO REACTIONS AT AN >ELECTRODE", > Vol. 4, Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion", (1994). > > M. Swartz, "ISOTOPIC FUEL LOADING COUPLED TO REACTIONS AT AN ELECTRODE", > Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (December 1994) > > M. Swartz, "Generalized Isotopic fuel Loading Equations", "Cold fusion >Source book, > International Symposium on Cold Fusion and Advanced Energy systems", > Ed. Hal Fox, Minsk, Belarus, May (1994). > > > Best wishes. > > Mitchell Sorry, I would have to buy such to get the references. No library around here will have. I am lucky to have money for parts for experiments these days. I guess I'll have to do a literature search when I'm done with my present line of experiments. I was hoping that you or someone would know of an accepted explanation of why the rate of current propagation (not EM waves, not dipole rotation, not dielectric response, but actual DC current - I am not talking about a wave that oscillates, but a square wave that does not return to zero for a much longer time than EM waves, dipole rotation, or dielectric response, can sustain a potential. I am talking about the rise time of such a square wave that does not decline or rebound, when measured at a significant distance) or at least of some experimentation reports. It sounded as if you knew of such. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 18 01:21:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA11834; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:18:29 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: DISCONTENT Resent-Message-ID: <"KcqUm3.0.qu2.m3j5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/40 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 9:10 PM 8/17/96, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >Ah! > > 1. Horace is waxing more philosophical than I have seen him! > > 2. Scott is suffering from working-device-deprivation! > > 3. Mitchell assures that all is well with cf - if you twist your > mouth just so when prepairing devices. > > 4. Frank Z. is lost out west with Potapov! > > 5. My capacitors gather dust in my garage while I remodel our > house. > >Now is the winter of our discontent! (And it's only August!) > >Frank Stenger I'm not discontent, but you can probably put my wife right up there on top of the list! I've got too many irons in the fire, and none of them is fixing the roof. The philosophy waxing is mostly from last year when I had the time for it. That doesn't count! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 18 02:21:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA16108; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 02:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 02:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960818091830.006fa6f4@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 02:18:30 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Hydrogen-Oxygen Resent-Message-ID: <"eTd7E3.0.cx3.Jyj5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/41 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Pages updated, regarding hydrogen-oxygen generation, at: http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/h-o/ --Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 18 04:51:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id EAA25861; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 04:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 04:48:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: hheffner@anc.ak.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 03:51:56 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"8nzhs1.0.xJ6.6Cm5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/42 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin, I just got around to reading your Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier web page. Nice HTML. I have some comments and observations: (1) If every atom were vibrating exactly in phase the temperature would be absolute zero. Of course this is not the case. However, this can be the case some of the time a various nodal points in the lattice, depending on boundary conditions. At nodal points there is frequently little or no relative motion of adjacent atoms. The density of nodal points can be enhanced by surface grinding to create grooves of specific dimensions relating to the lattice constant and by keeping the electrode thin. (2) Even if only two percent out of phase, there will be significant motion of any two adacent atoms. (3) Repetitive motion is sinusoidal, or at least a sum of sine functions. The relative motion is therefore sineusoidal. This implies the relative velocity of any two oscillating particles in a particular plane is exactly zero at least twice per oscillation, regardless of the temperature. (4) Even if two wavefunctions were of infinite or nealy infinite size and nearly fully overlapped, you have the problem of co-location (charged particles of like sizes tend to be in opposite sides of the wavefunction at the same moment) and the problem of *reduced* probability of fusion due to the large wave functions. For fusion to occur the particles must occupy the same location at the same time (or therabouts). As you increase the de Broglie wavelength, you increase the variance of the psi function, thus decrease the density of psi^2 function in any specific volume, so reduce the probablity of fusion, which is a composite function of the two overlapped psi^2 functions for a given volume. The only remedy for this is the formation of a Bose Einstein condensate, where the wavefunctions completely overlap and co-center. This puts their centers of charge at exactly the same location. However, even this is not enough to cause fusion for the above reasons, and it requires a nearly absolute zero environment to achieve the co-centering of large condensates. So this leave the question: how do you actually use the Bose-Einstein condensate to create probable fusion? (5) It was taking all this, and some additional published experimental observations (noted below) into consideration that led me to post the following last January 30th here on vortex: A BOSE CONDENSATE HYPOTHESIS FOR CF BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND ARGUMENTS The recent creation of a .002 inch 3000 atom Bose condensate by Carl Weiman and Eric Cornell may provide a possible insight to some cold fusion phenomena. The rubidium atom condensate was created with much difficulty and ingenuity at the extreme temperature of 20 nanokelvins, which was created by applying an RF field to atoms in a magnetic trap. The RF field was tuned to resonate with higher energy atoms, and thus caused these rubidium atoms to flip and then be shot out of the trap, thus leaving only those atoms with no significant energy. Though this was a difficult and amazing feat, demonstrating the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates to a true physical state of matter, not just experimental uncertainty, perhaps nature readily accomplishes it in a small way in metallic lattices. It is a much less difficult feat to create an overlap of two hydrogen nuclei in a 1 A condensate than it is to create an overlap of 3000 rubidium atoms in a 500,000 A condensate. The rubidium atom overlap was sustainable for more than 15 minutes. To be significant to CF, a condensate of two protons or deuterons in a lattice site need only be formed a very short time, if formed often enough. It seems that the Weiman-Cornell experiment, supported by the Pritchard slit experiments, clearly demonstrates the reality of the wave nature of matter. Perhaps it is the only form of matter. The particle nature of matter might be explained strictly by wave function collapse, which is not a characteristic of ordinary waves, but clearly is a characteristic of quantum waveforms. For example, looking at the photoelectric effect, suppose a huge photon waveform from a distant star impacts via it's own random selection process at a particular point on a metal surface, ejecting an electron, why do we have to say the photon is a particle at the point of the electron ejection? It could just as easily be considered (called) a collapsed photon waveform as it could be considered a particle. A waveform collapse consists of an instantaneous change in wave form center and distribution. Such a collapse also clearly accounts for tunneling effects as well. Where is the need for a particle model at all? If matter is totally wave like, it seems inescapable that charge must be therefore be distributed in the waveform, as there exists no point to carry it. This has the benefit, as Richard Feynman pointed out, of conservation of energy, because a point charge could generate an infinitely intense field, as you approach the point, requiring an infinite amount of energy to create the field. THE HYPOTHESIS Waveform collapse occurs probabilistically on the relative approach of two or more quantum waveforms. One quantum waveform can collapse to the location of the other. If two overlapped, i.e. relatively to each other slow, waveforms in a Bose condensate are penetrated by a high velocity waveform, a condensation can occur. Also,a kind of paradox occurs. All motion is relative. Assume the condensate is two protons, and the high velocity waveform is an electron. From the point of view of the proton condensate, the wavelength (size) of the electron is small. From the point of view of the electron, though, the condensate must be very small, and more importantly, since the waveforms of the proton condensate are phase locked and co-located, the condensate must appear located in a small volume. Thus, if there is an interaction, it would seem there would be a high probability that the interaction would be a 3 body interaction. That is to say the phase locking tendency of a condensate would greatly change waveform co-location probabilities. Given two protons jammed into a lattice site, the Schroedinger Equation predicts that they will tend to be instantaneously found in opposing locations within the site. However, should they form a Bose condensate, it is logical that their locations would appear to be the same to a fast moving particle. The hypothesis is that a Bose candensate, when stimulated by an incident particle, will tend to cause the simultaneous collapse of constituant waveforms at the same location. This hypothesis provides some explanation for various effects. One is the Kasagi experiment, where deuterated titanium is bombarded with deuterons. The reaction hypothesized by Kasagi to account for the observed results: D + D + D -> p + n + alpha (+ 21.62 MeV) requires a mechanism to make such a reaction likely in the matrix, i.e. to cause target deuteron pairs to tend to be located at nuclear distances from each other. The subject hypothesis provides such a mechanism. Similarly, the original experiments by Pons and Fleischmann, tended to produce neutrons in pairs, i.e. from single events. A deuteron condensate, stimulated by particles resulting from cosmic rays, could produce a variety of products, including neutron pairs, He4, He3, and T, as well as, depending on the type of impacting particle, transmutations such as Li and Be. Let [D + D] represent a two deuterium atom condensate. If a cosmic ray struck a deuterium nucleus, which then struck a deuterium condensate, we could have something like: D + [D + D] -> n + n + p + He3 (+ .584 MeV) Similarly, in various observed hydrogen systems a condensate could form, giving e + [p + p] -> n + p (+ energy) or e + [p + Li(n)] -> Li(n+1) (+energy) or e + [p + D] -> T (+energy) where the possibility of such formations is a matter of considerable debate. The case of : e + [p + p] -> n + p (+ energy) is just a variation of: e + p -> n (+ energy) proposed by Elio Conte. The importance of Conte's theory in this regard is that it predicts the possibility of creating such a bound state with the release of energy (17 KeV) and without a neutrino. To a much smaller degree, it seems possible that a Bose condensate might momentarily be formed between adsorbed hydrogen and lattice atoms. Such cases, as well as cases of neutron formation noted above, could possibly account for various transmutations observed in CF experiments. This hypothesis also provides some explanation for observed positive effects of using particles to stimulate loaded cathodes. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS One way to test the hypothesis would involve colliding a particle beam with a Bose condensate and looking at the resulting products spectographically, e.g. bombard with protons and look for Strontium, Tungsten, or Osmium, etc., spectral lines in the results, and the presence of high energy neutrons or other particles. Additionally, high energy electron bombardment of the Bose condensate might create similar effects by catalyzing the condensate waveform collapse. PRACTICAL APPLICATION If true, the hypothesis indicates that spiking the cathodes of CF electrolysis cells with particle emitters should greatly increase the yield and reliability of the CF effects. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 18 07:17:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA09004; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 07:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 07:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <321724AC.5D8D@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 10:11:56 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Horace Heffner CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Charge transport in electrolytes revisited References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"sAnxU2.0.cC2.sIo5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/43 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: I am talking about the rise time of such a square wave > that does not decline or rebound, when measured at a significant distance) > or at least of some experimentation reports. It sounded as if you knew of > such. Hey Horace: How about winding your long electrolyte path as the primary of a nice hefty transformer core (You pick the core type but work it in the linear region of its mag. curve.). I know electrodes are necessary, but you could keep them far enough away to separate the core from any current effects in the power function generator - or, complex electrode effects. Now, whatever current function your generator puts out, we know (?) the core magnitization will only care about the actual coulomb flow rate through the electrolyte tube. Could you learn anything by looking at the details of the voltage signal picked up by an unloaded sensing coil wound on the test core? You could try various driving current functions (sawtooth, sine, square, etc.) - low frequency of coarse - various lengths of primary tube to help sort out electrode effects, etc. Would your variables of interest show up in this kind of rig? If this is old stuff - just ignore! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 18 08:29:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA17478; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 08:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 08:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Aug 96 11:24:21 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: From the Dept. of Clear Thinking Message-ID: <960818152421_72240.1256_EHB104-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"2gq3h3.0.yG4.6Op5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/44 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Now that we have had this oh-so-serious discussion of isotopes as evidence, I would like to introduce a lighter note. The following was posted in CompuServe by James D. He reports that someone at LANL thinks that all planets must have different isotopic ratios. It's a natural law, apparently, based on two visits to other planets. You would think after a few billion planets we might run out of variations . . . I do not want to start up a discussions of UFOs here. There are many forums already devoted to that subject! I take no position on the famous Roswell controversy. But I could not resist posting it after counting so many deliciously contradictory and unscientific statements: "metals found on earth" -- could there be different ones on different planets? Do they have different chemistry and physics too? (Answer: yes, their's works.) "copper and silver in the fragment match the metals' earthly composition" (meaning isotopic ratios) And Why Not? Suppose the aliens come from another oxygen and water planet. Isotopic shifts might be expected from the airless moon, or even Mars, but not from another planet like earth. "We may not yet, as a nation, have the scientific tools to recognize materials from out of this universe," galaxy maybe . . . there is only one universe. And who says there has to be any detectible difference, with any instruments? Why should there be? Atoms are atoms. I thought that scientists generally believed in the uniformity of physical laws. This fellow demands that a sample of material must defy analysis before it can be considered alien. Well, okay. Enough of Roswell and Los Alamos. Back to your regularly scheduled programming, where this week the Entire Orchestrated Scientific Establishment is gaga over the Living Rocks from Mars extravaganza, based on evidence 0.000001% as convincing as any mainstream cold fusion experiment. - Jed _____________________________________ Tuesday August 13 9:55 PM EDT Test: Suspected UFO Fragment of Earthly Origin SANTA FE, N.M. (Reuter) - A metal fragment said to be part of the wreckage of a spaceship that crashed in the New Mexico desert in 1947 was composed of metals found on earth, a scientist said on Tuesday. Tests by Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Larry Callis confirmed that copper and silver in the fragment match the metals' earthly composition, casting doubt on claims it was once part of an alien spaceship. ``I sort of expected it to be terrestrial,'' said Callis, who conducted isotopic tests on the fragment for a Roswell UFO museum. ``(But) it was fun doing something different,'' said Callis, who normally tests uranium and plutonium for the lab's nuclear research facility. The metal fragment was found by military personnel investigating a mysterious crash outside Roswell, N.M., on July 4, 1947, said Deon Crosby, director of the Roswell International UFO Museum and Research Center, which paid for the tests. The crash inspired the summer blockbuster ``Independence Day'' and is considered by many as evidence of alien life. But the U.S. Air Force has said the wreckage was remnants of a spy balloon used to detect the launch of Soviet nuclear missiles. Museum officials were undaunted by the lab tests, and said they believe the fragment was part of an unidentified flying object, or UFO. ``We may not yet, as a nation, have the scientific tools to recognize materials from out of this universe,'' Crosby said. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 18 09:52:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA28320; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 09:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 09:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Aug 96 12:47:36 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: From the Dept. of Clear Thinking Message-ID: <960818164736_100433.1541_BHG69-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"i8LfA.0.Pw6.0cq5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/45 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed, Yes, James Diss is a fine fellow. His scathing commentaries on some 'scientific' studies are a delight, and he picks up some glorious stuff from the Web. I know he has from time to time subscribed to this list. He also expresses proper appreciation for my cooking. Increasingly I feel that the only certainty is that only certainty is wrong... Since this is a quiet Sunday, allow me to report a letter from the correspondence columns of that worthy British journal, ViZ: **************** "Why oh why do boffins waste so much money building giant windmill farms and researching wave power? Surely the most obvious form of alternate energy is static electricity. I calculate that a Zeppelin balloon rubbed on a jumper the size of Wembley Stadium would generate enough electricity to run a town the size of Macclesfield for three weeks. During periods of low demand the energy could be stored by sticking the Zeppelin to a wall. It would be a lot safer than nuclear power too. A 'Chernobyl style' disaster at a static electricity power station would at worst consist of a loud 'bang', and result in everyone's hair standing on end for a little bit. Professor Ian Fells Department of Energy Conversion University of Newcastle PS This would create jobs, as unemployed people could knit the jumpers." ****************** Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 18 14:06:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA04198; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 14:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 14:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 13:05:42 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Charge transport in electrolytes revisited Resent-Message-ID: <"9rv--.0.W11.5Ju5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:11 AM 8/18/96, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > >Hey Horace: > [snip] I know electrodes are necessary, [snip] >Frank Stenger No, electrodes are not necessary. You simply place current probes at various places in the electrolyte circuit. Such probes can be in the form of Hall effect devices or small transformers with liquid primaries. You can also use active FET probes to sense voltage transients through the tubing walls. Yes, the discussions of all this occurred before your "arrival" at vortex. My interest in this is in the possibility of using proton conduction bands to create proton charge clusters similar to Ken Shoulders' electron version of condensed charge (US Pat. 5,123,039). I am actively pursuing this line of research. This is why I asked about neutron detectors a while back. Will post results someday when they are worthy of such. I am trying to save up for a digital Tekscope and Hall effect probe so I can get some good clean traces. I have tried direct video capture using my computer and present scope and about one in ten shows up due to timing, and the traces are not of good quality. I have found that 1 KHz square waves are adequate, that there is no difference in the signal between a 1 KHz square wave and a .001 Hz sqare wave. On is on. All the action is at the wave front and is microsecond magnitude. To see it clearly just use a transformer to differentiate the input - that gets the square wave out of there and you can look at the spectrum nice and cleanly. You don't need a very big transformer for either input or current sensing, and a sawtooth primary input works OK. I have used ferrite core transformers with some success. It looks like there may be a new form of electrolyte analysis available in this - ion dynamics spectroscopy. That's another reason I want a Tekscope - I can get digital output via serial port from the Tekscope and analyze by computer, 500 megasamples per second, two channels. Doubles as a DMM. Has lots of calcs like peak height peaks down to 8 ns. You can look back in time from the trigger event. Its truly amazing all the stuff they have put into a little hand held battery operated box for $2200. No, I don't work for Tektronics, they have the only scope dealership around here. I have been saving my pennies, but I keep getting diverted by little projects like rail guns ... I you are interrested in the vortex discussion of this it started about mid April - it's all in the logs. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 18 17:53:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA16550; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 17:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 17:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 20:49:15 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960818204909.55370422@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"6F-Y73.0.U24.afx5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/47 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:51 AM 8/18/96 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: > >Similarly, the original experiments by Pons and Fleischmann, tended to >produce neutrons in pairs, i.e. from single events. .... Exactly what or where is the evidence for this notion of paired neutrons? The reactions are so neutronpenic, there is probably no evidence of such putative neutron pairing. right? Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 18 17:54:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA16588; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 17:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 17:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 20:48:32 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960818204825.5a371952@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Charge transport in electrolytes revisited Resent-Message-ID: <"t0B3y.0.134.ifx5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/48 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:18 AM 8/18/96 -0800, hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote: > > >I was hoping that you or someone would know of an accepted explanation of >why the rate of current propagation (not EM waves, not dipole rotation, not >dielectric response, but actual DC current - I am not talking about a wave >that oscillates, but a square wave that does not return to zero for a much >longer time than EM waves, dipole rotation, or dielectric response, can >sustain a potential. I am talking about the rise time of such a square wave >that does not decline or rebound, when measured at a significant distance) >or at least of some experimentation reports. It sounded as if you knew of >such. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > do not understand your question. > "why the rate of current propagation .. does not return to zero for a much >longer time than EM waves, dipole rotation, or dielectric response, can >sustain a potential" ? do not understand, although individually the concepts make sense Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 18 22:38:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA05768; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 22:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 22:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 21:38:51 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"M5W5W1.0.2Q1.5q_5o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/49 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 8:49 PM 8/18/96, Mitchell Swartz wrote: >At 03:51 AM 8/18/96 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: > >> >>Similarly, the original experiments by Pons and Fleischmann, tended to >>produce neutrons in pairs, i.e. from single events. >.... > > Exactly what or where is the evidence for this notion of paired neutrons? > The reactions are so neutronpenic, there is probably >no evidence of such putative neutron pairing. right? > > Best wishes. > > Mitchell Swartz This was discussed on sci.physics.fusion last year. Where were you? I thought you lurked there. Yes, the counts were low, but tended to come in pairs to opposite counters. Very odd. That's why the discussion. It was assumed to be an error but further investigation showed it to be real. Steve Jones could maybe help you check into this further. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 00:39:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA19671; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 02:35:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960819023731.176f4b86@mail.airmail.net> X-Sender: danyork@mail.airmail.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Dan York Subject: Transmutation & Joe Champion Cc: Joe Champion Resent-Message-ID: <"5EfKj1.0.Gp4.Sa16o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To Vortex: There has been some discussion on this list about Joe Champion and several different processes that he claims will effect nuclear transmutations. I do not have a scientific background that would allow me to enter into the discussion of isotopic anomalies in the samples from Joe Champion and Mike Moreland. My background is as an electrical engineer and programmer. What I am qualified to discuss on this list are the results of my work over the last month or so and report my observations. About a month ago I put together a Hg cell following instructions provided by Joe Champion. I am in Dallas Texas and Joe is in Phoenix Arizona. Joe has never been to my working location here in Dallas. His direct involvement has only been through the telephone and the internet. So far my original reason for setting up the Hg cell has been a total failure. The object of this project was to produce Pt and Au through transmutation. I have spent many long days and nights attempting to replicate Joe's results that he claims for another similar setup in Tucson Arizona. >From the very first day within three hours of starting up the Hg cell for the first time we had an anomalie that Joe had not experienced before. I had not been warned in advance of the possibility of this behavior of the cell and so when the entire contents (about 2 gallons) of electrolyte and salts was either vaporized into the air or thrown out of the Hg cell into a containment vessel over a period of about 5 minutes I was understandably very disturbed. I had expected a slight off gassing of chlorine but not too much (whatever that might mean). Along with the vapor and steam from the cell there was a large amount of chlorine gas. The result has been that every piece of metal in the vicinity now has or had a rapidly growing layer of rust. This includes a milling machine and a number of expensive pieces of equipment. The huge volume of steam and vapor completely overwhelmed the vent hood that was directly above the cell. As a result of this experience I moved the Hg cell to a remote site out in the country where the only living things that I though might be harmed by the extreme reactions of the Hg cell were a lot of insects and a couple of cows and horses. I was wrong. It turned out that it did not do the tree that is in the breeze from the ventilation fans one bit of good. It is now like fall on that side of the building with dead leaves all over the ground. The cows and horses have plenty of room to move about and appear to have the good sense to stay a good distance away. There is a significant amount of chlorine gas produced when the Hg cell is operating. I spent the next month with Joe on the phone, trying this and that, constantly testing, cupelling, scorifying, precipitating, titrating and adjusting this and that trying to cause the Hg cell to make some Pt and/or Au. To the best of my knowledge to this point I have not created a single atom of Pt or Au. To make a very long convoluted story somewhat shorter I will get to the point. While MY original reason for setting up the Hg cell has been an abject failure it has been a resounding success in two other major unforseen ways. The first really important thing that I observed and recorded was the fact that there was one hell of a lot more energy coming out of the cell than I was putting in. A general description of the cell is a cathodic layer of Hg on the bottom with an electrolyte of several different salts and water with a carbon anode. The total volume of the cell is about 2.5 gallons. The maximum input DC power was 70 watts with the average being around 55 watts. In normal operation the input voltage was between 5 and 6 volts with the current maintained at 10 amps. >From the beginning the constant operating temperature of the cell was about 30 to 35 degrees fahrenheit above delta. However at times the temperature would climb to well above 212 degrees fahrenheit in a matter of just a few minutes. I have measured 350 degrees at the surface of the Hg when it was violently throwing out the electrolyte. Mostly I stay well back out of the way when the cell is displaying this aberrant behavior. Over the course of the month we figured out what was causing this reaction and learned to control it. Well.... we can mostly control it but it still occasionally gets out of hand. We have learned enough about this extreme reaction to be able to reproduce it at will. I believe I could sustain the reaction over an indefinate period of time but I am not about to attempt that with the current setup so I can not be sure of that. I have to rely on Joe's calculations which he says proves that the reactions we are seeing can not possibly be all chemical. I am not qualified to make those calculations and then argue their validity with the group of people that inhabit this list. I kept very detailed records of temperatures, PH and ORP that Joe used to in his calculations and to create his graphs. On the other hand we have had one singular event that in my mind proves that the apparent energy output which is much greater than the input energy is truly a nuclear phenomena. I have stated that to the best of my knowledge we have not produced a single atom of Pt or Au but we have finally found out what the cell has been producing. Two separate labs have now confirmed that we are producing 'significant' quantities of pure hafnium. A third lab has quantified the amount of this unusual element that we are producing at over 60 percent of our sodium sulfide precipitate. Joe did not touch or see the three samples that were sent out to be tested. I had to go to a chemistry text and the encyclopedia to find out what hafnium is and where it comes from and what it is used for. It is not an element I had ever had anything to do with before. From my research it seems that hafnium is not found anywhere on earth in it's pure form. The source for hafnium is from zirconium. Hafnium is a contaminant in naturally occurring zirconium normally in the range of 1 to 6 percent. In 1 to 2 percent amounts of contamination the hafnium is ignored and the zirconium is considered to be pure. If I had been able to produce Pt or Au in the Hg cell I believe there would have been those that would have suspected that somehow we were recovering small amounts from our triple distilled Hg or that someone had pulled some slight of hand. As it turns out, if Joe had intended the cell to make this hafnium (which he did not) he could not have picked a better metal to create that would offer proof that there is a nuclear transmutation reaction going on in the cell. The spectrographic analysis showed that there were only two elements in the precipitant material I sent off to be tested. The two elements present were sodium and hafnium. There was absolutely no zirconium (or any other element) present which eliminates any possibility that the hafnium came from any naturally occurring source. Ok, now by my way of thinking, since I believe that we have proved that the Hg cell is producing hafnium it also proves beyond any doubt that the excess heat we are seeing is also the result of a CF reaction. There probably is some part of the excess heat that is produced by the chemical interaction of the sodium and the water but the heat of creation from the hafnium has to be present somewhere. I will leave it to Joe to pontificate on the numbers and to show his graphs and charts that represent the real events that have taken place over the last month. The "Dallas Site" on Joe's web page is the one that I have been discussing here. The picture on that page is of the Hg cell with an impressive column of steam and vapor coming off of it. At least I think it is impressive considering the approximately 55 watt average input power. I can promise you that it is impressive when you are the one that has to clean up the mess when the cell throws the electrolyte and salts 12 feet into the air. It might have gone higher but the now rusting sheet steel roof is at 12 feet. If I had my way about it we would have gone about all of this very quietly and I would not be writing this to post publicly to the list now. However because of the controversy surrounding Joe and his claims of nuclear transmutations, at Joe's request, I agreed to post this information to the list. Joe did not in any way suggest what I should write about or say. He left it to me to present my observations in my own way. I wouldn't have paid any attention to him if he had tried to tell me what to say anyway. As for my personal feelings and opinion of Joe. They are mixed. On a personal level Joe is a very nice guy who I enjoy conversing with. On the negative side Joe is so damn full of optimism and enthusiasm for his science that he tends to exaggerate. Joe will sometimes bug the hell out of you when you really want to be left alone so you can get some work done. On the positive side Joe will go to great lengths to help in any way he can. Joe apologizes profusely for keeping you from working while he is keeping you from working. The bottom line here is that as far as I am concerned Joe has PROVED to my satisfaction that the process of his that I am using will and does effectuate nuclear transmutations. If any of you know of any place that would pay a good price for some hafnium I would appreciate it if you would let me know. I seem to have quite a bit of it for sale. Dan York danyork@iadfw.net From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 03:15:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA02820; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 03:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 03:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Aug 96 06:08:38 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Transmutation & Joe Champion Message-ID: <960819100838_100433.1541_BHG97-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"7M72A1.0.-h.Us36o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/51 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dan, I'll skip the "don't try this at home" jokes. First, nobody here will argue physics or chemistry with you as an electrical engineer - or if anybody does that, just ignore them. That's not what this list is all about. Secondly, if you have lumps of pure hafnium, these can be readily verified as such. Not to say that you haven't done that, but maybe you could loan out some for a separate study. The very existence of a lump of what is quite a rare element would be of interest, and the isotopic state of a biggish lump would be of *intense* interest. To refresh memories, here are the natural abundances of the isotopes 174Hf - 180Hf: Name Number Symbol Isotope % Delta energy Hafnium 72 Hf 174 0.162 -55.849 (long-lived radionuclide) 176 5.206 -54.581 177 18.606 -52.893 178 27.297 -52.447 179 13.629 -50.476 180 35.100 -49.793 Further, is your process with all its details permitted to be made public here? Or to selected individuals here who could replicate it? These do not really matter, if as you state you have done these experiments and the big lump of Hf is agreed to be Hf - and maybe has 'interesting' isotope ratios then we can take this matter further. A *lot* further. Finally, let me thank you for such an interesting and clear report. One of the best I've seen here. My own feeling is increasingly that, with so many reports coming through about all this, we should attempt to firm up on one or more of them. Joe is obviously a fascinating and energetic person, the problem is that we get seriously confused by what he tells us. Which is no reason for not taking very seriously such reports as you have just given us. > We have learned enough about this extreme reaction to be able to > reproduce it at will. Would you welcome a visit from Scott Little, who is in Austin? Would Scott be willing to make such a visit? Thank you, Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 06:41:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA28655; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 06:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 06:36:41 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:35:56 -0400 Message-ID: <960819093555_263114268@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: CldFusion@aol.com, williams@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, GeorgeHM@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, ross@pacificnet.net, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, RMCarrell@aol.com, Puthoff@aol.com, 75013.613@compuserve.com, fstenger@interlaced.net, 101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, CentManGrp@aol.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Lanl visit. Resent-Message-ID: <"E4jrd.0.U_6.et66o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi all John Barron and I are now at home. We had an enjoyable and busy trip at Los Alamos. We arrived at LanL Friday morning. What I treat. Double row fences around buildings with guard towers and signs that say, "Warning do not cross fences buried explosives." I guess the whole area is land minded. We finally got into area 26 as guests of the Yusmar company. There we met Thomas Clator and Ron McFee two very nice people. We spent the day at LanL and completed several tests. Afterwords, Yuri invited us for dinner at Ron's house. Yuri cooked us up a fish dinner. It was very good. Yuri is a good cook. The next day we travel to Santa Fe to visit with Dr. Ed Storms. Ed was a very welcome host. He lives in a beautiful mansion on a the buff of a cliff that overlooks all of Santa Fe. His wife Carol made us lunch. We sat on the balcony overlooking Santa Fe and enjoyed it. Carol is a very beautiful and intelligent woman. Ed Storms and Chip Ransford, who was also there, spent a few hours with us showing us their work. Ed has quite a set up in his basement. Ed was very open and explained everything that he was doing. Chip showed us his reactor. After visiting storms we met Richard T. Murry, a member of this list, and reviewed the latest developments in cold fusion. Richard is sending me some very interesting papers on sono luminescence. The tests at Lanl did not come out as well as expected. The average C.O.P. was .96. John Barron and I were quite concerned about this. We both are good judges of character and we know Yuri and Peter are telling the truth. What went wrong? John Barron, who is an expert in impeller design, and I discussed it. We think we know what the problem is. In fact I am quite sure I know what is going wrong. Today the Yusmar is being shipped from Lanl to our shop in Pennsylvania. We are not going to test it, we plan to get it working. After we get set up Yuri is coming to work with us. The device did cavatate but was not producing anomalous energy. I know why Ed Storms gave me the clue that I needed. For John Barron, Yuri, and I the adventure has just begun. ................................... "The reason that I have seen so far is that I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Albert Einstein My giants are: Yuri Potapov, Ron McFee, Hal Puthoff, Scott Little, Frank Stenger, Tom Clator, Ed Storms, John Barron, Hal Fox, Jed Rothwell, Gene Mallove, James Patterson, Peter Glueck, George Miley, and many more. Each of these persons has met with or openly spoke with me. This has allowed me to see a farther into the darkness. I plan to use my now clearing but still muddy vision to get the Yusmar working. We will do it. Frank Znidarsic  From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 07:56:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA14906 for billb@eskimo.com; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 07:55:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 07:55:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Mon Aug 19 07:55:25 1996 Received: from mbunix.mitre.org (mbunix.mitre.org [129.83.20.100]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14849 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spectre.mitre.org (spectre.mitre.org [129.83.61.124]) by mbunix.mitre.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/mitre.0) with ESMTP id KAA13000; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:54:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (eachus@localhost) by spectre.mitre.org (8.6.4/8.6.4) id KAA19581; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:54:12 -0400 Old-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:54:12 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199608191454.KAA19581@spectre.mitre.org> To: hheffner@anc.ak.net CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: (hheffner@anc.ak.net) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner (hheffner@anc.ak.net) said: > Assume the condensate is two protons... You can't have a Bose-Einstein condensate of fermions. At most two fermions can occupy the same space, but 180 degrees out of phase. I guess you could call this Fermi-Dirac condensation. (Change from protons (fermions) to deuterons (collective bosons), and BEC can occur with as many nuclei as you want.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 09:14:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA02808; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 19 Aug 1996 09:04:09 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Dallas System To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/19/96 09:04:49 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"ODDx83.0.oh.C396o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/53 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/15/96 17:23 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Dallas System Hey Guys! I hope that everyone notices this above the NOISE.....It doesn't matter diddly-squat whether Joe C. can produce gold and Pt..from lead, or what- ever! If his current "pot" boils and produces the amounts of Hf that is claimed and IF it is cross verified, it is VERY significant. Can Joe and Dan York work with a couple other sources to DUPLICATE? Keep us informed. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 09:19:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA04538; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 19 Aug 1996 09:10:09 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Results from another CETI-type experiment run To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/19/96 09:10:56 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"jlu4W.0.l61.O996o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/15/96 07:08 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Results from another CETI-type experiment run Beads made by CETI? By K.S. or by Scott Little's "ersatz" method? MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 09:48:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA11586; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 08:40:24 -0800 To: "Robert I. Eachus" From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"4xzz71.0.tq2.0Y96o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/55 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:54 AM 8/19/96, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > Horace Heffner (hheffner@anc.ak.net) said: > > > Assume the condensate is two protons... > > You can't have a Bose-Einstein condensate of fermions. At most >two fermions can occupy the same space, but 180 degrees out of phase. >I guess you could call this Fermi-Dirac condensation. (Change from >protons (fermions) to deuterons (collective bosons), and BEC can occur >with as many nuclei as you want.) > > Robert I. Eachus > >with Standard_Disclaimer; >use Standard_Disclaimer; >function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... How do you account for the fact that the condensate created by Carl Weiman and Eric Cornell was loaded with electrons? I think as the size of the condensate grows the Pauli exclusion principle becomes less significant. The particles do not have to be in the same state to become attracted, i.e. to condense. PS - did you notice that the new listserve has changed the reply-to rules? You sent this private email, it did not post. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 09:58:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA13891; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:46:51 -0400 Message-ID: <960819124651_388795443@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Over-Unity-Experiment-that worked ! Resent-Message-ID: <"TrRKk1.0.zO3.bg96o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/56 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Is there, as part of the theory, an explanation as to where the energy comes from? ZPE? Fusion? Particle-antiparticle annihilation? For a pressure differential to provide energy it should be traceable to a source, no matter how exotic. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 10:32:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA17484; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:59:55 -0400 Message-ID: <960819125954_388805135@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Long. Force, Blue, TV programme Resent-Message-ID: <"A1sRy3.0.4H4.Xt96o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/57 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris, Could I get a copy of the program (or programme, as you would say over there)? I can convert from PAL to our format. I'll be glad to reimburse expenses. I'd like to see Forward discussing Casimir plates, etc. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 10:36:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA20855; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 12:51:24 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: Re: Over-Unity-Experiment-that worked ! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Puthoff@aol.com X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"TfirE3.0.i55.92A6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/58 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Hal, My Italian friend has his own idea's as to the cause of the effect. I am going along with his wishes now, but feel that the most exciting part of his theory would explain why this device as well as others such as the Yusmar can operate only in a narrow band of conditions. It would seem from my own test that the most important factor in a vortex type device is the velocity of the fluid. This must be exact in order to cause the O/U effect. It may well be that the zero point factor plays a role in this, but only time will tell. When and if we reach the point of "reality", I would like Scott and yourself to be the first to confirm the findings. Robert From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 10:58:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA00111; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 19 Aug 1996 10:53:10 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Help on "Return addresses"--- To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/19/96 10:53:03 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"GMfxd3.0.e1.VeA6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/59 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Help on "Return addresses"--- - Hi friends! Due to a much deserved 4 day "mini-vacation" to the northern lakes of MN, I had an "information overload" on my server with regard to Vortex. I didn't "lose" anything per-see, but I had to erase a bunch of backlog stuff to get "freed up" and lost a lot of "return addresses" - Could Hank, Chris, Jed, Peter, Joe C. etc send me personal notes at MHUGO@EPRI.EPRI.COM ? Thanks, then I get the automatic return addresses on them and it is much easier to get back to you. - MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 11:11:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA04496 for billb@eskimo.com; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:11:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Mon Aug 19 11:10:57 1996 Received: from mbunix.mitre.org (mbunix.mitre.org [129.83.20.100]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA04463 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spectre.mitre.org (spectre.mitre.org [129.83.61.124]) by mbunix.mitre.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/mitre.0) with ESMTP id OAA19860; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 14:10:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (eachus@localhost) by spectre.mitre.org (8.6.4/8.6.4) id OAA19923; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 14:10:43 -0400 Old-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 14:10:43 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199608191810.OAA19923@spectre.mitre.org> To: hheffner@anc.ak.net CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: (hheffner@anc.ak.net) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: > I think as the size of the condensate grows the Pauli exclusion principle > becomes less significant. The particles do not have to be in the same > state to become attracted, i.e. to condense. Definitely not true. The particles in a BEC must have integral spin. But the particles don't have to be what we think of as "fundamental" particles, they can be collective particles such as atoms. > PS - did you notice that the new listserve has changed the reply-to rules? Yep, and I am going to have to change my subscription, but it is a bitch. (I probably have to forge mail as "eachus@mitre.org" to unsubscribe, then resubscribe as "eachus@spectre.mitre.org.") Stoopid. > You sent this private email, it did not post. In this case intentional. Changing proton to deuteron doesn't affect the rest of the message, so I treated it as a typo. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 11:48:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA11034; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Aug 96 14:35:06 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Long. Force, Blue, TV programme Message-ID: <960819183506_100433.1541_BHG31-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"wYyUH1.0.Ii2.CHB6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/60 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal, > Chris, > > Could I get a copy of the program (or programme, as you would say > over there)? I can convert from PAL to our format. I'll be glad > to reimburse expenses. I'd like to see Forward discussing Casimir > plates, etc. I would be delighted to airmail the tape, I'll do that tomorrow. The cost is minimal. What I would prefer is that you might return the original, since if I copy it here and send you the copy the transcription will suffer accordingly. If Gene Mallove could have a copy of the NTSC version for his archive, that would be an extra bonus for us. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 12:16:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA18398; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:07:06 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Charge transport in electrolytes revisited Resent-Message-ID: <"381AP1.0.LV4._fB6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/61 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > do not understand your question. > >> "why the rate of current propagation .. does not return to zero for a much >>longer time than EM waves, dipole rotation, or dielectric response, can >>sustain a potential" > > ? do not understand, although individually the concepts make sense > > Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) I am interrested in current rise time studies involving low voltage gradients, long distances, and electrodeless cells, better yet if involving flowing electrolytes. Current rise time here meaning time to reach equilibrium current for a fixed applied potential. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 12:29:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA21639; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:22:48 -0800 To: "Robert I. Eachus" From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"dX2k32.0.yH5.luB6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/62 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 2:10 PM 8/19/96, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > I think as the size of the condensate grows the Pauli exclusion principle > > becomes less significant. The particles do not have to be in the same > > state to become attracted, i.e. to condense. > > Definitely not true. The particles in a BEC must have integral >spin. But the particles don't have to be what we think of as >"fundamental" particles, they can be collective particles such as >atoms. > > Robert I. Eachus > How do you account for the electons in the condensate? The condensate was formed from atoms not nucleii. Are you saying the electrons could be considered as part of an "atom paticle" . If this were true a hydrogen atom could be considered a boson for purposes of forming a BEC. I don't follow you. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 12:46:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA25891; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:43:38 -0800 To: "Robert I. Eachus" From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"B7Lg_3.0.TK6.ECC6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/63 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:22 AM 8/19/96, Horace Heffner wrote: >At 2:10 PM 8/19/96, Robert I. Eachus wrote: >> > I think as the size of the condensate grows the Pauli exclusion principle >> > becomes less significant. The particles do not have to be in the same >> > state to become attracted, i.e. to condense. >> >> Definitely not true. The particles in a BEC must have integral >>spin. But the particles don't have to be what we think of as >>"fundamental" particles, they can be collective particles such as >>atoms. >> > >> Robert I. Eachus >> > >How do you account for the electons in the condensate? The condensate was >formed from atoms not nucleii. Are you saying the electrons could be >considered as part of an "atom paticle" . If this were true a hydrogen >atom could be considered a boson for purposes of forming a BEC. I don't >follow you. >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 OK, I see your problem, I said "protons". By your criteria a condensed charge of protons would have to acquire an electron cloud before condensing. But that precludes the existence of the condensed charge in the first place, including Ken Shoulder's condensed charges made of electrons. This feels somewhat circular. PS - I thought the above was private correspondence, so was surprized when it was posted. Howver I see that vortex was in the copy field. You really have to watch your P's and Q's witrh this new list server. However, it seems to be blazing fast. Maybe that's because most replies are not presntly being posted. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 13:22:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA03762; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Aug 96 16:13:02 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Reason to hope after Potapov fiasco? Message-ID: <960819201302_72240.1256_EHB187-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"p5YYh1.0.dw.iiC6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/64 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I was mystified by the enthusiastic tone of Frank Znidarsic's's report on the Potapov tests at Los Alamos. I had been hearing reports of problems with the pump, delays, breakdowns, and no excess heat. On Saturday the final word came: the Potapov Device produced no excess heat and the tests at Los Alamos have been terminated. Then Frank posted this sunny message: "The tests at Lanl did not come out as well as expected. The average C.O.P. was .96. John Barron and I were quite concerned about this. . . . What went wrong? John Barron, who is an expert in impeller design, and I discussed it. We think we know what the problem is. In fact I am quite sure I know what is going wrong." I could not imagine why anyone could be so enthusiastic about what appeared to be an unmitigated fiasco. So I called Ed Storms to get his take on the situation. He was not present during the tests, but he talked to Znidarsic's, Potapov, Gluck and others. According to Ed, this is what happened on the Friday, the last day of testing. There was no sign of excess heat all day. Potapov said that the pump and equipment "did not sound right." It did not seem to be cavitating enough. Late in the afternoon they found air bubbles in the pipes, which probably came from air that had been dissolved in the water. They bled off the air and tried again. This time, the sound of the machine changed distinctly and Potapov said it was working right. The temperature rose more quickly than before. (I do not have any numbers; I hope that someone who was there will post some.) The pressure also rose sharply. After about three minutes, a pressure seal broke, and the run had to be terminated. This was late in the afternoon. There was no time left to repair the thing. The Los Alamos engineers, who had volunteered to work on this thing for a week said they had enough. They asked that the equipment be removed and no further testing be done. I can understand their frustration, although if I had seen the glimmering of an interesting result I might have stuck it out one more day. In view of this partial success, Znidarsic's and the others agreed to move the tests back to their own turf in Pennsylvania. Well . . . I hope it works out. I would not be as sanguine about these results as Frank is. If I were Potapov, I would apologize to the Los Alamos staff for wasting their time. At the risk of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy, let me repeat what I said the other day about Joe Champion. Put your best foot forward! Be prepared! Potapov was given a golden opportunity to demonstrate his device at America's preeminent physics laboratory. He blew it! He should have brought a fully tested system, with a pump. Chris Tinsley says the pumps in Moldova are attached to external electric motors, so they could have hooked up a Russian pump to an American motor. They should have done that here in the U.S. a few months ahead of the Los Alamos test. They should have run the machine for weeks beforehand. Of course he should have done that -- who wouldn't? Any junior engineer assigned to set up a demo system at a trade show would have prepared more conscientiously than Potapov did. You *must* bring every component you will need. (If you cannot transport something, you must send someone ahead to be sure everything is waiting on site.) You must bring spare parts and tools. You must spell out in advance what you intend to do and bring handouts and sample data from previous runs. In a demonstration at a National Laboratory the stakes are high and a professional will take every reasonable precaution to assure success. As far as I know, Potapov took no precautions and did no pre-testing here in the U.S., even though we warned him repeatedly that his machines do not work with U.S. equipment. I want to emphasize that I am criticizing this behavior strictly from a business point of view. This has nothing to do with the scientific content of Potapov's claims. When you go into Los Alamos to sell bubble gum vending machines to the Food Service Department you should be prepared to give a polished, professional presentation. YOU SHOULD NOT WASTE PEOPLE'S TIME while you scramble to make your machine work! I think any businessman would agree with me. It is a crying shame that these people have *again* blown a wonderful opportunity. Let me emphasize that: Again! For the fourth time they have thrown away the chance to achieve credibility! Why?!? The machines were been tested by Scott Little, Gene Mallove, the Univ. of St. Petersburg. In every case, Potapov was told exactly what the testers were doing. He was told they were getting no excess heat. He did not lift a finger to help. If he had only cooperated last year we could have solved these problems. (Assuming the gadget actually works, which I find increasingly unlikely.) Potapov could have gone into Los Alamos with one of our systems pretested and certified to work with U.S. equipment. We asked *nothing* in return. We bought the Yusmars from him and paid for the pumps and other equipment (with generous help from Arthur Clarke). Why didn't he cooperate? Peter Gluck gave bizarre reasons that made no sense to me or anyone else connected with the project, including a critique of tent calorimetry straight out of Alice in Wonderland. At first I thought this was cultural gap between former communists and us capitalists, but I gather the people in St. Petersburg were as puzzled as we were, so that can't be it. I will never understand the reasons. Was it anger, fear, distrust, paranoia, a control fetish, a low opinion of our technical abilities? Did overweening self-confidence make Potapov think he could march into Los Alamos without help or preparation? He should have had experienced U.S. scientists standing by -- people who had worked with this product successfully for months, who knew it inside out. Gene Mallove or Scott Little would have been perfect. It would have cost him *nothing* to bring them up to speed, and it would have guaranteed success. Instead, he made a fool of himself and wasted a lot of other people's time and money. I hope he did not embarrass Ron McFee and Tom Claytor, who stuck their necks out on his behalf. They deserve a round of applause. I have seen this same kind self-destructive Inventor's Disease in too many other scientists, from Pons and Fleischmann, to CETI, to E-Quest. It breaks my heart. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 16:12:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA12564; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 14:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 14:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Aug 96 17:28:24 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Message-ID: <960819212823_76216.2421_HHB51-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UGfLS1.0.E43.bBE6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/65 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Pardon my inserting this here; it's a reply-to-thread test. Horace wrote: > Howver I see that vortex was in the copy field. You > really have to watch your P's and Q's witrh this new > list server. >From Compuserve Navigator (*not* a good choice for mail software, but when CIS is where your mail comes in...), it just got easier to reply with the new listserver software, as we can just hit "Reply", and the Vortex-L address is automatically in the right place now. I used to have to create a new message and cut and paste both subject & address lines into it. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 16:23:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA16795; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 16:18:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199608192118.QAA09235@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Lanl visit. Resent-Message-ID: <"djxVS2.0.L64.nWE6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/66 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:35 8/19/96 -0400, Frank wrote: > The tests at Lanl did not come out as well as expected. > The average C.O.P. was .96. John Barron and I were quite > concerned about this. We both are good judges of character and > we know Yuri and Peter are telling the truth. The truth as they know it, perhaps. Remember, as far as we can tell, Potapov has never measured the COP of his own machine! I draw this conclusion because we have never seen a written report from Potapov himself about the Yusmar's performance! What is wrong with this picture?! Usually it's the inventor's own measurements that end up being scrutinized...here we only have rumors to scrutinize. I agree wholeheatedly with Jed: Potapov blew his one and only chance to make his machine work at Los Alamos National Laboratory of the United States of America by not arriving with a tested, ready-to-run device! It's absolutely incredible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 16:23:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA19254; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Aug 96 18:37:12 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Reason to hope after Potapov fiasco? Message-ID: <960819223712_100060.173_JHB32-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"uwXky.0.li4.MqE6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/67 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed: >> Instead, he made a fool of himself and wasted a lot of other people's time and money. I hope he did not embarrass Ron McFee and Tom Claytor, who stuck their necks out on his behalf. They deserve a round of applause. I have seen this same kind self-destructive Inventor's Disease in too many other scientists, from Pons and Fleischmann, to CETI, to E-Quest. It breaks my heart. << And we wonder why guys like db et al crow from the rooftops that we are a load of w*****s. With friends like these who needs enemies (I nearly said enemas)? Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 16:31:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA21196; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Vortex-L Cc: "MHUGO@EPRI" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:19:00 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kPQBP1.0.2B5.24F6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/68 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mark I'm sending this through Vortex-L in case your address has changed. It appears that the address in this message below is different from your usual one of MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com. Which is correct? Hank __________ From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Help on "Return addresses"--- - Hi friends! Due to a much deserved 4 day "mini-vacation" to the northern lakes of MN, I had an "information overload" on my server with regard to Vortex. I didn't "lose" anything per-see, but I had to erase a bunch of backlog stuff to get "freed up" and lost a lot of "return addresses" - Could Hank, Chris, Jed, Peter, Joe C. etc send me personal notes at MHUGO@EPRI.EPRI.COM ? Thanks, then I get the automatic return addresses on them and it is much easier to get back to you. - MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 16:59:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA02763; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 16:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 16:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 16:50:13 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199608192050.QAA20103@spectre.mitre.org> To: hheffner@anc.ak.net CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: (hheffner@anc.ak.net) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"oxtC_1.0.5h.NlF6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/69 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner (hheffner@anc.ak.net) asked: > How do you account for the electons in the condensate? The > condensate was formed from atoms not nucleii. Are you saying the > electrons could be considered as part of an "atom paticle" . If > this were true a hydrogen atom could be considered a boson for > purposes of forming a BEC. I don't follow you. Okay, a couple of answers, and why some people still believe that deuteron BECs are worth exploring. Yes, you could attempt to build a BEC out of hydrogen atoms, but not out of protons. On the other hand with deuterium, you can have a BEC of deuterons, or of D- but not of uncharged deuterium. A BEC of deuterons, assuming you can overcome the problems of charge repulsion, is much, much smaller than a BEC of atoms. If you can form a deuterium BEC in an appropriate metal matrix, and there are indications that this does happen in Palladium--"anomalous transport"--then you have something that looks like and acts like He4 or Li6 or C12 or O16 or... except for all that extra energy. If there is a mechanism for this energy to bleed off, then you have very clean fusion. (Electrons falling into K orbitals around such quasi-particles should be a detectable signature. Such bound electrons would extract some energy from the BEC, and therefore stabilize it.) Of course, what is the difference between a BEC and an ordinary nucleus? You tell me. It does seem clear that this is one reason why "even-even" nuclei are more stable than other nuclei. The protons and neutrons pair up into composite bosons in and any leftover particles are much more weakly bound. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 17:04:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA04124; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 16:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 16:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Aug 96 19:44:43 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Reason to hope after Potapov fiasco? Message-ID: <960819234442_100433.1541_BHG63-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"BTEId2.0.L01.bqF6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/70 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed, As usual in such matters, you are right. But you'd have to have put in some real effort to be wrong that time! Norman Horwood says that the Dick Blues of this world have reason to see us as a bunch of wankers, and he has a point. But there is something more than Inventors' Disease at work here. We were all in our way imagining that Potapov had some machinations going - some fiendish plot, some wondrous plan to take over the world. Maybe he did. But in fact we see, as is sufficiently often the case that exceptions can safely be ignored, that the main driving force in human affairs is sheer unadulterated *stupidity*. It isn't love that makes the world go around, it's stupidity. It isn't brilliance that wins wars, wars are lost by stupidity and not won by brains and courage and technology. It is stupidity which controls human destiny, and that is why one non-stupid individual can make so great a difference. Sometimes it is a great leader like Elizabeth I, sometimes it is a visionary engineer like Sopwith. (Jed, to my chagrin, showed that his grasp of Brit military history is better than mine: Sopwith didn't just do the Camel, he also did the Hurricane at his own expense and was the driving force behind the Harrier Jump Jet. That means he made a BIG difference in THREE wars, before dying a few days ago aged 102 or 103.) These individuals buck the trend and make a difference, but are so rare that none of us is ever likely to meet one. Few have 'a cunning plan', and those who do can be guaranteed to have a very very bad one. Elizabeth and Sopwith had no cunning plans - they had convictions and worked bloody hard and very pragmatically. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 18:13:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA18240; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32190A9C.124E@interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:45:16 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Little CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lanl visit. References: <199608192118.QAA09235@natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DvopB.0.tS4.-hG6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/71 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > I agree wholeheatedly with Jed: Potapov blew his one and only chance to > make his machine work at Los Alamos National Laboratory of the United States > of America by not arriving with a tested, ready-to-run device! > > It's absolutely incredible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Scott and Jed: I heard a story once (true,?) about the author of a book about flying saucers. He, as the story goes, had a hot-dog stand on the road up to the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Supposedly, he made great use of phrases like: "The other day, as I was driving down from Mt. Palomar, I ---------" as a sales gimmick to sell his flying saucer books. (BTW, I am not a die-hard saucer skeptic!) My point is, Potapov - when back in Russia - can now use phrases like: "Last month, while testing my devices at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the USA, ----------". The success or failure of the tests gets lost in the translation and the Russian sales of Yasmars GOES UP! One thing for sure - Potatov knows Russian customers better than we do! If he really is a snake-oil salesman, he has just made a brilliant move! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 18:29:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA27603; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 21:21:23 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960819212116.767fa276@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Charge transport in electrolytes revisited Resent-Message-ID: <"frTl62.0.Bl6.dDH6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/73 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:07 AM 8/19/96 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: > >> >> do not understand your question. >> >>> "why the rate of current propagation .. does not return to zero for a much >>>longer time than EM waves, dipole rotation, or dielectric response, can >>>sustain a potential" >> >> ? do not understand, although individually the concepts make sense >> >> Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) > > >I am interrested in current rise time studies involving low voltage >gradients, long distances, and electrodeless cells, better yet if involving >flowing electrolytes. Current rise time here meaning time to reach >equilibrium current for a fixed applied potential. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > Then you might try such studies on ice where series transconduction spectroscopy could give you information about the electrolytes contained therein. with guard-ring (three terminal) electrodes, or at temperatures < -15C, the frozen water is essential an insulator, after the charge is removed. best wishes Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 18:32:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA28606; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 21:22:33 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960819212226.767f4514@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"mnxG71.0.p-6.jGH6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/74 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:38 PM 8/18/96, Horace Heffner wrote: >> >> Exactly what or where is the evidence for this notion of paired neutrons? >> The reactions are so neutronpenic, there is probably >>no evidence of such putative neutron pairing. right? >> > > >This was discussed on sci.physics.fusion last year. Where were you? I >thought you lurked there. Yes, the counts were low, but tended to come in >pairs to opposite counters. Very odd. That's why the discussion. It was >assumed to be an error but further investigation showed it to be real. >Steve Jones could maybe help you check into this further. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > are you stating that Steve Jones has indicated to you that there were real low level pair neutrons emitted? in his measurements? thanks for the update. please let us know the source. at other times he has variously claimed bursts, or none. the literature indicates very very rare low level bursts. perhaps a look at the literature would indicate to you that fewer people look for time of flight and stereoimaging of neutron emission which would be required to see paired emissions, as opposed to what is done for positrons where their annihilation radiation is picked up by paired emitters. perhaps the greater crossection leads more people towards the latter technology. best wishes in your literature search. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 18:32:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA24870; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:15:05 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 21:10:44 -0400 Message-ID: <960819211044_505231862@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro Subject: Re: Reason to hope after Potapov fiasco? Resent-Message-ID: <"m6fA01.0.F46.x5H6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/72 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Jed..take it for what it is worth..I know why Potapov's machine works and why the US experiments failed. Two people in the world know this. Myself and John Barron. Tomorrow a third will know, our attorney. I feel bad for Yuri. He doesn't know why he failed. We can't tell him just yet but we will and soon. We must first protect our rights. Afterwors the team of Potapov, Znidarsic, and Barron is going to preform a demo that will rock the world. That sounds like a lot..but its true....but keep in mind where I've been, who I've talked to and what I've seen over the last few years. I know much..Even the few words I had with you in Anahiem have helped. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 20:19:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA04681; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Aug 96 22:47:27 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: With friends like this . . . Message-ID: <960820024727_72240.1256_EHB144-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"pWTF_1.0.391.0rI6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/75 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Norman writes: "And we wonder why guys like db et al crow from the rooftops that we are a load of w*****s. With friends like these who needs enemies (I nearly said enemas)?" It is our friends who need the enemas. When we talk about people like Potapov, I could not agree more. But let us be careful not to tar all o-u scientists with that same brush. Many, perhaps most, publish papers and share information openly according to the norms of academic science. Others are constrained by their corporate employers. -db- has to pick his targets carefully. He has nothing to crow about when it comes to McKubre, Kunmatsu, Will, Bockris, Miles, Storms or Miley. I think the experiments published by those seven prove that CF is real beyond any question: it produces excess heat beyond chemistry, transmutations and tritium. I do not see how anyone could argue with SRI's autoradiographs and their 100+ excess heat runs. I think you can make a good case for saying that the replications of these seven alone constitute statistically significant proof and enough replication to satisfy any rational demand. In other areas of physics, like quarks or astronomy, *far less convincing evidence* is produced, often only once in one experiment, yet most scientists buy it without question. I know the often quoted maxim about: "extraordinary claims require bla bla bla." By any rational standard Will's work constitutes extraordinary proof of tritium, and you cannot make a calorimeter more extraordinary than SRI's. I have never seen anyone challenge these results. The only objection I have heard is that Will has not been replicated. That is silly. His work cost millions of dollars and nobody outside Japan has that kind of money. The Japanese are already convinced that CF produces tritium; they read Will and a few hundred others who reported tritium, so I doubt they see any need to repeat a 7-year-old mega-experiment. (I don't see any point to it.) I realize I have said all this before, but I think at discouraging times like this it bears repeating. People forget, and some people have not read McKubre or Miles . . . I could list a few hundred other scientists -db- cannot possibly attack. Many have published only marginal results compared to, say, Storms, getting only 10% excess heat. But they are very sure about that 10%, or the fogged autoradiograph, or the other evidence, and no skeptic like -db- has ever challenge their work in serious point by point technical critique. The only work the skeptics ever discuss are things like CETI's portable demonstrations at ICCF5, or P&F's nebulous claims about a hole being burned in the floor years ago. You never see -db- try to show an error in P&F's magnificent Phys. Letters A paper: "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system . . ." Yes, it was magnificent. The skeptics huddled with Morrison to marshall every objection they could think of in a grab-bag short paper in Phys. Let. A. In a later issue, Fleischmann flayed them alive. He showed that all objections combined are thousands of times too small to explain anything. They literally proposed milliwatt and microwatt mechanisms to explain a 130 watt signal. People who have not read the Morrison - Fleischmann exchange cannot imagine how badly mistaken the skeptics are, or how easily the best of their technical arguments are disposed of. We have tons of iron-clad, replicated, incontrovertible proof of cold fusion. But the problem is that most of it is now pedestrian science at what is now a ho-hum level. Yet another laboratory reporting rock solid 15% excess will not and cannot ever make any difference. Nobody will listen; nobody outside the CF fraternity of aging scientists cares about it. It cannot be commercialized and nobody will go to the trouble to replicate it, because it is a hell of a lot of trouble! Read Storms if you doubt that. We are talking about *months* of work just to put ten watts in and get eleven and a half out. Since 1989 it hasn't got any easier to learn how to do this from scratch, and it never will get any easier. Why should it? Has French cooking, Japanese writing, or dentistry gotten any easier to master in the last seven years? We are stuck with marginal results from a difficult art, and that is why we crave people like Potapov, or the Morningstar tile burning & disappearing-act gang. They claim they have BIG, dramatic results. We are hoping to do an end-run around the 15% barrier. That hope is justified: people often find an end-run solution to a tough technical problem. Dentistry is difficult to learn, but if you fluoridate the water you don't need as many dentists. Reciprocating airplane engines were getting tougher and tougher to improve in the 1930s, and along came the jet with fewer parts and growth potential. We are tired of waiting for our dependable academic friends like Takahashi and Oriani. We want new friends, and in our search we keep running into flakes like Potapov and uncooperative fools like Arata and Piantelli. We invite attacks by -db- because we talk about the long shots like Potapov frequently. We give them more than their share of attention. We do this because what would be the point of posting a message on the SCIENCE forum that this year another dozen Japanese labs reported 15% excess, tritium and so on? The people who are interested in CF will not learn anything new and the people who denied the first thousand reports of excess heat will deny these as well. The only thing worth talking about is the occasional Arata or Potapov, and it precisely this kind of dramatic claim that is most often a mistake. We advertise -- and talk about -- the risky people with the most dubious results. That leaves us open to attack. The Japanese MITI CF program bureaucrats take the safe, defensive approach. They never get mixed up with the long-shot probable-flakes with nickel cathodes, ultrasound, powdered Pd, sparking or what-have-you. They support only the tried-and-true, plodding-but-certain 15% excess gang: the people we *know* are right. Nobody will ever accuse the Japanese program planners of paying for experiments that do not work, or supporting a risky unconventional method, but unfortunately I think their approach also eliminates any possibility of making a commercially viable product. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 20:37:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA07130; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:27:20 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 03:26:29 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <321af847.2296740@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"C5WYT3.0.Kl1.N2J6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/76 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 18 Aug 1996 03:51:56 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: >Robin, > >I just got around to reading your Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier web = page. > >Nice HTML. Thanks. > >I have some comments and observations: > >(1) If every atom were vibrating exactly in phase the temperature = would >be absolute zero. Of course this is not the case. However, this can be Actually, the temperature is only absolute zero when those vibrations don't exceed the zero point vibrations in magnitude. This is what Carl Weiman and Eric Cornell achieved, by extreme cooling. That situation can be characterised by both low energy and low entropy, where entropy is used in the sense of a measure of disorder. The situation I am talking about is one of high energy and low entropy. In other words, Weiman and Cornell achieved a Bose-Einstein condensate by pushing the energy down against the lower boundary. I am talking about creating one by pushing it up against its upper boundary. The upper boundary in question was essentially defined by Debye, when he assigned a nu_max or maximum frequency to the possible vibrational states within a solid.=20 It is by ensuring that as many bosons as possible fill this highest possible energy level, that a partial Bose-Einstein condensate can be created. I say partial, because I suspect that if all atoms in a solid were to be in this state, then they would only have one place left to go if more energy were added. The solid would have to melt. The immediate implication of course is that just below the melting point, almost all bosons occupy this energy level. >the case some of the time a various nodal points in the lattice, = depending >on boundary conditions. At nodal points there is frequently little or = no >relative motion of adjacent atoms. The density of nodal points can be This is true of nodal points, however in a solid that is well below its Debye temperature, such nodal points are few and far between. The reason for this is that the thermal energy in the solid is divided across many different frequencies, and hence many different wavelengths, in three dimensions. So that a nodal point in one wave, would in all likelihood not be a nodal point in another wave. And even where they do coincide, they are generally here one moment, gone the next. [snip] >(2) Even if only two percent out of phase, there will be significant >motion of any two adacent atoms. > >(3) Repetitive motion is sinusoidal, or at least a sum of sine = functions. >The relative motion is therefore sineusoidal. This implies the relative >velocity of any two oscillating particles in a particular plane is = exactly >zero at least twice per oscillation, regardless of the temperature. This is true, and I took a look at this possibility. However, I think that the extension of the De Broglie wave that would be required to achieve fusion, is such that the time available as two sine waves peak, is just too short. The 2% that I have used above would extend that time by a factor of fifty (or from another point of view, vastly increase the magnitude of the De Broglie wave in the time that is available). The 2% itself is also somewhat questionable. It is based upon Debye's derivation of the maximum frequency, which can be expressed in terms of the separation of atoms. What I did was from that derivation, determine the separation in an fcc lattice (expressed in units of "a" the cell parameter), and compared this with the shortest distance between two atoms in an fcc lattice (also expressed in units of "a"). However, I suspect that the ideal definition of the highest frequency would be that frequency at which exactly one wavelength fits between the closest atoms. My intuition says that any vibration with a shorter wavelength would be experienced by the nearest neighbour as one with a longer wavelength, or be of such short range, as to not propagate through the crystal. In fact I think this is what happens when a solid starts to melt. If I am right about the "natural" definition of the highest possible frequency (actually the shortest possible wavelength), then this would in fact result in a perfect high temperature Bose-Einstein condensate (i.e. the 2% would in fact be 0%). > >(4) Even if two wavefunctions were of infinite or nealy infinite size = and >nearly fully overlapped, you have the problem of co-location (charged >particles of like sizes tend to be in opposite sides of the wavefunction= at >the same moment) and the problem of *reduced* probability of fusion due = to >the large wave functions. For fusion to occur the particles must occupy >the same location at the same time (or therabouts). As you increase the= de >Broglie wavelength, you increase the variance of the psi function, thus >decrease the density of psi^2 function in any specific volume, so reduce I see this more as a reduction in the certainty that a given particle will be found in any given volume. In other words, any increase in the likelihood of tunnelling. >the probablity of fusion, which is a composite function of the two >overlapped psi^2 functions for a given volume. The only remedy for this= is >the formation of a Bose Einstein condensate, where the wavefunctions >completely overlap and co-center. This puts their centers of charge at >exactly the same location. However, even this is not enough to cause >fusion for the above reasons, and it requires a nearly absolute zero ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >environment to achieve the co-centering of large condensates. So this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In this I must disagree with you, and can only point to what I have written above. >leave the question: how do you actually use the Bose-Einstein condensate= to >create probable fusion? This is probably the weakest point in my proposal, and that of which I myself am least sure. However I take heart from three things, the increased likelihood of tunnelling just mentioned, the Breit-Wigner formula for neutron "fusion" and Charles Cagle's theory, that when the distance between two like charged particles is less than their common De Broglie wavelength, they attract instead of repelling one another.=20 In fact I had hoped that my proposal might form a stepping stone to that of Charles, as I suspect that his theory is a little to avant garde for mainstream physics. > >(5) It was taking all this, and some additional published experimental >observations (noted below) into consideration that led me to post the >following last January 30th here on vortex: > > Horace's theory below, kept for the sake of comparison. >A BOSE CONDENSATE HYPOTHESIS FOR CF > >BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND ARGUMENTS > >The recent creation of a .002 inch 3000 atom Bose condensate by Carl = Weiman >and Eric Cornell may provide a possible insight to some cold fusion >phenomena. The rubidium atom condensate was created with much = difficulty >and ingenuity at the extreme temperature of 20 nanokelvins, which was >created by applying an RF field to atoms in a magnetic trap. The RF = field >was tuned to resonate with higher energy atoms, and thus caused these >rubidium atoms to flip and then be shot out of the trap, thus leaving = only >those atoms with no significant energy. > >Though this was a difficult and amazing feat, demonstrating the = Heisenberg >uncertainty principle relates to a true physical state of matter, not = just >experimental uncertainty, perhaps nature readily accomplishes it in a = small >way in metallic lattices. It is a much less difficult feat to create an >overlap of two hydrogen nuclei in a 1 A condensate than it is to create = an >overlap of 3000 rubidium atoms in a 500,000 A condensate. > >The rubidium atom overlap was sustainable for more than 15 minutes. To = be >significant to CF, a condensate of two protons or deuterons in a lattice >site need only be formed a very short time, if formed often enough. > >It seems that the Weiman-Cornell experiment, supported by the Pritchard >slit experiments, clearly demonstrates the reality of the wave nature of >matter. Perhaps it is the only form of matter. The particle nature of >matter might be explained strictly by wave function collapse, which is = not >a characteristic of ordinary waves, but clearly is a characteristic of >quantum waveforms. For example, looking at the photoelectric effect, >suppose a huge photon waveform from a distant star impacts via it's own >random selection process at a particular point on a metal surface, = ejecting >an electron, why do we have to say the photon is a particle at the point= of >the electron ejection? It could just as easily be considered (called) a >collapsed photon waveform as it could be considered a particle. A = waveform >collapse consists of an instantaneous change in wave form center and >distribution. Such a collapse also clearly accounts for tunneling = effects >as well. Where is the need for a particle model at all? > >If matter is totally wave like, it seems inescapable that charge must be >therefore be distributed in the waveform, as there exists no point to = carry >it. This has the benefit, as Richard Feynman pointed out, of = conservation >of energy, because a point charge could generate an infinitely intense >field, as you approach the point, requiring an infinite amount of energy= to >create the field. > >THE HYPOTHESIS > >Waveform collapse occurs probabilistically on the relative approach of = two >or more quantum waveforms. One quantum waveform can collapse to the >location of the other. If two overlapped, i.e. relatively to each other >slow, waveforms in a Bose condensate are penetrated by a high velocity >waveform, a condensation can occur. Also,a kind of paradox occurs. All >motion is relative. Assume the condensate is two protons, and the high >velocity waveform is an electron. From the point of view of the proton >condensate, the wavelength (size) of the electron is small. From the = point >of view of the electron, though, the condensate must be very small, and >more importantly, since the waveforms of the proton condensate are phase >locked and co-located, the condensate must appear located in a small >volume. Thus, if there is an interaction, it would seem there would be = a >high probability that the interaction would be a 3 body interaction. = That >is to say the phase locking tendency of a condensate would greatly = change >waveform co-location probabilities. Given two protons jammed into a >lattice site, the Schroedinger Equation predicts that they will tend to= be >instantaneously found in opposing locations within the site. However, >should they form a Bose condensate, it is logical that their locations >would appear to be the same to a fast moving particle. The hypothesis = is >that a Bose candensate, when stimulated by an incident particle, will = tend >to cause the simultaneous collapse of constituant waveforms at the same >location. > >This hypothesis provides some explanation for various effects. One is = the >Kasagi experiment, where deuterated titanium is bombarded with = deuterons. >The reaction hypothesized by Kasagi to account for the observed results: > >D + D + D -> p + n + alpha (+ 21.62 MeV) > >requires a mechanism to make such a reaction likely in the matrix, i.e. = to >cause target deuteron pairs to tend to be located at nuclear distances = from >each other. The subject hypothesis provides such a mechanism. > >Similarly, the original experiments by Pons and Fleischmann, tended to >produce neutrons in pairs, i.e. from single events. A deuteron = condensate, >stimulated by particles resulting from cosmic rays, could produce a = variety >of products, including neutron pairs, He4, He3, and T, as well as, >depending on the type of impacting particle, transmutations such as Li = and >Be. Let [D + D] represent a two deuterium atom condensate. If a cosmic >ray struck a deuterium nucleus, which then struck a deuterium = condensate, >we could have something like: > >D + [D + D] -> n + n + p + He3 (+ .584 MeV) > >Similarly, in various observed hydrogen systems a condensate could form,= giving > >e + [p + p] -> n + p (+ energy) > >or > >e + [p + Li(n)] -> Li(n+1) (+energy) > >or >e + [p + D] -> T (+energy) > >where the possibility of such formations is a matter of considerable = debate. > >The case of : > >e + [p + p] -> n + p (+ energy) > >is just a variation of: > >e + p -> n (+ energy) > >proposed by Elio Conte. The importance of Conte's theory in this regard= is >that it predicts the possibility of creating such a bound state with the >release of energy (17 KeV) and without a neutrino. > >To a much smaller degree, it seems possible that a Bose condensate might >momentarily be formed between adsorbed hydrogen and lattice atoms. Such >cases, as well as cases of neutron formation noted above, could possibly >account for various transmutations observed in CF experiments. > >This hypothesis also provides some explanation for observed positive >effects of using particles to stimulate loaded cathodes. > >TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS > >One way to test the hypothesis would involve colliding a particle beam = with >a Bose condensate and looking at the resulting products = spectographically, >e.g. bombard with protons and look for Strontium, Tungsten, or Osmium, >etc., spectral lines in the results, and the presence of high energy >neutrons or other particles. Additionally, high energy electron >bombardment of the Bose condensate might create similar effects by >catalyzing the condensate waveform collapse. > > >PRACTICAL APPLICATION > >If true, the hypothesis indicates that spiking the cathodes of CF >electrolysis cells with particle emitters should greatly increase the = yield >and reliability of the CF effects. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 20:39:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA08525; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Aug 96 23:32:30 EDT From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Reason to hope after Potapov fiasco? Message-ID: <960820033229_75110.3417_CHK57-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"4SCF-3.0.652.K9J6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/77 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, You said: >> Afterwards the team of Potapov, Znidarsic, and Barron is going to preform a demo that will rock the world. << I hope so! Quickly, please. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 19 22:08:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA26238; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 22:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 22:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 00:20:02 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: Re: Reason to hope after Potapov fiasco? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"kUmCY1.0.lP6.iSK6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/78 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Frank, It sounds as if what Potapov said to me on the phone may have had a bit of truth to it. Basicaly he was afraid to tell an american his secrets because of lack of trust. I hope that he was correct in trusting a few of us. It would seem to me, just offhand, if I knew the flaw with a such demonstration as the one at LANL, that I would have helped a fellow scientist and partner out, but I could be wrong on this point. I wonder, were you trying to protect the secret from LANL or from Yuri...or am I simply once again confused? If you knew the secret why did you go to LANL in the first place if you felt the demonstration wouldn't work? Did you learn the secret while at LANL? Boy, who's on first. I have faith that there is something to this all, and I hope that this event brings to light the proof of something...anything to advance the cause. Boy, if nothing else this will make a great who-done-it. Is the Yusmar real...almost real.... I keep telling myself that I am in this game for the truth, not the money (Ya Durak)....so Frank, if you do have the answers, well... let me be the first to raise a glass in your honor...Za Mir! From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 00:32:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA17710; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 00:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 00:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 19 Aug 1996 13:39:13 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Hank -- I got your notes, but... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/19/96 13:39:13 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"S5a933.0.eK4.RbM6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/79 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Hank -- I got your notes, but... - Sorry to use the Vortex for this folks, but I'm having trouble with Hank S's return address. Could you send me a couple more notes Hank? Thanks! - Your proposal to our friend is A-OK.... - Keep up that work on the dual sided Pd experiment, I take it we are about a month away from results? MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 03:48:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA06875; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 03:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 03:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 03:34:37 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9608201034.AA27573@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"xdUCc1.0.Lh1.8JP6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/80 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin: I took a look at your web site, and I feel obligated to register my dissent. I'm not sure what theory you are attempting to base your hypothesis on, but it is most surely not standard quantum mechanics. I have only read the first couple pages of your report, since I apply Feynman's rule of error detection--after you find the first error, throw it back to the author. So, perhaps I'm missing something inside that would make it all seem less invalid...if so, I'm sure you'll let me know. That said, your first error is your basic premise about the debrolie wavelength of harged particles. Error 1 part A is that it is not valid to simply compute debrolie wavelengths in the rest frame of the particle--if that is so, every particle has infinite debrolie wavelength in its own rest frame! Error 1 part B, which is even more important, is that the wave length of two charged particle moving at the exact same speed--i..e at rest relative to eachother---is NOT infinite. In fact it is much less than the speration between them. What you really mean by wavelength in your argument is the extent of the wave function. For a particle near a high energy barrier, its wavefunction does not extend far into the barrier. The coulomb barrier from the field of particle 2 will effectively damp out the wavefunction of particle 1 in the vicinity of particle to, even if they are at rest---wave functions do not penetrae (penetrate) large energy barriers significantly...this is a trivial consequence of the wave equation. Your basic error is to apply formulas for the wavelength of free particles (simple debroglie) to determine the extent of the wavefunction of particles in potential wells (i.e. charged particles). This pretty much renders your entire theory invalid, no? Please correct any misconceptions above.... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 06:21:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA27170; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 06:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 06:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 05:20:24 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coulomb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"kHWya3.0.Se6.pgR6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/81 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> >>(4) Even if two wavefunctions were of infinite or nealy infinite size and >>nearly fully overlapped, you have the problem of co-location (charged >>particles of like sizes tend to be in opposite sides of the wavefunction at >>the same moment) and the problem of *reduced* probability of fusion due to >>the large wave functions. For fusion to occur the particles must occupy >>the same location at the same time (or therabouts). As you increase the de >>Broglie wavelength, you increase the variance of the psi function, thus >>decrease the density of psi^2 function in any specific volume, so reduce > >I see this more as a reduction in the certainty that a given particle >will be found in any given volume. In other words, any increase in the >likelihood of tunnelling. Not necessarily an increase! Yes decreased likelyhood of finding a "point particle" in a volume (vocabulary depending on your interpretation of QM), but *no* on increasing the likelyhood of tunneling! The bigger the waveform the lower the probability that two "point particles" will be in proximity. Even if you do not assume co-location, only random location, you have to multiply probabilities of each separate wavefuncion to arrive at a probability that *both* "point particles" are in the same volume. The bigger the volume, the lower the total probability of tunneling, of fusion. >>the probablity of fusion, which is a composite function of the two >>overlapped psi^2 functions for a given volume. The only remedy for this is >>the formation of a Bose Einstein condensate, where the wavefunctions >>completely overlap and co-center. This puts their centers of charge at >>exactly the same location. However, even this is not enough to cause >>fusion for the above reasons, and it requires a nearly absolute zero > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>environment to achieve the co-centering of large condensates. So this > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >In this I must disagree with you, and can only point to what I have >written above. Let's assume you do get a high temperature condensate. This still doesn't change any of the arguments used here about *reducing* the probability of fusion by forming a condensate. There still has to be some mechanism to force the collapse of the condensate into a small volume to increase the probability of tunneling and strong force reactions. > >>leave the question: how do you actually use the Bose-Einstein condensate to >>create probable fusion? This was intended to be a rhetorical question to which the answer is: involve a third small wavelength high velocity particle to create paradox and waveform collapse at the co-center - the basis of my hypothesis. > >This is probably the weakest point in my proposal, and that of which I >myself am least sure. However I take heart from three things, the >increased likelihood of tunnelling just mentioned, the Breit-Wigner ^^^^^^^^^^ Again, there is not necessarily an increased likelyhood of tunneling just because a condensate is formed. Co-location and probability multipication (numbers less than one but greater than zero) *reduce* the probability of tunneling as the condensate enlarges, even though the "particles" are essentially sitting right on top of one another. >formula for neutron "fusion" and Charles Cagle's theory, that when the >distance between two like charged particles is less than their common >De Broglie wavelength, they attract instead of repelling one another. >In fact I had hoped that my proposal might form a stepping stone to >that of Charles, as I suspect that his theory is a little to avant >garde for mainstream physics. > Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 09:07:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA03041; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 08:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 08:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 08:52:11 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: "Return addresses," why not a list? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"aB5fm1.0.Ml.qyT6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/82 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 19 Aug 1996, Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: > Could Hank, Chris, Jed, Peter, Joe C. etc send me personal notes > at MHUGO@EPRI.EPRI.COM ? Thanks, then I get the automatic return addresses > on them and it is much easier to get back to you. This is a common occurrence. Would vortex-L users be willing to add their email addresses to a list of "biographies"? They can include name and email at the very least. I could give some privacy to this addr list by disconnecting it from all other webpages. If only the subscribers know the URL, the list won't be used for junkmail by webcrawling marketing types. If you'd like to be added to this list, please reply to this message and I'll add your name and email. .....................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-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 10:28:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA23546; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:11:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199608201711.KAA24368@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: On the LANL Yusmar tests To: vortex-l@eskimo.com.August.20, 1996.Tuesday@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"OH8q72.0.ql5.f8V6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/83 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The reports and comments on the vortex of the LANL tests are interesting. I feel that it was unfortunate that the tests, as reported here based not on first hand basis, did not replicate o/u results that Potapov and Glueck believed was achieved of their product back home. Dr. Peter Glueck unsubscribed himself from the Vortex as he undertook to travel with Potapov to LANL. I will wait until he has subscribed himself back to the Vortex and make his first hand report and analysis on the LANL edperience. That is, to the extent he is not encumbered with legal limitations of vested business interests. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 13:21:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA29943; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:48:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199608201948.MAA23458@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Peter is in Salt Lake City To: vortex-l@eskimo.com.August.20, 1996.Tuesday@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"ewTLz2.0.hJ7.aRX6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/84 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vortexians, Shortly after I made the earlier vortex post, I received a telephone call from Peter Glueck now at Cold Fusion Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. He did not accompany Potapove to Philedelphia but went on to Utah to read up on the Center's CF resources. According to Peter, the limited tests were conducted during a strict timetable of one week (five working days -- 9 to 5?). During the first two days, they were beset by basically electrical problems. The third day late, after adjustments, definite O/U was achieved. The fourth day, a cover blew off of the setup and welding resources were not available around on-site. Efforts to repair and continue were fustrated by lack of time, freedom of movement (in and out of LANL), concern of LANL for their own security and everybody's safety, and the built-in bureaucracy. The fifth day was essentially wasted. So ended the LANL visit. The LANL enviroment reminded Peter of the old days in Communist Romania and it was not nostalgia. So it was nothing unusual for the Potapov party but it was not ideal for the purpose that Potapov and party went there to accomplish or prove for their device and science. There was zero computer e-mail access allowed. Extensive video taping was not outlawed but not permitted(?). External telephone calls were not encouraged. Not much physical movement to in or out of LANL was encouraged also. And whatever budgetary limits there were to executing the tests, it was not allowed to be exceeded although Potapov offered to pay for it. So I am relaying to vortex what I heard from Peter from Salt Lake City. Perhaps I did not hear everythiong correctly. A more correct version should be written and posted by Peter when he gets around to subscribing on the Vortex. The LANL instrumentation was great and Potapov will be getting them. Confidence in Yusmar's O/U is not shaken by Potapov or Glueck. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 14:03:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA16140; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:49:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 16:48:51 -0400 Message-ID: <960820164851_505959086@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Peter is in Salt Lake City Resent-Message-ID: <"Ff_Wj2.0.3y3.bJY6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/85 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Akira reported on the LANL visit by Potapov. All the claimed impediments (restriction of movement, difficult access, no welding equipment, bureaucracy, etc.) could have been avoided had they brought their equipment to EarthTech instead of LANL. Anyone who knows about gov't labs as compared to an up and running private lab like ours could have told them so. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 14:12:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA18349; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:59:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199608202058.NAA25794@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, 20 Aug 1996 13:59:08 +0900 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Isotope ratios Resent-Message-ID: <"QgQfD2.0.aU4.7TY6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/86 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:19 AM 8/17/96 EDT, you wrote: >Again I say that everything I can find on this subject (and I've not >looked far) says that on this planet, and even within the solar system, >isotope ratios are fixed to a degree that Mizuno's results would appear >(if accurate, which they may not be) to run a coach and horses through; >but there are specific exceptions which are believed to give >high-precision information about the history of a given sample. > >Chris > > This business of the confusion concerning samples is very disappointing. Regarding the isotope variances, they seem very small, but looking at it the other way, if there is that much error in the measuring process via Mizuno's SIMS, I sure wouldn't want it involved in my work. The error rates should be definable to rather less than .01% otherwise there is no point to that ezpensive equipment. I think maybe we need to reboot this process. There is no need for us to speculate here second hand. I want the damn truth from the horse's mouth. Mayhaps the samples should go to Los Alamos? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 14:45:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA23550; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 14:16:53 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9608202116.AA02604@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar tests Resent-Message-ID: <"zA4_P3.0.sl5.AkY6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/87 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: As described by AK, testing at Los Alamos probably was not optimal. This is not surprising if you think about it...National labs are very formal places, especially when you have russian visitors. A better plan would have been for the Potapov party to visit EarthTech and work directly with Scott Little in replicating the device. If that worked, then one could have transported Los Alamos people to Little's lab for further testing---a much less restrictive environment. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 14:46:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA27310; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:34:51 -0800 To: Puthoff@aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Peter is in Salt Lake City Resent-Message-ID: <"Giliu1.0.Zg6.X-Y6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/88 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 4:48 PM 8/20/96, Puthoff@aol.com wrote: >Akira reported on the LANL visit by Potapov. All the claimed impediments >(restriction of movement, difficult access, no welding equipment, >bureaucracy, etc.) could have been avoided had they brought their equipment >to EarthTech instead of LANL. Anyone who knows about gov't labs as compared >to an up and running private lab like ours could have told them so. > >Hal Puthoff Maybe they can change some plane reservations. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 14:56:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA00359; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:48:20 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 17:47:30 -0400 Message-ID: <960820174729_264423890@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, 75013.613@compuserve.com Subject: Johnstown Tests Resent-Message-ID: <"G-H2i3.0.J5.YAZ6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/89 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: We plan to move as quickly as possible. We are begining fabrication this week. I'm looking for a 3 phase watt meter. Does anyone know?? I have a single phase meter. If I multiply the reading by 1.73 will that equal 3 phase watts??? I'm in the process of acquiring two tube heat exchangers. We are planning to run the experiment steady state as Hugo suggests. A must according to Potapov & Hugo. I picked up two oil after coolers for this purpose. I hope we don't get to much back pressure through the coolers. We are in the process of patenting the Znidarsic, Barron improvement. It's something small but I expect it will increase the heat production by at least 500%. We should have steam. I hope it doesn't explode. I expect we will not even need a watt meter. Yuri was OK with this. Our patent will be an extension of his. Does anyone speek Russian who can help when Yuri arrives in Johnstown? Peter went home and Vlad must work. I'm doing everything I can. I have a full time job and things are a bit hectic. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 14:59:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA01246; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:51:43 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 17:51:03 -0400 Message-ID: <960820175103_264426976@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coulomb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"tQjtt.0.KJ.kDZ6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/90 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horrace Read my paper on The Zero Point interaction in the next addition of New Energy News. It is very much related to your work and ideas. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 16:14:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA18323; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Aug 96 18:53:55 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Isotope ratios Message-ID: <960820225354_100433.1541_BHG31-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"unVoj1.0.9U4.bAa6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/92 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael, > Mayhaps the samples should go to Los Alamos? With (genuine) respect, I can't think of anywhere wuss. I am pursuing the possibilities of testing the 'Au/Pt' samples (nice clean metal powder) here in the UK, and will report as and when possible. Note that if there is any difficulty with reporting the results here, and I'm not expecting there to be, then I will work on that later. Obviously I won't break any confidences, but if there is a problem there then usually problems have solutions. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 16:17:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA18307; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Aug 96 18:53:49 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Peter is in Salt Lake City Message-ID: <960820225349_100433.1541_BHG31-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"w0EQx3.0.uT4.ZAa6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/91 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal writes: > Akira reported on the LANL visit by Potapov. All the claimed > impediments (restriction of movement, difficult access, no welding > equipment, bureaucracy, etc.) could have been avoided had they > brought their equipment to EarthTech instead of LANL. Anyone who > knows about gov't labs as compared to an up and running private > lab like ours could have told them so. How very true this is. And the same would have happened if they had gone to Gene Mallove instead of to LANL. Especially since both you and he were already up to speed and set up for testing. Or even to my damned garage. And it remains true that they should have got their act together first. Had they gone to you or to Gene and got properly organised, maybe they would have had more luck at LANL if they'd still wanted to go there. I must admit I worry that my own skills may have been wanting when I visted Potapov. I tried to reassure him that we were not out to steal his invention, but it would seem that I failed. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 16:22:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA18524; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Aug 96 18:53:59 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: , , <75013.613@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Johnstown Tests Message-ID: <960820225358_100433.1541_BHG31-4@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qy16E.0.LX4.EBa6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/93 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank describes his needs. For the love of Almighty God, Frank, get real. There are TWO people in the US already set up to help with all this stuff. Mallove and Puthoff. The integrity of neither is in question. Just stop all this buggering about and start co-operating with people who actually WANT TO HELP YOU. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 19:20:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA01935; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 19:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 19:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 19:13:27 -0700 Message-Id: <199608210213.TAA28168@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Peter is in Salt Lake City To: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: 100433.1541@compuserve.com To: puthoff@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com.August.20, 1996.Tuesday@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"5E-Br2.0.5U.94d6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/94 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Heffner wrote: > >Maybe they can change some plane reservations. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Peter indicated Potapov will be in the states until into October. Also being in Salt Lake City with a friend, Peter probably has access to the Vortex now. So there is always the possiblity that the post LANL comments and suggestions can be taken to heart in a positive way. Peter most likely can be contacted through the Cold Fusion Center and Potapov can be contacted through Frank Fznidarsic. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 21:34:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA03973; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 21:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 21:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <321A9154.2625@rt66.com> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 21:32:20 -0700 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: 547@rt66.com, Franklin@rt66.com, Avenue@rt66.com, Santa@rt66.com, Fe@rt66.com, NM@rt66.com, 87501@rt66.com, USA@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5a (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Isotope ratios References: <960820225354_100433.1541_BHG31-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"C75_L2.0._z.Zye6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/96 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley, Maybe you could send a tiny bit of Champion's Au/Pt power to LANL for isotopic anaysis. On 08-18-96 Jed Rothwell quoted a news story from Reuter on 8-13-96 that Larry Callis of LANL analyzed a fragment of metal from the fabled UFO crash at Roswell, NM, and found normal isotopic abundances of Cu and Al. He normally tests uranium and plutonium for LANL's nuclear research facility. I'd like to mention again that Scott Little and others who have run nickel plated beads in CETI type cells without any excess power, might submit their used beads for isotopic analysis, since so many different reactions are now being reported to produce a large variety of nuclear transmutations. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 21:38:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA03846; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 21:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 21:22:17 -0700 (PDT) From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <321A8F46.6109@pacbell.net> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 21:23:34 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Mandeville CC: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Isotope ratios References: <199608202058.NAA25794@big.aa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"SsvlC2.0.0y.uxe6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/95 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael Mandeville wrote: > > At 06:19 AM 8/17/96 EDT, you wrote: > > This business of the confusion concerning samples is very disappointing. > Regarding the isotope variances, they seem very small, but looking at it the > other way, if there is that much error in the measuring process via Mizuno's > SIMS, I sure wouldn't want it involved in my work. The error rates should > be definable to rather less than .01% otherwise there is no point to that > ezpensive equipment. I think maybe we need to reboot this process. There is > no need for us to speculate here second hand. I want the damn truth from > the horse's mouth. Mayhaps the samples should go to Los Alamos? > ____________________________________ > MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing > Michael Mandeville, publisher > mwm@aa.net > http://www.aa.net/~mwm -- Michael Measuring equipment doesn't work that way, I'm sorry to say. Noise, uncertainties, etc. are always present in every measurement. The best you can do is to measure them, report them, report "signal-to-noise" ratios, test hypotheses at some "confidence level" such as the 95% criterion that people often use as a test of a hypothesis. In other words 5% of the time what you said is true is mistaken. By taking more samples ypu can increase the odds, ie. to 99%, but continuing to make measeurements involves economic costs, so at some point you have to stop. The rate of increase in accuracy with the number of measurements usually has a square root behavior. To get twice the accuracy, you must take four times as many measurements. Yours in uncertainty :>} Hank From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 22:25:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA14408; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 22:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 22:21:58 -0700 (PDT) From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <321A9D4B.6DB4@pacbell.net> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 22:23:23 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com CC: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Johnstown Tests References: <960820174729_264423890@emout15.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gqcUt2.0.-W3.qpf6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/97 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > > week. I'm looking for a 3 phase watt meter. Does anyone know?? I have a > single phase meter. If I multiply the reading by 1.73 will that equal 3 > phase watts??? I'm in the process of acquiring two tube heat exchangers. We > Frank Znidarsic -- Frank If the load is balanced over all three phases this will work. You can also measure three phase power exactly using two single phase wattmeters connected across two different phases. Wattmeters are low frequency instruments, but since you are measuring pump power, with a large rotor, you should be OK. Connect the current coil of each wattmeter in series with two lines entering the motor, connect the voltage coils between the the lines the current coils are installed in, and the third line. You dont have to get inside the motor, or find the neutral line. Add the power readings of the two wattmeters. Good luck, I hope you show o/u. Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 22:36:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA16435; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 22:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 22:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Aug 96 01:29:01 EDT From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Reason to hope after Potapov fiasco? Message-ID: <960821052901_75110.3417_CHK50-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"i3vmM.0.e04.uzf6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/98 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, You said: >> Afterwards the team of Potapov, Znidarsic, and Barron is going to preform a demo that will rock the world. << I hope so! Quickly, please. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 23:23:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA22786; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 23:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 23:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 23:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608210615.XAA09490@iberia.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Oxygen Resent-Message-ID: <"2BIx2.0.yZ5.1cg6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/99 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Gary, Good description and reference on Brown's Gas at your web site. Is your generator a series cell design or parallel? Are you pulsing the DC power and at what frequency, voltage and amp? Any experiments with the gas? George Wiseman did a workshop at the ITS symposium last month and talked about his Brown's gas work (the workshop video available from ITS $29.95). Jimmy Reeds showed his van running (idling for a minute) on BG. They found several interesting features in their generator designs: 1. The production of BG gas was greater than can be expected, even from a mole of mono-atomic hydrogen and oxygen. 2. Only a very, very little amount of the gas mixed with air is needed to fuel a engine. 40 watts input to the gas generator from the alternator, powers the six cylinder car at 700 rpm idling, that normally would require 3000 watts. 3. The exhaust from the engine running on BG was cool and it had a fresh clean mountain air smell. "Brown's Gas, Book 2" by George Wiseman, is now available at ITS bookstore ($10), and has the 'long-cell' design. I plan on building a unit within the next month or so, when I get some free time. Cheers Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 23:36:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA24981; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 23:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 23:33:01 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coulomb Barrier Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 06:32:18 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <321e9c2b.21473532@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"Wp0I01.0.F66.Ssg6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/100 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 05:20:24 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >>>the large wave functions. For fusion to occur the particles must = occupy >>>the same location at the same time (or therabouts). As you increase = the de >>>Broglie wavelength, you increase the variance of the psi function, = thus >>>decrease the density of psi^2 function in any specific volume, so = reduce >> >>I see this more as a reduction in the certainty that a given particle >>will be found in any given volume. In other words, any increase in the >>likelihood of tunnelling. > >Not necessarily an increase! > >Yes decreased likelyhood of finding a "point particle" in a volume >(vocabulary depending on your interpretation of QM), but *no* on = increasing >the likelyhood of tunneling! The bigger the waveform the lower the >probability that two "point particles" will be in proximity. Even if you= do >not assume co-location, only random location, you have to multiply >probabilities of each separate wavefuncion to arrive at a probability = that >*both* "point particles" are in the same volume. The bigger the volume, >the lower the total probability of tunneling, of fusion. Please see my response to Barry Merriman in another post. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 20 23:38:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA25018; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 23:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 23:33:10 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 06:32:09 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <321b8fe8.18333793@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <9608201034.AA27573@joshua.math.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <9608201034.AA27573@joshua.math.ucla.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"-e8Xg2.0.q66.asg6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/101 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 20 Aug 96 03:34:37 PDT, Barry Merriman wrote: [snip] >That said, your first error is your basic premise about the >debrolie wavelength of harged particles. Error 1 part A is >that it is not valid to simply compute debrolie wavelengths in the >rest frame of the particle--if that is so, every particle >has infinite debrolie wavelength in its own rest frame! Error 1 This obviously didn't come over the way I intended. In fact there are three frames of reference for any two particles and an observer. That of each particle, and that of the observer. What I meant to say, was that what is of real importance in the case at hand, is the two reference frames related to the particles themselves, and that that of the observer is irrelevant. I am then talking about the De Broglie wavelength of the particles relative to their motion with regard to one another. Not relative to their motion with regard to that of the observer. >part B, which is even more important, is that the wave length of two >charged particle moving at the exact same speed--i..e at rest=20 >relative to eachother---is NOT infinite. In fact it is much less >than the speration between them. What you really mean by wavelength >in your argument is the extent of the wave function. For a particle No Barry, this is not really what I meant. At least not directly. The infinite wavelength to which I was referring was that of the De Broglie wave, as specified above. Which to the best of my knowledge depends upon the momentum of the particles relative to one another. >near a high energy barrier, its wavefunction does not extend far >into the barrier. The coulomb barrier from the field of particle 2 >will effectively damp out the wavefunction of particle 1 in the vicinity >of particle to, even if they are at rest---wave functions do not = penetrae >(penetrate) large energy barriers significantly...this is a trivial >consequence of the wave equation. Your basic error is to apply But the problem is that the wave equation is incomplete. This is in fact the nub of the paradigm shift that will take us into the next century. The reason for this is that it is based upon Coulomb forces, which in turn represent average behaviours. It doesn't recognise the fact that something special happens when the Compton frequency waves that underly the De Broglie wave are in phase. The De Broglie wavelength, is actually a measure of the degree to which the Compton frequency waves are in phase. When it is infinite, phase correlation is perfect. When particles move relative to one another, the phase of their intrinsic vibrations gets shifted, and we calculate in consequence, a shorter De Broglie wavelength. I'm sure Ross Tessien will enjoy explaining what sort of force exists between two particles that are in phase, when a perfect overlap of their intrinsic waves exists. >formulas for the wavelength of free particles (simple debroglie) to >determine the extent of the wavefunction of particles in potential >wells (i.e. charged particles). This pretty much renders your=20 >entire theory invalid, no? Possibly. But we'll see. CF may yet prove me right and you wrong. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 09:25:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA02701; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 09:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 09:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: wharton@128.183.46.16 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:15:46 -0400 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) Subject: Re: Transmutation & Joe Champion Resent-Message-ID: <"kqqz-1.0.3g.0Pp6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/102 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dan York's experiment is a real mind blower. If the reports from the three labs showing hafnium production can be substantiated then there is evidence beyond any possible question of nuclear transmutations. The fusion reaction could be: 1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf177 + 9F26 + 15.110996 MeV 1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf178 + 9F25 + 21.424999 MeV 1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf179 + 9F24 + 22.613998 MeV 1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf180 + 9F23 + 26.360001 MeV 1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf181 + 9F22 + 24.504999 MeV 1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf182 + 9F21 + 26.028000 MeV 1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf183 + 9F20 + 23.226000 MeV 1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf184 + 9F19 + 22.905998 MeV as provided by the great program some one posted here - I am sorry I forgot who did this. So a protron fuses with mercury to give halfnium plus flourine plus about 20 Mev? This sems like too much energy but is very interesting nevertheless. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 10:31:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA16249; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Aug 96 13:05:56 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Energy from the ZPF Message-ID: <960821170556_100433.1541_BHG57-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"3Cr2D3.0.mz3.s9q6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/103 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I was just going through the 'Fantastic Future' videotape before sending it across to Hal. Perhaps I didn't listen carefully enough to what was being said about 'Casimir free energy'. Here is a transcript of the relevant section: Robert Forward: A piece of space the size of a sugar cube, that looks like it's empty, is actually full of energy. So much so that it would run the whole world for a billion years. What is amazing to me is that we have found a way of getting energy from nothing. Frank Close: There is a way, according to modern physics, that you can apparently get energy out of nothing. It's named after a famous physicist called Casimir, and is called the Casimir effect. It consists of two metal plates, and you position them very carefully - with nothing between them - and when you release them they start moving towards each other very gradually, until they come together. Narrator: You should be able to extract energy out of the vacuum in a useful form. Forward's idea is to put a small electrical charge onto each of the Casimir plates, and wire them up to a battery. As the vacuum pulls them together, the electrical charges repel one another and flow into the battery, charging them up. Energy. From the vacuum. Close: To make a large energy source would require large plates. There's no limit in principle; the bigger and bigger the plates, the more energy you could make. But you've got to make the plates. If I want to get huge amounts out, I have to make huge plates in the first place. And that requires an industrial plant to do it. So there's no free lunch in this. Forward: The fact that least I've shown one way in which you can get energy out of nothing means that all we need is a bright young mind to find a better way to capture more of that energy. [end] From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 11:40:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA04715; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:34:24 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"XAbDl1.0.Y91.HNr6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/105 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 9:22 PM 8/19/96, Mitchell Swartz wrote: >At 09:38 PM 8/18/96, Horace Heffner wrote: >>> >>> Exactly what or where is the evidence for this notion of paired neutrons? >>> The reactions are so neutronpenic, there is probably >>>no evidence of such putative neutron pairing. right? >>> >> >> >>This was discussed on sci.physics.fusion last year. Where were you? I >>thought you lurked there. Yes, the counts were low, but tended to come in >>pairs to opposite counters. Very odd. That's why the discussion. It was >>assumed to be an error but further investigation showed it to be real. >>Steve Jones could maybe help you check into this further. >> >> >>Regards, >> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >>Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 >> >> >> > > are you stating that Steve Jones has indicated to you that there >were real low level pair neutrons emitted? in his measurements? >thanks for the update. please let us know the source. > at other times he has variously claimed bursts, or none. >the literature indicates very very rare low level bursts. > > perhaps a look at the literature would indicate to you that >fewer people look for time of flight and stereoimaging of neutron >emission which would be required to see paired emissions, >as opposed to what is done for positrons >where their annihilation radiation is picked up by paired >emitters. perhaps the greater crossection leads more >people towards the latter technology. > > best wishes in your literature search. > > Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) Well I have some good news and bad news on this. The bad news is for me in that I clearly remember discussion of neutron pairs on s.p.f., but have not been able to locate it. I hope this is not a sign of extreme senility! Yes I am aware that paried detectors are not typically used neutrons. The initial observation ocurred accidentally and not using paired detectors. If I remember correctly it was observed that neutron detectors on opposite sides of the electrolysis unit would tend to go off together, and this prompted the looking for paired emissions. NODAK is not supporting database commands against the archive anymore and I don't have WAIS or the the inclination to fool with it at the moment. (I finally accumulated the parts for a preliminary coaxial railgun test and am eager to get on with it.) I have seen postings in s.p.f. about a WAIS facility in N.C. but don't have the doc handy. I contacted Steve Jones and he has no recollection of such. It certainly did not occur at his lab. I contacted Arthur Carlson who I thought may have been involved in posting on the subject, but he had no recollection of it at all. I'll post if I find something out on this later. Now for the good news! Some here may remember that Steve Jones was working on a low tech low cost solar cooker for practical use in economically deprived countries where cooking fuel supplies are low. He has had much success and was baking potatoes at the time of his response. I congratulated him on his successful application of a plasma fusion powered device. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 11:50:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA04678; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:34:18 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coulomb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"QZQBy1.0.y81.BNr6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/104 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:32 PM 8/20/96, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 05:20:24 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: >[snip] >>>>the large wave functions. For fusion to occur the particles must occupy >>>>the same location at the same time (or therabouts). As you increase the de >>>>Broglie wavelength, you increase the variance of the psi function, thus >>>>decrease the density of psi^2 function in any specific volume, so reduce >>> >>>I see this more as a reduction in the certainty that a given particle >>>will be found in any given volume. In other words, any increase in the >>>likelihood of tunnelling. >> >>Not necessarily an increase! >> >>Yes decreased likelyhood of finding a "point particle" in a volume >>(vocabulary depending on your interpretation of QM), but *no* on increasing >>the likelyhood of tunneling! The bigger the waveform the lower the >>probability that two "point particles" will be in proximity. Even if you do >>not assume co-location, only random location, you have to multiply >>probabilities of each separate wavefuncion to arrive at a probability that >>*both* "point particles" are in the same volume. The bigger the volume, >>the lower the total probability of tunneling, of fusion. > >Please see my response to Barry Merriman in another post. >[snip] >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Your comments to Barry relate to a force between the particles. That there is a cohering force there is no doubt - that is what makes the condensate form. My comment relates to the *size* of the particles, i.e. the size of the de Broglie wavelength of the particles with the force between them. This is a difficult discussion because the vocabulary is very much model dependent. As the force you suggest coheres the particles their relative velocities should decrease and their de Broglie wavelengths, as seen from each other's point of view, should increase in size. It is this increase I am trying to address. Such an increase in waveform size almost guarantees no fusion, even if you assume the particles are totally co-centered, that "they" (i.e. their waveforms, again an interpretation dependent use of vocabulary) completely overlap. For example, Weiman and Cornell's 3000 rubidium atom condensate was about 2 thousandths of an inch in size, very large by atomic standards. Yet it did not go bang and fuse, even though held together for periods of many seconds. I think passage of a high velocity particle through the co-center generates the need for an outcome. It interacts with the condensate and in effect creates an "observation", will generate a waveform collapse, and then with much increased probability fusion can result. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 12:04:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA07052; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:43:26 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Transmutation & Joe Champion Resent-Message-ID: <"wpmFA3.0.1k1.sVr6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/106 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:15 PM 8/21/96, Larry Wharton wrote: > Dan York's experiment is a real mind blower. If the reports from the >three labs showing hafnium production can be substantiated then there is >evidence beyond any possible question of nuclear transmutations. The >fusion reaction could be: > >1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf177 + 9F26 + 15.110996 MeV >1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf178 + 9F25 + 21.424999 MeV >1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf179 + 9F24 + 22.613998 MeV >1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf180 + 9F23 + 26.360001 MeV >1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf181 + 9F22 + 24.504999 MeV >1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf182 + 9F21 + 26.028000 MeV >1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf183 + 9F20 + 23.226000 MeV >1H1 + 80Hg202 -> 72Hf184 + 9F19 + 22.905998 MeV > >as provided by the great program some one posted here - I am sorry I forgot >who did this. > So a protron fuses with mercury to give halfnium plus flourine plus about >20 Mev? This sems like too much energy but is very interesting >nevertheless. > >Lawrence E. Wharton It was Robin van Spaandonk who provided that neat service. This points out that old CF problem again! Why is Dan York walking and talking when he should be in a lead casket, having made visible sized quantities? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 14:44:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA13604; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 21 Aug 1996 14:07:14 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Something is flakey in Vortex land and Dan York is alive and To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/21/96 14:07:51 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"aORRB2.0.MK3.Xnt6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/107 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Something is flakey in Vortex land and Dan York is alive and well - Sorry about the post that gave everyone "subscription information", for some reason my posts to VORTEXLR are doing that. I'm trying the old VortexL here to see if it works still...- - I have done research on Dan York. He meets all of his claims by what I have found, i.e. computer nerd acting under the direction---but not direct contact with Joe C. He is sending me some samples of his Na/Hafnium stuff. Sorry Scott, but there is a REASON I'm getting it not you....and it is not a prejudice against you---but could be found under the "person with nuclear industry contacts" file. (Hafnium is, as Dan has indicated, ALWAYS found with Zirconium, and as one of my references puts it, "the separation of Hafnium from Zirconium is second only in difficulty to that of isotope separation...")(ASTM/STP 824) So in a week Dan should have 4 different labs confirming the composition of his white powder output from his Champion work. - Joe and Dan are holding back on a couple key aspects of their work. - I don't blame them. - However, this is no Correa or Patterson. ALL will be divuldged in good time. - Get ready to "rock and roll". MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 15:59:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA10401; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 17:58:17 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960821175808.a1f7169e@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Moreland explains Champion material Resent-Message-ID: <"chwsM3.0.OY2.kBv6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/110 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:21 PM 8/16/96 EDT, Jed wrote: >To: Vortex >Here is the Mizuno data for the Pb sample that *did* have something to >do with Champion: > >Isotope Percent Error Natural Abundance Deviation >Pb204 1.8% 0.1% 1.4% 0.3% >Pb206 28.7% 1.3% 24.1% 3.3% >Pb207 22.6% 1.1% 22.1% Insignificant >Pb208 46.9% 2.0% 52.4% 3.3% > >. According >to every reference I have seen, natural abundance for heavy elements varies >far less than any of the numbers I posted for magnesium, calcium or titanium. >Even lunar samples do not vary this much. Generally this is true ... A range of the variation at lower Z is observed for oxygen which is second row in the periodic chart varies from O16/O18 of 489.2 +/- 0.7 for atmospheric diatomic oxygen, and for oxygen bound to limestone, but in the oceans and in iron ore it is about 4% higher. However, what is heavy? and does this always hold? Is lead (Z=82, A = 207, specific gravity = 11) heavy? How about: "Wide variations in the abundances of the lead isotopes are also found, and these are usually associated with the radioactive source from which the different lead samples are derived. Even for common lead, it is not possible to give exact isotopic abundancews wihtout specifying the source of the material; the values in the table are for Great Bear Lake galena." ["Nuclear Physics", I. Kaplan, Addison Wesley, '62, p.218] Furthermore, IMHO the isotopic situation for lead is somewhat more complicated because in addition to the stable isotopes listed in the analysis in a previous post in this thread, lead actually sports four stable, and seventeen other (albeit short lived) radioactive, isotopes. This is not to discourage research, but only to show again the importance of knowing where each sample comes from. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 15:59:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA07845; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:43:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:43:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608212242.PAA07764@mail.eskimo.com> From: Ron McFee Subject: Unofficial LANL/Yusmar Report To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 16:44:07 MDT Cc: mcfee@karloff.lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Resent-Message-ID: <"vJ5Z-3.0.Uw1.t3v6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/109 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greetings Vortejanos To balance all second and third hand reports concerning the Los Alamos testing of Yuri Potapov's second generation Yusmar I will add my own unofficial first hand comments. We (Tom Claytor, Jon Sollid, Mark Schwab, et al.) will be publishing an official report which will be publicly available soon. During three days of actively testing of the Yusmar last week no anomalous energy production was observed. While this does not prove that such a device can not produce energy under the right conditions, the test was inconclusive in that no excess energy was observed in any of the tests including the last one when the pressure was increased. Yuri had predicted in advance that the device would produce an excess 80% energy. If it had been observed to produce greater than 5% more energy, then the tests would probably have continued at an increased level of effort. Since NO excess energy was observed, it was decided to terminate the tests at the close of business Friday, August 16th. The visit of Potapov and Company which included Yuri, his son Semion, and Peter Gluck was in my opinion no fiasco. He and his Company have an open invitation to return for a repeat demonstration of any fully integrated system whenever they wish. Indeed I hope that the testing at Los Alamos will encourage Yuri to make his systems available for testing by other interested parties in the US and other countries. The initial testing of the Yusmar were dynamic tests in which initially 5 and later 7.5 kilowatts of three phase 460/380 Volt power (not the 220 as I stated earlier) were used to power a submerged motor and pump. This drove water through the vortex unit in a closed loop back to the pump. At the same time temperature measurements were made at various locations on the device. The mass of the device was measured empty and then filled with water so that the heat capacity of the device was known to better than a percent. By observing the rate at which the device heated up one could observe whether any anomalous energy was produced. In all cases the observed heating up was slower than the energy added to the system in the form of electricity. When the device was uninsulated there was about a 10% decrement which could be explained by convective heat losses to the surroundings. When the device was well insulated, the heat loses were less than 5%. In no case did the device heat up faster than could be accounted by the input electric power. The temperature range in which the device was tested was between 25 and 70 degrees Celsius. We would have liked to test the device at a high steady state temperature with flow meters and a proper heat exchanger. Frank Znidarsic and his partner John Barron will take delivery of the Yusmar device which as far as I know is still the property of the Yusmar Company and proceed to test it in this fashion. Also I believe that the Los Alamos tests may have had too much air dissolved in the water. By adding a heat exchanger and possibly different pumps different parameters can be tested than were possible at Los Alamos. Instead of a fiasco, I consider the Los Alamos tests to be an initial step in testing the Yusmars. I hope that the Yusmar Company will begin selling and shipping units to the US as soon as possible so that everyone can make their own tests of properly integrated systems. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 20:04:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA04376; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 19:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 19:42:59 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:41:18 -0400 Message-ID: <960821224117_391099123@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Moving fast... Resent-Message-ID: <"9uBn-1.0.E41.may6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/112 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Subj: Re: Lanl visit. Date: 96-08-21 22:32:48 EDT From: FZNIDARSIC To: George Miley, It was not frustrating. It was the greatest opportunity to ever befall an individual; especially one like myself who has nothing. If the tests were sucessfull I would have been out of the picture. Yury would have been harder to deal with than CETI. As it was I was in a very unique position. Yury was humiliated. We were his last hope. We got his equipment for the cost of shipping. Lanl was going to throw it in the dump. Can you believe that? Believe me..His machine DOES work in Russia. He has no clue why it didn't work here. I do! I know! Take that for what it is worth but no else including McFee, Puthoff, Rothwell, or Mallove could figure it out. Perhaps I've seen more things and I know more things than they do. I've cried bloody murder and tomorrow I'm meeting with the CEO's of 2 large companies. One of the CEO's is an industrial chemist. He knows the story, I will fill him on the details tomorrow. Dr. Madison also knows and he advised me to move fast before the window of opportunity closes. My partner John Barron is so paranoid that he told me not to talk about it on the plane least someone should over hear it. The next day I immediatly filed a disclosure. Dr. Madison talked with the CEO's and they have already agreed to put the full backing of there legal departments behind me. We know why the thing works. I'm going to patent an improvement on the Yusmar device that is going to make cold fusion commersial. My employer GPU energy would have a fit if they knew what was going on. As far as I am concerned they had their chance. I hope to have Hal up here to test after I comfirm excess energy. To date, the test, that is the proof of the pudding has not yet happened. I will tell you the details as soon as I get some protection. What a stroke of luck. Hal I will tell you sooner but you will have to file a non-disclosure on the "improvement" until the patent gets rolling. I have told Yury not to worry..we will have this whole mess straightened up within 60 days. Frank Z cc Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 21:35:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA28617; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:14:35 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 18:13:29 -0400 Message-ID: <960821181328_506906446@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: Lanl visit. Resent-Message-ID: <"OAjxl2.0.1_6.9fu6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/108 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --------------------- Forwarded message: From: zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil (JOHN S ZETTS MLPO CIV) To: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: 96-08-21 16:27:41 EDT Frank: A c.o.p. of 0.96 for the Yusmar sounds pretty piss poor to me. When are you going to admit that you've BEEN HAD ? Give me a battery and a resistor and I'll easily get a c.o.p. of 1.000 for converting electrical to thermal energy. What's special about a machine that can't even match that? Wasn't the purpose of the LANL test to establish - once and for all - that the device is real? Then, with it's major proponent on hand, Yuri, it fails miserably. Isn't this the same story you sent to me from the other small company in the U.S.a few months ago - no matter how they tweeked it, it just wouldn't perform. And the SAME EXCUSE was offered - the people operating it aren't very smart and don't know how to tweek the machine. But they also said that Potapov was not being very cooperative in helping them to tweek the machine properly. Now even with Yuri there at Los Alamos, the machine still just can't be tweeked just right. Wouldn't this have been THE TIME to make sure that the machine was tweeked just right to try to mainain any credibility with believers and skeptics alike? Again, sounds like you've been had. By the way, if I'm not mistaken, the quote about standing on the shoulders of giants is attributable to Isaac Newton and not Albert Einstein. JZ Hi all John Barron and I are now at home. We had an enjoyable and busy trip at Los Alamos. We arrived at LanL Friday morning. What I treat. Double row fences around buildings with guard towers and signs that say, "Warning do not cross fences buried explosives." I guess the whole area is land minded. We finally got into area 26 as guests of the Yusmar company. There we met Thomas Clator and Ron McFee two very nice people. We spent the day at LanL and completed several tests. Afterwords, Yuri invited us for dinner at Ron's house. Yuri cooked us up a fish dinner. It was very good. Yuri is a good cook. The next day we travel to Santa Fe to visit with Dr. Ed Storms. Ed was a very welcome host. He lives in a beautiful mansion on a the buff of a cliff that overlooks all of Santa Fe. His wife Carol made us lunch. We sat on the balcony overlooking Santa Fe and enjoyed it. Carol is a very beautiful and intelligent woman. Ed Storms and Chip Ransford, who was also there, spent a few hours with us showing us their work. Ed has quite a set up in his basement. Ed was very open and explained everything that he was doing. Chip showed us his reactor. After visiting storms we met Richard T. Murry, a member of this list, and reviewed the latest developments in cold fusion. Richard is sending me some very interesting papers on sono luminescence. The tests at Lanl did not come out as well as expected. The average C.O.P. was .96. John Barron and I were quite concerned about this. We both are good judges of character and we know Yuri and Peter are telling the truth. What went wrong? John Barron, who is an expert in impeller design, and I discussed it. We think we know what the problem is. In fact I am quite sure I know what is going wrong. Today the Yusmar is being shipped from Lanl to our shop in Pennsylvania. We are not going to test it, we plan to get it working. After we get set up Yuri is coming to work with us. The device did cavatate but was not producing anomalous energy. I know why Ed Storms gave me the clue that I needed. For John Barron, Yuri, and I the adventure has just begun. ................................... "The reason that I have seen so far is that I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Albert Einstein My giants are: Yuri Potapov, Ron McFee, Hal Puthoff, Scott Little, Frank Stenger, Tom Clator, Ed Storms, John Barron, Hal Fox, Jed Rothwell, Gene Mallove, James Patterson, Peter Glueck, George Miley, and many more. Each of these persons has met with or openly spoke with me. This has allowed me to see a farther into the darkness. I plan to use my now clearing but still muddy vision to get the Yusmar working. We will do it. Frank Znidarsic  From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 21:49:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA00408; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 21:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 21:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:44:16 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: t e s t, ignore this In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"b_Zk01.0.F6.PN-6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/113 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill, We will never ignore you. :) On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, William Beaty wrote: > > > .....................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-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 22:54:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA12636; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:51:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 01:50:37 -0400 Message-ID: <960822015037_184960222@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? Resent-Message-ID: <"Tr1_L.0.H53.ML_6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/114 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chris asked: "Does the zpf-shielding model account for orbital precession in the same way as relativistic space distortion?" The ZPF model can be extended to treat the vacuum as having a variable dielectric constant, which leads directly to all the GR results (bending of light, orbital precession, etc.). Hal From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 23:05:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA14346; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:01:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 02:00:48 -0400 Message-ID: <960822020047_184965138@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mossbauer effect Resent-Message-ID: <"1rniB1.0.1W3.sU_6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/115 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Joe Flynn asked "I meant to ask if any one knew about the Mossbauer effect and gravitational red shift?" The gravity "bible" *Gravitation* by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler has a very good description of above. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 23:14:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA15355; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Aug 96 02:03:54 EDT From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Moving fast... Message-ID: <960822060353_75110.3417_CHK42-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"SaeWl3.0.ql3.Fb_6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/116 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, >> We know why the thing works. I'm going to patent an improvement on the Yusmar device that is going to make cold fusion commercial. << More power to you! Go for it. We need something to work around here. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 21 23:24:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA17732; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:21:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 02:20:44 -0400 Message-ID: <960822022044_184974676@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Moving fast... Resent-Message-ID: <"pkX3P3.0.xK4.jn_6o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/117 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, Glad to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Hal From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 00:01:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA22947; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <321C051A.167EB0E7@math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:58:34 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier References: <9608201034.AA27573@joshua.math.ucla.edu> <321b8fe8.18333793@mail.netspace.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2gW5W1.0.Nc5.QK07o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/118 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Aug 96 03:34:37 PDT, Barry Merriman wrote: > [snip] > >That said, your first error is your basic premise about the > >debrolie wavelength of harged particles. Error 1 part A is > >that it is not valid to simply compute debrolie wavelengths in the > >rest frame of the particle > I am then talking about the De Broglie wavelength of the particles > relative to their motion with regard to one another. Not relative to > their motion with regard to that of the observer. That is fine...of course, no one was ever really using the observer frame. The only common use of DB wavelength is for computing particle diffraction from a crystalline lattice, and if you want the calculation of that to be at all tractible, you better do it in the frame where the crystal lattice is at rest. > > > But the problem is that the wave equation is incomplete. This is in > fact the nub of the paradigm shift that will take us into the next > century. Ahh, just as i suspected---you are not using ordinary brand X quantum mechanics. Well, feel free to make up you own version of QM, but why should anyone believe it, or even entertain the notion? > The reason for this is that it is based upon Coulomb forces, which in > turn represent average behaviours. It doesn't recognise the fact that > something special happens when the Compton frequency waves that > underly the De Broglie wave are in phase. Do you have any evidence at all for that statement? The counter evidence is that the entire theory of solid state physics is based on the good old coulomb force as we know it, and it didn't seem to lead us astray in the many phenomena which it has accurately described. If wavelnegth resonances altered the coulomb force, we almost certainly would have a load of dissagreements between theoretical and experimental solid state physics, all CF stuff aside. A better point of view migfht be this: it is an amusing hypothesis that the coulomb force my have undetected quantum corrections. So, what is an ideal experiment to look for such deviations? Dr. Puthoff probably could come up with something... -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 00:39:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA27782; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 03:13:45 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"HZA5J.0._n6.mt07o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/119 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If wavelnegth resonances altered the coulomb force, we >almost certainly would have a load of dissagreements between theoretical >and experimental solid state physics, all CF stuff aside. > I would like to say that this is somewhat a grey area of the solid state arena. Since the wavelengths that Robin is indicating do not fall into the expected range of interaction in commonly accepted models. A number of anomalies that I have observed could be relevant to Robin's assumptions . I feel that your suggestion of devising an experiment is a good one.. Any suggestions? ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 8/22/96 Time: 3:13:45 AM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 00:42:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA27941; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 03:29:17 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: RE: Moving fast... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"70i4j.0.Vq6.Bv07o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/120 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I also would like to offer what help that I can.. Godspeed... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 04:34:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id EAA27937 for billb@eskimo.com; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:34:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: kirk.shanahan@srs.gov Thu Aug 22 04:34:52 1996 Received: from gateway1.srs.gov (gateway1.srs.gov [192.33.240.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA27888 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway1.srs.gov id AA04785 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for vortex-l@eskimo.com); Thu, 22 Aug 1996 07:32:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199608221132.AA04785@gateway1.srs.gov> Received: by gateway1.srs.gov (Internal Mail Agent-2); Thu, 22 Aug 1996 07:32:36 -0400 Received: by gateway1.srs.gov (Internal Mail Agent-1); Thu, 22 Aug 1996 07:32:36 -0400 Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Old-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 07:22:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: Thanks To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 07:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: info refcard From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 07:44:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA25476; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 07:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 07:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 06:36:50 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"qKVNg1.0.-D6.L-67o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/121 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >A better point of view migfht be this: it is an amusing hypothesis >that the coulomb force my have undetected quantum corrections. So, >what is an ideal experiment to look for such deviations? Dr. Puthoff >probably could come up with something... > > > >-- >Barry Merriman Blast a large condensate with high energy electrons and look for neutrons. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 09:17:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA07950; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:31:24 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Design experiment the Coloumb Barrier In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"f_VOH1.0.2y1.Cs77o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/122 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have not been watching closely. What wavelengths are described? What effects? I am looking for a simple blow by blow of the alteration predicted. J On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 dacha@shentel.net wrote: > If wavelnegth resonances altered the coulomb force, we > >almost certainly would have a load of dissagreements > between theoretical > >and experimental solid state physics, all CF stuff aside. > > > > > I would like to say that this is somewhat a grey area of > the solid state arena. Since the wavelengths that Robin is > indicating do not fall into the expected range of > interaction in commonly accepted models. > > A number of anomalies that I have observed could be > relevant to Robin's assumptions . > > I feel that your suggestion of devising an experiment is a > good one.. Any suggestions? > > > ------------------------------------- > Name: dacha > E-mail: dacha@visor.com > Date: 8/22/96 > Time: 3:13:45 AM > No matter where you go, there you are. > http://www.visor.com/info > ------------------------------------- > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 09:18:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA10654; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Aug 96 11:40:08 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Bravo Ron! Message-ID: <960822154007_72240.1256_EHB128-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"fh6YB.0.Oc2.V187o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/123 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Ron McFee wrote: "[Potapov] and his Company have an open invitation to return for a repeat demonstration of any fully integrated system whenever they wish." Bravo! That is awfully sporting of you Ron. And we must thank the managers at Los Alamos too. Potapov does not deserve this many breaks, but I am glad he has them. Let us hope he gets his act together and takes advantage of this more than generous invitation. Ron says the Potapov visit was "not a fiasco." Perhaps it wasn't from a scientific point of view. I hope everyone had a valuable learning experience. But I still say that from a business point of view it was sloppy, unprofessional and inexcusable. Little and Mallove warned Potapov repeatedly that the machines do not work. We offered him three chances to get it right. He should have come to Scott Little's lab or some other location and *tested the thing in advance* before going to Los Alamos. That is common sense! Any mechanic, pilot, programmer, sailor, or truck driver will tell you: never trust a machine. Always test it before you set off on a critical mission. Even when you make every effort to get it right, you rehearse, and you test everything you can think of, as often as not a machines will betray you. Not to test in the face of repeated warnings is the height of hubris, and a clear sign that Potapov does not know how to handle machines. I don't know . . . maybe it is a cultural thing. My father was posted in Russia during World War II. He told me many hair raising stories of people taking dangerous chances with machines for no reason, and casually wrecking machinery with abuse. In the dead of winter at fifty below zero F, Russian pilots would hop into a DC3 transport plane, turn on the engines from a cold start, and take off twenty seconds later, in less time than an American would take to warm up his car in the driveway. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 09:50:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA14766; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:02:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199608221602.JAA05532@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: ZPF and Aether, was Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? Resent-Message-ID: <"hoyhw3.0.Yc3.cI87o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/124 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Chris asked: > >"Does the zpf-shielding model account for orbital precession in the same way >as relativistic space distortion?" > >The ZPF model can be extended to treat the vacuum as having a variable >dielectric constant, which leads directly to all the GR results (bending of >light, orbital precession, etc.). > >Hal > Yes, exactly, I agree. In my model, the build up in the density of the aether is the reason that the dielectric constant of space is altered. And this originates in the stars where aether is being emitted. Since the galaxies are moving apart, the aether in those regions is being rarefied. This leads at first glance to a seeming insignificant, but I consider to be extremely important, observation. I cannot over emphasis the importance of this, despite the statement being so well taken for granted as the facts. The point is that we have no "reason" for this to be a fact today. OK, here it is. If matter is made of resonances in the aether (under damped oscillators will oscillate given driving wave energy), then it is made of aether. And so if the universe is expanding, then the aether is being rarefied. And so if the aether is rarefied but matter is made of that aether, then particles of matter should be constantly dissapearing, but they do not, why? If matter is in a state of constant pressure evaporation, and those resonances (matter) are able to release a small percentage of their confined aether that builds up as an acoustic convergence in their standing waves, then the entire particle does not need to dissappear. Instead, just some of the aether must bleed off all of the time. And so the combinations of standing waves which lead to this emission of aether will help to buoy the pressure of space that is being reduced by the rarefaction. *********************************** Thus, if the universe is in a constant pressure evaporation of the remaining condensed aether droplets confined in standing waves and which we call matter, then EXOTHERMIC REACTIONS MUST BE MASS EMITTING REACTIONS, AND THUS AETHER EMITTING REACTIONS. Note; The fact that exothermic reactions in fact ARE mass reducing reactions is a secondary observation that is well known. The prediction of this fact above is a completely separate and independent check on the functioning of the universe as compared to any aether model that has mass composed of any form of resonances of that aether. Ross Tessien > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 10:08:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA16402; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:07:19 -0700 Message-Id: <199608221607.JAA07155@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Not So Fast, was (Re: Moving fast...) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: little@eden.com To: 100433.1541@compuserve.com To: 72240.1256@compuserve.com To: 76570.2270@compuserve.com To: Puthoff@aol.com.August.22, 1996.Thursday.7:00.AM@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"HbiKF.0.B04.bP87o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/125 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Frank, The day after Peter called me from Salt Lake City on August 20,1996, I e-mailed to the original two groups who undertook to replicating the Yusmar O/U effect, a suggestion based on a remark made by Peter Glueck. This was on August 21, 1996 in the AM PDST. First: As you know, both of the groups had been unsuccessful in their efforts to replicate the O/U effect without any furthur aid from Potapov aside from the sale of the Yusmar units to them. Whether the lack of aid to a successful replication or suggestions from the seller was deliberate or from ignorance is open to conjecture. It has been said that protecting proprietary information was the reason for the lack of aid since there were no substantial agreements or understandings signed by the purchasers of the Yusmars. This was in 1995 shortly after the ICCF-5 at Monaco. Then more recently, another purchaser of the Yusmar appeared. This time from Japan. It was the Field Co. with their O/U data indicating success. However the data seems to be based on only the successful runs and extensive cross discussions between all parties involved with the Yusmar never occurs to pin point what made those runs successful --- or were errors made? During all this time, Dr. Peter Glueck, science consultant and English translator to Dr. Potapov has tried to aid in the successful replication of the Yusmar devices but was obligated to protect the proprietary information that solely belonged to Potapov. The suggestions that he made to help never caught on. Then the LANL invitation to Potapov with the new 'Quantum Generator' was heard across the land. And a sense of shock, outrage, and disappointment was felt by the two groups because their efforts were felt to be ignored and dumped on by this act. LANL reasoned that the 'Quantum Generator' was claimed to be a revolutionary Self-Sustaining vortex device that qualified it for LANL testing --- and presumably the prior design Yusmars could not be afforded such recognition. As it has turned out, it was the Yusmars that were tested since the 600 lb. 'Quantum Generator could not be transported into the U.S. at Potapov's expense. It seems LANL extended a bare bones invitation only to be elaborated on IF the Yusmar showed even 5% O/U. Surprise, surprise. One of reasons for rejecting or even considering the Yusmar device (or for that matter, Griggs' Hydrosonic Pump) was that, compared to the 'Quantum Generator', the O/U claimed was a picayune 30-50% or thereabouts. Not enough to self-sustain. Pity. What happened to the science of establishing O/U? So in this puddle appears another group of enthusiastic Potapov device believers. And LANL extends, in their 'unofficial report', their unofficial open invitation for the Potapovs to visit again --- even if they can show 5% O/U, the new criteria? Back to Peter's remark: Peter remarked that the problem with the american tests (all of them) and failures with the Yusmars were the over-capacity of the pumps. I made a suggestion to the individuals in the two groups on August 21, 1996 AM that they consider this suggestion --- I quote from the e-mail: "Thinking about it, Yusmar is a sound-vortex device. And to effect O/U, there has to be a resonance factor. That's where "it doesn't sound right" by Potapov was quoted by Fznidaisic. The analogous example is the mouth whistle. You blow a tune with your mouth but a note (resonance) can be smothered by too great an air pressure from your lungs. Perhaps a smaller pump or a variable pressure regulator between the pump and the yusmar vortex unit may do the job for it to 'whistle the correct tune'." Of course, what is meant by 'whistle the correct tune' is for the yusmar to effect O/U. I left it to the individuals addressed to respond for a day. I am posting it here (and copies to individuals) so that not only past events, as I have seen it, can be recapitulated but also that this idea/suggestion may help. Most of the history is already burned into their memory so it is sort of redundant. Somewhere there is a sense of ethics and morality awry here as events have transpired. Just my imagination perhaps. The two groups that made the original attempts were Earth Tech International (Puthoff, Little, et al.) and Cold Fusion Technology (Mallove, Rothwell, Tinsley, Arthur C. Clarke) Sincerely, Akira Kawasaki ps: I think Ron McFee of LANL is a fine individual and I do not mean anything personal in the above remarks. Frank Fznidarsic wrote: > >Subj: Re: Lanl visit. >Date: 96-08-21 22:32:48 EDT >From: FZNIDARSIC >To: > >George Miley, > >It was not frustrating. It was the greatest opportunity to ever befall an >individual; especially one like myself who has nothing. If the tests were >sucessfull I would have been out of the picture. Yury would have been harder >to deal with than CETI. As it was I was in a very unique position. Yury was >humiliated. We were his last hope. We got his equipment for the cost of >shipping. Lanl was going to throw it in the dump. Can you believe that? > Believe me..His machine DOES work in Russia. He has no clue why it didn't >work here. I do! I know! Take that for what it is worth but no else >including McFee, Puthoff, Rothwell, or Mallove could figure it out. Perhaps >I've seen more things and I know more things than they do. I've cried bloody >murder and tomorrow I'm meeting with the CEO's of 2 large companies. One of >the CEO's is an industrial chemist. He knows the story, I will fill him on >the details tomorrow. Dr. Madison also knows and he advised me to move fast >before the window of opportunity closes. My partner John Barron is so >paranoid that he told me not to talk about it on the plane least someone >should over hear it. The next day I immediatly filed a disclosure. Dr. >Madison talked with the CEO's and they have already agreed to put the full >backing of there legal departments behind me. We know why the thing works. > I'm going to patent an improvement on the Yusmar device that is going to >make cold fusion commersial. My employer GPU energy would have a fit if they >knew what was going on. As far as I am concerned they had their chance. I >hope to have Hal up here to test after I comfirm excess energy. To date, the >test, that is the proof of the pudding has not yet happened. >I will tell you the details as soon as I get some protection. What a stroke >of luck. Hal I will tell you sooner but you will have to file a >non-disclosure on the "improvement" until the patent gets rolling. I have >told Yury not to worry..we will have this whole mess straightened up within >60 days. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 10:11:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA22567; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:35:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:33:17 -0400 Message-ID: <960822123316_266129763@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Over-Unity-Experiment-that worked ! Resent-Message-ID: <"xH-L42.0.SW5.pm87o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/127 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert (dacha) says: "When and if we reach the point of "reality", I would like Scott and yourself to be the first to confirm the findings." Ready, willing and able! Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 10:17:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA21920; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:32:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:31:16 -0400 Message-ID: <960822123116_266128457@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"87sbG3.0.KM5.Lk87o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/126 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Someone said: "You can't have a Bose-Einstein condensate of fermions." How about Cooper pairs of fermions as in a superconductor, which as a pair constitute a boson state? Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 11:31:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA17635; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:13:23 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199608221813.OAA00990@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <960822123116_266128457@emout14.mail.aol.com> (Puthoff@aol.com) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"OVamw3.0.OJ4.aDA7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/128 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hal Puthoff said: > Someone said: > "You can't have a Bose-Einstein condensate of fermions." I think that was me. > How about Cooper pairs of fermions as in a superconductor, which as a pair > constitute a boson state? In a message explaining that you could have Bose-Einstein effects in which the bosons were collections of fermions. But my point, which should not get lost, was that Bose-Einstein effects in deuterons (NOT deuterium) should be stronger than BEC in which the collective bosons contained electrons. For all I know in the D/Pd experiments you could have hundreds of deuterons creating a BEC which acts as a collective nucleus. If you then get electrons orbiting such an object it should remain stable long enough (hours, days, weeks?) for the close proximity to result in nuclear reactions. HOWEVER, the properties of the BEC will make the reaction cross-sections very different from reactions between colliding deuterons. Reactions like: 4 d ---> 2 He4 Are not only kinematically possible, but of high probability, since the rest of the condensate remains undisturbed. Tritium would come from: 3 d ---> He3 + t I'm not saying that I believe it, but it certainly hasn't been ruled out. What we need is for someone to try to form a condensate of deuterium ions and see what happens. (One advantage of charged particles is that you can work in a particle accelerator, and use beam cooling techniques.) Probably the wimpier the accelerator the better, even a 50 Kv accelerator should allow enough beam cooling. (And if there is anything to it, it should take cooling to microkelvins to do the trick, even dozens of degrees should work, although the lower the temperature the more likely particles are to condense.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 11:57:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA23251; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 22 Aug 1996 11:32:11 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/22/96 11:32:23 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"A8z1o1.0.Ah5.WYA7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/129 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... - I'm still climbing the walls! What, AM I A SIMPLETON or what? I'm frustrated at both P. and everyone else! If P has a successful device, then he damned well better get the following components to the US: 1. Pump, 2. Yusmar, 3. Pipe with radiator fins, and probably 4. WATER from his area. - Then one sets up a closed loop. One puts in a standard water company total flow device (AMETEK, at Surplus places for $50!!!!!!) On puts a thermocouple on the input to the radiating loop and the output. - One puts the differential on the TC's to a chart recorder. On takes a stop watch and finds out how much flow goes through in a minute. Flow times Delta T times Cp = power out. Power in is read at the power company's watt/hour meter going into the building. Am I missing something? System is run a steady state. Anything between 10% to 50% excess is academic interest. Anything 0 to 10% excess is observational error. Anything above 50% has commercial potential. - Is that clear enough? Last: If P. CANNOT supply pump, pipe, and Yusmar....then his sales and alledged success in the former communist block contries is a fraud. Period. It's a show...he's running a scam... - MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 12:08:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA26631; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 10:56:22 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"FttoX2.0.1W6.znA7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/131 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > Are not only kinematically possible, but of high probability, >since the rest of the condensate remains undisturbed. Tritium would >come from: > > 3 d ---> He3 + t > > I'm not saying that I believe it, but it certainly hasn't been >ruled out. What we need is for someone to try to form a condensate of >deuterium ions and see what happens. (One advantage of charged >particles is that you can work in a particle accelerator, and use beam >cooling techniques.) Probably the wimpier the accelerator the better, >even a 50 Kv accelerator should allow enough beam cooling. (And if >there is anything to it, it should take cooling to microkelvins to do >the trick, even dozens of degrees should work, although the lower the >temperature the more likely particles are to condense.) > > > > Robert I. Eachus Carl Weiman and Eric Cornell formed a stationary condensate by using a magnetic field to eject "warm" atoms from the condensate. The field rotated at a high rpm for stability. The whole experiment was done for under $50,000. Way above amateur budgets, but an amazing feat for such an advance of legitimate science. Aside from cosmic rays striking the condensate, what basis is there to believe that even if you can get thousands of atoms to condense that fusion will be any more likely than if the same atoms are all jammed into a much smaller volume in a lattice? Multiple particle fusion would be even more unlikely in such a large volume, wouldn't it? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 12:10:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA25065; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960822184902.006a6e20@bahnhof.se> X-Sender: david@bahnhof.se (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 20:49:02 +0200 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: David Jonsson Subject: Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? Cc: LaViolette Resent-Message-ID: <"GSPcO3.0.Z76.OhA7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/130 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:50 1996-08-22 -0400, you wrote: >Chris asked: > >"Does the zpf-shielding model account for orbital precession in the same way >as relativistic space distortion?" This can be explained by radiation-preassure from the central body as well. >The ZPF model can be extended to treat the vacuum as having a variable >dielectric constant, which leads directly to all the GR results (bending of >light, orbital precession, etc.). Does this model consider the Kerr-effect? Kerr effect says that the polarisation of something increases with increasing field quadratically, D=e0*E + e1*E^2. The Kerr effect could explain gravity. Simply assume that the electrical fields from the electrons and protons add up in a very small scale. Also consider the motional magnetic field from the orbiting electrons. (See article by Nils Rognerud at Elektromagnum. I spoke about this in conference in St.-Petersburg. There were a lot of Russians speaking about electromagnetical explanations of gravity also however translation was not very good. Hopefully proceedings will be. For example one of them spoke about vacuum as being a superfluid and supersolid medium. Inertia and gravity was merely induced mass from vacuum. This model leads to a large flow of vacuum into bodies. This could explain the large heat-production in big astronomical bodies and could also explain the genic energy of Subquantum Kinetics by Paul A. LaViolette.) Can someone give me the value of the Kerr-constant in vacuum? This may lead to a much larger value of the speed of light far from planet Earth than what astronomers currenly assume. All ZPE supporters have to explain why ZPE flows into matter and where it comes from. Maybe it is old sunlight that has transmuted to higher frequencies and is falling back. I think ZPE-theory and Subquantum Kinetics would gain if they tried to join. They fill the gap in each other. 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-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 12:18:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA27605; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608221852.LAA15040@nz1.netzone.com> X-Sender: discpub@netzone.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:00:30 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Predicting Miley's Results Resent-Message-ID: <"G31YW2.0.Al6.ltA7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/132 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: We are aware that isotopic anomalies have been (alledged)recorded in the PC. Below are my predictions of a portion of the end products. Since there are numerous other models, I opted for my favorites. If anyone has a request for a 1-3 input (fusion) with 1-4 fission reactions please email me direct and I will run the model. Even though I had a computer model, it operated at a speed somewhat less than the growing rate of grass. Mr. Jim Uban (a Vortexian) was gracious enough to design a program that runs at or near warp speed. Thanks, Jim! Transmute! V1.3 Copyright (c) 1996 Joe Champion Using 2 starting element(s) Using 3 transmuted elements Absolute value energy limit = 3.0000 mev Element Z N Ni 28 58 Element Z N Li 3 7 Start 2-body in, 3-body out calculations... Total Z value = 31 Total N value = 65 Total amu in = 64.951347 Matching products.... Element Z N ------- --- --- H 1 1 C 6 12 Cr 24 52 Total amu out = 64.948334 Delta amu out = 0.003014, mev out = 2.807178 ------- --- --- H 1 1 O 8 16 Ti 22 48 Total amu out = 64.950691 Delta amu out = 0.000656, mev out = 0.611183 ------- --- --- H 1 1 Mg 12 26 Ar 18 38 Total amu out = 64.953148 Delta amu out = -0.001801, mev out = -1.677200 ------- --- --- H 1 1 Si 14 30 S 16 34 Total amu out = 64.949463 Delta amu out = 0.001884, mev out = 1.755375 ------- --- --- He 2 4 O 8 16 Sc 21 45 Total amu out = 64.953423 Delta amu out = -0.002075, mev out = -1.933044 ------- --- --- He 2 4 Mg 12 24 Cl 17 37 Total amu out = 64.953545 Delta amu out = -0.002197, mev out = -2.046753 ------- --- --- He 2 4 Mg 12 26 Cl 17 35 Total amu out = 64.954048 Delta amu out = -0.002701, mev out = -2.515800 ------- --- --- He 2 4 Al 13 27 S 16 34 Total amu out = 64.952003 Delta amu out = -0.000656, mev out = -0.611183 ------- --- --- He 2 4 Si 14 30 P 15 31 Total amu out = 64.950134 Delta amu out = 0.001213, mev out = 1.129978 ------- --- --- 9 Total products found ---------------------------------- Using 2 starting element(s) Using 4 transmuted elements Absolute value energy limit = 3.0000 mev Element Z N Li 3 7 Element Z N Ni 28 58 Start 2-body in, 4-body out calculations... Total Z value = 31 Total N value = 65 Total amu in = 64.951347 Matching products.... Element Z N ------- --- --- H 1 1 H 1 1 H 1 1 Ni 28 62 Total amu out = 64.951820 Delta amu out = -0.000473, mev out = -0.440620 ------- --- --- H 1 1 H 1 1 He 2 4 Co 27 59 Total amu out = 64.951447 Delta amu out = -0.000099, mev out = -0.092388 ------- --- --- 2 Total products found ---------------------------------- Using 2 starting element(s) Using 2 transmuted elements Absolute value energy limit = 3.0000 mev Element Z N Ni 28 58 Element Z N H 1 1 Start 2-body in, 2-body out calculations... Total Z value = 29 Total N value = 59 Total amu in = 58.943169 Matching products.... Element Z N ------- --- --- 0 Total products found ---------------------------------- Using 2 starting element(s) Using 3 transmuted elements Absolute value energy limit = 3.0000 mev Element Z N Ni 28 58 Element Z N H 1 1 Start 2-body in, 3-body out calculations... Total Z value = 29 Total N value = 59 Total amu in = 58.943169 Matching products.... Element Z N ------- --- --- 0 Total products found ---------------------------------- Using 2 starting element(s) Using 4 transmuted elements Absolute value energy limit = 3.0000 mev Element Z N Ni 28 58 Element Z N H 1 1 Start 2-body in, 4-body out calculations... Total Z value = 29 Total N value = 59 Total amu in = 58.943169 Matching products.... Element Z N ------- --- --- 0 Total products found ---------------------------------- Using 2 starting element(s) Using 2 transmuted elements Absolute value energy limit = 3.0000 mev Element Z N Ni 28 60 Element Z N Li 3 7 Start 2-body in, 2-body out calculations... Total Z value = 31 Total N value = 67 Total amu in = 66.946793 Matching products.... Element Z N ------- --- --- H 1 3 Zn 30 64 Total amu out = 66.945198 Delta amu out = 0.001595, mev out = 1.485317 ------- --- --- Li 3 6 Ni 28 61 Total amu out = 66.946175 Delta amu out = 0.000618, mev out = 0.575649 ------- --- --- B 5 10 Fe 26 57 Total amu out = 66.948334 Delta amu out = -0.001541, mev out = -1.435570 ------- --- --- B 5 11 Fe 26 56 Total amu out = 66.944244 Delta amu out = 0.002548, mev out = 2.373665 ------- --- --- N 7 14 Cr 24 53 Total amu out = 66.943726 Delta amu out = 0.003067, mev out = 2.856926 ------- --- --- O 8 17 V 23 50 Total amu out = 66.946289 Delta amu out = 0.000504, mev out = 0.469048 ------- --- --- F 9 19 Ti 22 48 Total amu out = 66.946350 Delta amu out = 0.000443, mev out = 0.412193 ------- --- --- Ne 10 22 Sc 21 45 Total amu out = 66.947296 Delta amu out = -0.000504, mev out = -0.469048 ------- --- --- Na 11 23 Ca 20 44 Total amu out = 66.944847 Delta amu out = 0.001945, mev out = 1.812229 ------- --- --- Mg 12 26 K 19 41 Total amu out = 66.944420 Delta amu out = 0.002373, mev out = 2.210209 ------- --- --- Al 13 27 Ar 18 40 Total amu out = 66.943924 Delta amu out = 0.002869, mev out = 2.672150 ------- --- --- 11 Total products found _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 12:37:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA02699; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:18:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199608221918.MAA26347@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com.August.22, 1996.Thursday@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"-aiqq3.0.1g.4BB7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/133 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Well, welcome to the club! What do you think I suggested when I first heard of the failures back in 1995? Get the whole unit. I do not know whether what happened at St. Petersburg test failure involved a whole unit or not. You are ahead of me. I did not include the Moldavian water. How about Moldavian electricity as well? -AK- You wrote: > >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... >- >I'm still climbing the walls! What, AM I A SIMPLETON or what? I'm frustrated >at both P. and everyone else! If P has a successful device, then >he damned well better get the following components to the US: 1. Pump, >2. Yusmar, 3. Pipe with radiator fins, and probably 4. WATER from his >area. >- >Then one sets up a closed loop. One puts in a standard water company >total flow device (AMETEK, at Surplus places for $50!!!!!!) On puts a >thermocouple on the input to the radiating loop and the output. >- >One puts the differential on the TC's to a chart recorder. On takes a >stop watch and finds out how much flow goes through in a minute. Flow >times Delta T times Cp = power out. Power in is read at the power company's >watt/hour meter going into the building. Am I missing something? System >is run a steady state. Anything between 10% to 50% excess is academic >interest. Anything 0 to 10% excess is observational error. Anything >above 50% has commercial potential. >- >Is that clear enough? Last: If P. CANNOT supply pump, pipe, and Yusmar....then >his sales and alledged success in the former communist block contries is >a fraud. Period. It's a show...he's running a scam... >- >MDH > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 13:22:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA11348; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 22 Aug 1996 12:55:12 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/22/96 12:55:10 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"3TQcS3.0.3n2.ljB7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/134 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/22/96 12:29 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... AK: I'll draw the line on Moldavian electricity. I think the electrons look pretty much the same between here and there. However, water DOES vary in its trace comtaminates here and there. And cavitation can depend on things like dissolved, non-condensible gasses. Therefore if Moldavian water has high radium and therefore high radon, it may cavitate better than "pure" water. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 14:53:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA02148; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <321CCFCC.794BDF32@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:23:24 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... References: <199608221918.MAA26347@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Hwyrr2.0.SX.s0D7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/135 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Akira Kawasaki wrote: > > What do you think I suggested when I first heard of the failures back > in 1995? Get the whole unit. I do not know whether what happened at St. > Petersburg test failure involved a whole unit or not. > You are ahead of me. I did not include the Moldavian water. How about > Moldavian electricity as well? > Actually, thats not a joke. The entire device could be powered from batteries charged in Moldavia, or from a moldavian generator driven dy muldavian diesel fuel, for an all Moldavian system if need be. Persoanlly, I have a one shot rule for folks Like Potapov: they get one shot at vindication. If they blow it, then so long. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 15:00:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA05221; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:38:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:38:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Aug 96 17:35:48 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Excuse.... Message-ID: <960822213548_100433.1541_BHG38-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UD6Id1.0.VH1.-CD7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/136 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I laughed until I wept when I saw this excuse .... "I'm sorry, I won't be coming into work today. The voices have told me to clean all the guns." Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 15:52:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA14348; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 15:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 15:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:35:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199608222135.OAA24292@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com.August.22, 1996.Thursday@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"GZa0H2.0.zV3.-qD7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/138 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I spoke in jest on electricity. But thinking about it, who knows what characteristics the Moldavian power source has. It might not be wise to compare it equal with with american electricity. -AK- You wrote: > >*** Reply to note of 08/22/96 12:29 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... >AK: I'll draw the line on Moldavian electricity. I think the electrons >look pretty much the same between here and there. However, water >DOES vary in its trace comtaminates here and there. And cavitation >can depend on things like dissolved, non-condensible gasses. Therefore >if Moldavian water has high radium and therefore high radon, it may >cavitate better than "pure" water. MDH > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 15:52:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA12118; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 15:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 15:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:05:30 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... In-Reply-To: <321CCFCC.794BDF32@math.ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"OsVVc2.0.Gz2.efD7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/137 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: General comment. Many have not made the grade on the first try. Plenty of Murphy to go around. I have designed, built, operated, tested, troubleshot, and more ..... systems for DoD, industry, academia, medical community and so on. The ONLY thing I know ... is .... I don't know. And the only thing I can count on is change. I also know I REALLY don't know if I do not or have not seen the gizmo. On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Barry Merriman wrote: > Akira Kawasaki wrote: > > > > > What do you think I suggested when I first heard of the failures back > > in 1995? Get the whole unit. I do not know whether what happened at St. > > Petersburg test failure involved a whole unit or not. > > You are ahead of me. I did not include the Moldavian water. How about > > Moldavian electricity as well? > > > > Actually, thats not a joke. The entire device could be powered > from batteries charged in Moldavia, or from a moldavian generator > driven dy muldavian diesel fuel, for an all Moldavian system > if need be. > > Persoanlly, I have a one shot rule for folks Like Potapov: they > get one shot at vindication. If they blow it, then so long. > > > -- > Barry Merriman > Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program > Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math > Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu > web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 16:46:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA01425; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 16:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 16:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: John Schnurer Cc: Vortex-L Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 16:35:00 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kynUk2.0.BM.wxE7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/139 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John A large huzzah. Jed is so right. Murphy's original comment was to the effect that "if anything 'can'(is able to) go wrong, it will". The whole idea of practice and rehearsals is to be sure your system works when you leave home, and you try not to leave anything to chance by carring spare parts, test equipment, etc. to reduce the chances that anything might go wrong in your demo. The Lord helps those who help themselves. Hank Scudder ___________________ To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... Date: Thursday, August 22, 1996 3:05PM General comment. Many have not made the grade on the first try. Plenty of Murphy to go around. I have designed, built, operated, tested, troubleshot, and more ..... systems for DoD, industry, academia, medical community and so on. The ONLY thing I know ... is .... I don't know. And the only thing I can count on is change. I also know I REALLY don't know if I do not or have not seen the gizmo. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 19:00:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA04230; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:45:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:44:33 -0400 Message-ID: <960822214432_463390119@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"7eZHc2.0.-11.sqG7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/143 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks for the clarification Robert (Eachus). Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 19:01:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA03631; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:42:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:41:43 -0400 Message-ID: <960822214143_463387779@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ZPF and Aether, was Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? Resent-Message-ID: <"fx9s4.0.Xu._nG7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/142 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross, In your model I would expect that if the ether were thinning out with expansion of the universe, and the particles are patterns in the ether, they would balloon up. Since the ether density is the only reference point, then it would not be possible to detect the thinning because everything is relative. I think Dewey Larson had a "ballooning" theory, and this was one of the consequences. Does this track? Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 19:08:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA05446; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:52:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:51:17 -0400 Message-ID: <960822215117_463396091@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? Resent-Message-ID: <"bcA041.0.xK1._wG7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/144 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David Jonsson said: "All ZPE supporters have to explain why ZPE flows into matter and where it comes from." I have published a paper on this. It is that all charged particles are jostled by the ZPE, causing them to radiate, and this radiation is what jostles the particles. I solved the consmological feedback cycle for the particle-radiation equilibrium state and got the cubic-freq ZPE distribution of the right magnitude. BTW, the ZPE "flows into and out of matter" at the same rate. See my paper, H. E. Puthoff, "Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Energy," Phys. Rev. A 40, 4857 (1989); plus reply to comment Phys. Rev. A 44, 3385 (1991). Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 20:47:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA08605; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 20:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 20:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <321D244A.A53@cais.com> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:23:54 -0400 From: Danny Hamilton Reply-To: hamltndt@cais.cais.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b6Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? References: <960822215117_463396091@emout13.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5BYV9.0.I62.NKI7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/145 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal, What if the aether has construct and ZPE is really the same kind of energy transmission we see as light, only at a level of the aether that we do not perceive? Danny -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Danny and Terry Hamilton hamltndt@cais.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 20:50:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA20590; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:06:04 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-L@mail.eskimo.com Subject: D o n t, ignore this Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"6xrDq1.0.e15.HGG7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/141 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The "reply to" bug seems fixed. The current month's archive on the webpage is now automatic! Yay! Realtime updates, no more manual stuff. .....................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-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 22 21:06:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA20202; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:04:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:04:40 -0700 (PDT) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:03:54 -0400 Message-ID: <960822210354_266491423@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... Resent-Message-ID: <"O95ph2.0.Zx4.dEG7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/140 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mark's points are well taken. If Frank can't get a three-phase wattmeter, he should be able to use the power company's meter in the building. I've done this in another context, even using a camcorder to videotape the disc for later analysis. If you're looking at motor loads in the kilowatt range, and in a steady state condition, you can time the disc with a stopwatch and get a reading which is good enough to detect a substantial o/u effect if the Ysumar will operate with flow calorimitry. The scale factors are on the meter. Just make sure no other loads turn on during the run. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 00:23:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA02976; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:12:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199608230712.AAA10723@smudge.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Caution to Joe Champion and Dan York Resent-Message-ID: <"N0V141.0.Ok.qdL7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/147 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A number of people in the group have followed the results reported by Joe and Dan with an open mind and or disbelief. But we have not to my knowledge mentioned or cautioned either of them as to the potential hazards. It is assumed they are cognizant of them which may or may not be the case. In any event, you guys ought to take care and to monitor for gamma, beta, alpha, and neutrons coming out of your devices so that you don't succeed at your breakthrough but irradiate yourselves in the process. If there are no radiations and the processes are real, great. But make certain you are safe first and foremost by assuming that you have succeeded, and taking the required precautions. It makes sense to me that you are doing what you think you are now that I have thought about it. Be careful. Ross Tessien. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 00:23:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA03046; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:12:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199608230712.AAA10729@smudge.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? Resent-Message-ID: <"Q7vad3.0.Wl.zdL7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/149 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >David Jonsson said: > >"All ZPE supporters have to explain why ZPE flows into matter and where it >comes from." > >I have published a paper on this. It is that all charged particles are >jostled by the ZPE, causing them to radiate, and this radiation is what >jostles the particles. I solved the consmological feedback cycle for the >particle-radiation equilibrium state and got the cubic-freq ZPE distribution >of the right magnitude. BTW, the ZPE "flows into and out of matter" at the >same rate. See my paper, H. E. Puthoff, "Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic >Energy," Phys. Rev. A 40, 4857 (1989); plus reply to comment Phys. Rev. A 44, >3385 (1991). > >Hal Puthoff > > An acoustic standing wave has equal amounts of energy flowing in as out. The standing wave is not only driven by ZPE, it is made of the aether that transports the ZPE. As far as an original source of the energy, consider that a giant black hole core of condensed aether breached confinement and was allowed to freely boil in the surrounding low pressure space away from the convergent flow into the black hole. Then that boiling would send acoustic waves throughout the aether and those waves would reflect from the interior of the expanding shock front. The reflections would be multiple, and would set up an internal acoustic nodal structure that would force the condensed aether into droplets, and would force those droplets into the acoustic nodes withing the expanding ball. Now if you have acoustic nodes into which you have confined droplets of condensed aether, then you basically have the standing waves of matter I have been talking about. They would remain coupled to the acoustic nodal structure so long as energy is supplied to maintain the organization of that structure. Well, enter fusion and aether emission. And we are back to solar coronal heating and the like again. It is a round robin process if you just consider aether and condensation. One thing leads to the next and the next and so on. But there are no undefined terms like force, or mass, or entropy, or time, or distance. All of these become defined and understandable of you consider the universe to be an acoustic structure. Ross tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 00:23:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA03004; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:12:39 -0700 Message-Id: <199608230712.AAA10726@smudge.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: ZPF and Aether, was Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? Resent-Message-ID: <"kvgBZ.0.nk.tdL7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/148 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Ross, > >In your model I would expect that if the ether were thinning out with >expansion of the universe, and the particles are patterns in the ether, they >would balloon up. Since the ether density is the only reference point, then >it would not be possible to detect the thinning because everything is >relative. I think Dewey Larson had a "ballooning" theory, and this was one >of the consequences. Does this track? > >Hal Puthoff I don't think so. I think that what is going on is like a constant pressure evaporation process, where the particles are able to maintain the pressure by combining together into groups in what we call "fusion". This releases a percentage of the trapped aether to space as a vapor to buoy the pressure. We well know that "mass" is released when matter fuses, or produces any exothermic reactions. But mass is not defined beyond what it does. If matter exists as acoustic standing waves, then the only velocity at which any aether could be emitted would be the sound speed of the medium, c in the case of aether. So, E = mc^2 simply measures the kinetic energy equivalent of emitting a given amount of mass from the condensed core of matter. If you consider acoustic convergences, you come up with an inverse fourth power for the build up in energy density for a convergent standing wave. This corresponds with many other theories in radiation. But if you consider the total energy of a standing wave where the energy density must be the same but at double the radius (assuming there is a fundamental frequency at which the universe is resonant at about E45 Hz, ie the Planck scale), then you find that the energy density must be multiplied by the volume, and all of a sudden you have a total energy content of some constant times n^7 where n is 1, 2, 3, ... I don't know if I can rule out 1.5, 2.5, ... at this time. If you use mass of electron times 2^7, you get about 62 percent of the mass of muon. If you use mass of electron times 3^7 you get about 61 percent of the mass of tau. And if you use the mass of tau times (3/2)^7, you get the mass of tau. I think that this shows that muon and tau have induced a condensation of the aether in the innermost core at the Planck scale. Actually, I think that the electron is condensing and evaporating at its innermost spherical core, while muon and tau have a spherical shell that is condensing and which surrounds a core that remains condensed and which contains 38 percent of the total mass of the particles. But the total aether content should be proportional to the view factor to space, so if that view is obstructed, then the total amount of aether condensed, ie confined inside, is reduced. the aether that cannot be confined is emitted, and this results in an acceleration just like a rocket ship. The only objection to this scenario is that there is no reason to presume that mass would always be emitted at the speed of light (given current concepts). And so we suppose that mass and energy are the same thing. But if mass is always emitted at the speed of light, then the conversion of mass into energy may have another effect. That of the emission of space. Now when you take a look at coronal mass ejections, solar flares, the heating of the solar wind, the heating of the solar corona, dark matter ( a slowing of a repulsive expansion of space out of galaxies would induce a similar effect to the supposed increase in attractive mass of dark matter at all scales. And, the emission of aether would be present at precisely all of the scales that dark matter must be invoked in order to balance the motions observed). As far as "ballooning", this is not a requirement if matter is forced into resonance by a frequency of energy permeating the universe. And if inflation took place, then the permeation of this acoustic energy makes perfect sense if the aetehr had been condensed and then it evaporated once the confinement was breached. All sorts of mechanism become understandable. The acoustic structure around a particle is its "field". The kinetic flow into a convergence induced by the collapse of a star, if it has enough kinetic energy, will force the condensation of the aether, and thus give birth to a black hole. but a highly pressurized one, and not an attractive mechanism. Thus, if black holes are highly pressurized and filled with condensed aether we would expect to see energetic jets shooting back out into space rather than being forced to look long and hard for a mechanism to confine the emission products into the collimated beams we observe. Lately, I am studying the solar dynamics as they are close to home and we can observe them very well. The GONG project has come up with a principle resonance of the sun at 160 minutes which divides into the period of rotation of the earth exactly 9 times. Oscillators which have the same resonant frequency tend to frequency lock. So I have been looking for the locking of the earth, moon, solar, and other planetary rotational periods. Also, there is a periodicity of 1.3 years in the solar wind. This also happens to correspond to the distances of many stars around our sun, ie 2.6, 3.9, 5.2 .... I need to check into it more to get some better data. But it seems to me (someone who thinks the universe is filled with an aether that is released by nuclear reactions) that other stars in our neighborhood must feel the emissions of the aether by our sun, and vice versa. So I am seeking these links. but if you consider the particles as acoustic standing waves with a condensation process involved, no you won't get ballooning IMO. that is unless you fail to react enough fusion reactions to maintain the pressure approximately constant. In that event (ie a region in the universe where stars did not form so fusion is not taking place), then I would expect some of the standing waves to decay into free aether or smaller particles. But this is not representative of our current or distant past universe. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 00:25:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA02949; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:12:33 -0700 Message-Id: <199608230712.AAA10721@smudge.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"gQq6f2.0.yj.mdL7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/146 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Carl Weiman and Eric Cornell formed a stationary condensate by using a >magnetic field to eject "warm" atoms from the condensate. The field >rotated at a high rpm for stability. The whole experiment was done for >under $50,000. Way above amateur budgets, but an amazing feat for such an >advance of legitimate science. > This confinement technique, while involving very cold stuff is very similar to laser inertial confinement fusion technique where the frequencies of the laser beams are intentionally de-tuned in order to induce a precession of the constructive and destructive nodal structure in three space around the plasma. This way the ions cannot escape through "cold spots" in the plasma. The magnetic field rotations are to me the same thing. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 07:33:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA28840; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 07:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 07:21:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:20:25 -0400 Message-ID: <960823102024_185981272@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ZPF and Aether, was Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? Resent-Message-ID: <"w3sk4.0.Y27.FvR7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/151 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross, Thanks for further clarification on your model. With regard to the thinning process and the ballooning hypothesis, the "speed of light" would presumably change, being determined by the density of the medium. If that were the case, then maybe ballooning could occur, but would never be measured because the change in "c" would mask the measurements process (which depends on c). Just rambling, but thought I'd mention the possibility! Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 07:50:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA00734; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 07:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 07:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 07:32:20 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Additional Information (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"JG0Bt2.0.JB.u3S7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/152 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here's an interesting bit from the Joe Newman discussion list. I'm passing it on because you might find the part about the patent office interesting. I wonder what would happen if the CF community banded together and started a class action suit against the patent office? Or are they letting through enough CF patents that this is no longer needed? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 15:27:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Evan Soule Reply-To: neotech@xbn.shore.net To: Multiple recipients of list NEOTECH Subject: Additional Information FOLLOW-UP TO THE EARLIER INFORMATION POSTED ON THE NEWMAN FORUM: The following is additional information from an original Transcript prepared by Joseph Newman's attorney John Flannery: THE INVENTION THE FILING. Joseph Newman, an inventor from Lucedale, Mississippi, has been issued a number of patents for mechanical devices; none of these inventions, however, are as dramatic as the patent application for a device he's researched since the early 1960s and for which he has sought a patent since the late 1970s. One embodiment of Newman's invention is a powerful permanent magnet intercepting conductive wires of coils, powered only by dry cell batteries, which produces more electrical and other energy than the energy required to run it, that is, exclusive of whatever energy is produced by the permanent magnet. THE PROCESS Joseph Newman posits a technical process involving "gyroscopic" particles that orbit in a magnetic field. He has found that the behavior of an electric current in a magnetic field is predictable by positing the existence of such particles with the torque, angular momentum and other characteristics evidenced by a gyroscope, itself reacting to external forces. THE WORKING MODEL Joseph Newman patent attorney told him in 1979 that in order to prove to others that his process worked, Newman would have to build a working model. So Joseph Newman did just that. In accordance with the scientific method, Newman's novel particle process, as described, accurately anticipated the successful operation of the 5,000 pound prototype he produced at the insistence of his patent attorney; in fact Newman built several prototypes. The construction of the prototype is relatively simple: a) The only external power input is a battery pack (dry cell batteries). b) The stationary part of the device, the stator, is an inductance coil that is disproportionately large to the length, size, weight and number of turns of wire. c) There is a commutator, a switching device, to switch voltage polarity through the coil. d) Finally, there is a large rotating permanent magnet, actually an array of magnets, unique because the force put out by the magnetic array is much stronger in proportion to the stator's inductance. The characteristics of the operating prototype, designed so that anyone can appreciate that the machine worked as predicted, follow: a) When you turn the device on, there is a measurable battery voltage and current input, as you would expect. b) For every 180 degrees that the magnet turns, every half-rotation, a very large counter electromotive force (EMF) pulse is measurable at the input to the inductance coil; it is a multiple of the input voltage at the instant the polarity switches by means of the commutator. That is due to the excessively large size of the inductance coil. Similarly, the direction of the current into the coil is reversed at every half turn. c) The battery life is much longer than the stated manufacturer's rating, lasting longer than those batteries used in conventional energy-producing motors. d) Finally, the machine produces more external output energy than the external input energy required to run it. This is why Joseph Newman claims that his engine is more efficient than any previous motor or generator. He does not claim it runs forever, only longer. He has plainly stated that his device is not a perpetual motion machine, since it stops. [Note: because of the conversion efficiencies of the system, it has been estimated that a given unit will operate far longer than any motors ever built, based upon the prior art. Periodic replacement of bearings/brushes may be needed, due to normal wear. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ The following are excerpts from the Deposition of U.S. Patent Examiner Donovan Duggan. Duggan is the original examiner who attached the label of "perpetual motion" to Joseph Newman's technology; Duggan is also the Examiner who told Joseph Newman that, "I don't believe you will ever be issued a patent no matter what evidence you present." [Note: On September 12, 1983, a Federal District Court in Texas found that Donovan F. Duggan's "knowledge of electrical theory may have been inadequate for his responsibilities." (See Lindsey vs. the United States, Civ. Action Nos. TX-79-60-CA. TX-81-39-CA.) This Texas case involved the same Examiner Duggan and another inventor, Ralph Lindsey. The Federal District Court in Texas also found that Examiner Duggan rejected the patent application of Ralph Lindsey because he (Duggan) "misunderstood" the nature of the device and therefore "carelessly and incorrectly perceived" it to be a "perpetual motion machine." The Court found that Duggan summarily rejected the Lindsey application with a "cryptic comment" failing to provide "such clear and full disclosure of reasons for rejection as required by the regulations." The Court found that once Duggan was "convinced" it was a "perpetual motion machine," he "seemed unable to consider the design on its own merits." The Texas Court concluded that, as a result of Duggan's negligence, Lindsey failed to receive a patent that was later issued instead to a Mr. Davis for a similar device.] ______________________________________________________________________________ I have posted these Depositional excerpts in Duggan's own words, because this is the human being who saw fit to pass judgement upon Joseph Newman technology. This is the individual who, in general, has been passing judgement on new technology that comes before him. Had Joseph Newman the good fortune to have his technology evaluated by a more intellectually honest individual --- or at least a more intelligent one --- Joseph Newman may well have had his patent issued to him as early as 1980. By refusing him his patent, an injustice has been perpetrated which continues up to the present. ______________________________________________________________________________ THE EXCERPTS: Q. = ATTORNEY JOHN P. FLANNERY, II A. = PATENT EXAMINER DONOVAN F. DUGGAN Q. Mr. Duggan, would you please state your background, your education, and employment in the Patent Office, for the record? A. Education, you want from college, is that it? Q. Yes. A. I graduated from the Naval Academy in 1957; served a limited time in the Marine Corps, was honorably discharged; started to work at the Army Map Service, I believe in 1963. In 1964 I transferred to the Patent and Trademark Office, after having enrolled at Georgetown University Law Center at night. I worked during the days, went to law school at night. I ultimately graduated from the University of Baltimore Law School, I believe it was 1969. I've been at the Patent Office ever since 1964. Q. What is your current position and what are your current responsibilities? A. I'm a primary examiner with a so-called expert rating. I examine applications for patents. Q. Do you have full signatory authority? A. Yes. Q. When you say you have expert rating, what are you expert at? A. That's, so to speak, a man in the job designation that involves a particular class of art. In this case it would be motor and generator structure. Q. Have you published anything about perpetual motion machines yourself? A. No. Q. Have you ever given any addresses or speeches about the subject? A. No. Q. Have you received any formal training or education relating to perpetual motion machines? A. No. Q. How did you gain this experience in perpetual motion machines? A. Like I say, I never considered myself an expert, or I wouldn't term myself an expert in perpetual motion. How that came to be, I'm not quite sure, to be honest with you. Q. Are you familiar with Maxwell's Field Theory of Magnetism? A. I don't recall right offhand. Q. Could you explain what you understand the theory of hysteresis --- electrical hysteresis --- to be? A. I don't quite understand that question. Q. Well, you're familiar are you not, that there is an electrical principle known as hysteresis? A. I've heard of it. Q. Do you know anything about it? A. --- with magnetism --- it's associated with magnetism. Q. All right. Do you know anyting about it outside of what you just said, that it's associated with magnetism? A. I --- I've --- I may know something about it. Q. Could you define the term? A. It's sort of a --- no --- I don't think I can, at the moment. Not off hand. Q. Do you know what relationship, if any, it bears to magnetism? A. I believe that over a certain cyclical magnetic --- for example cycling something from a magnetic field, it would tend to exhibit hysteresis. For example, iron to some extent can be magnetized by the hysteresis effect. Is that what you have in mind? Q. Yes sir. Can you explain the theory more completely than than to me? A. Not at the moment. I'd have to go to a textbook. ____________________________________________________________________ Examiner Duggan is the "expert" who is responsible for passing judgement upon Joseph Newman's Technology and labeling it a "perpetual motion machine." ____________________________________________________________________ Additionally: Joseph Newman's attorney, John Flannery, later deposed Jere William Seres, attorney for the Patent Office. In the process of this Deposition, Flannery questioned Seres about discussions Seres may have had with Examiner Duggan. Q. = Joseph Newman's Attorney Flannery A. = Patent Office's Attorney Seres Q. Did Duggan discuss with you anything about the Deposition that you attended in the Lindsey Case? [Note: Lindsey was another inventor who had a lawsuit against the Patent Office involving Examiner Duggan] A. You mean in this (case)? --- yes, I think I cracked a joke. Q. What was it? A. Something to the effect, I cautioned Duggan to be sure to know the definition of electrical hysteresis this time. Q. What did he say to that? A. He just laughed. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ It's a sad commentary upon the Patent Office and the fostering and protection of innovation, when the evaluation of new technology --- which could dramatically benefit people across this country and the world --- is placed in the hands of "experts" such as Examiner Donovan F. Duggan. Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 -> Neotech Mailing list -> Post to: listserv@xbn.shore.net -> Subscribe neotech From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 07:54:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA24411; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 03:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 03:47:48 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:47:10 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <321d8c11.42945364@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <9608201034.AA27573@joshua.math.ucla.edu> <321b8fe8.18333793@mail.netspace.net.au> <321C051A.167EB0E7@math.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <321C051A.167EB0E7@math.ucla.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"euOoX3.0.Lz5.JnO7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/150 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:58:34 -0700, Barry Merriman wrote: >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: [snip] >> I am then talking about the De Broglie wavelength of the particles >> relative to their motion with regard to one another. Not relative to >> their motion with regard to that of the observer. > >That is fine...of course, no one was ever really using the >observer frame. The only common use of DB wavelength is=20 >for computing particle diffraction from a crystalline lattice, >and if you want the calculation of that to be at all tractible, >you better do it in the frame where the crystal lattice is at rest. Barry, isn't the frame in which the lattice as a whole is at rest, the lab frame? And isn't that the frame of the observer? And aren't you using exactly what you say no one ever really uses? The point is, that while the lattice as a whole is on average at rest, the individual atoms are not. And in order to follow my line of thought, it is necessary to drop the frame of reference determined by the average motion of the atoms (i.e. that of the whole lattice), and adopt a frame determined by individual atoms. >From the point of view of an outside observer, this frame is vibrating furiously. [snip] >> The reason for this is that it is based upon Coulomb forces, which in >> turn represent average behaviours. It doesn't recognise the fact that >> something special happens when the Compton frequency waves that >> underly the De Broglie wave are in phase. > >Do you have any evidence at all for that statement? The counter >evidence is that the entire theory of solid state physics is >based on the good old coulomb force as we know it, and it didn't >seem to lead us astray in the many phenomena which it has accurately >described. If wavelnegth resonances altered the coulomb force, we >almost certainly would have a load of dissagreements between theoretical >and experimental solid state physics, all CF stuff aside. And we did. So many in fact that it was necessary to invent a new "force" to account for them. It came to be called the "strong" or "nuclear" force. > >A better point of view migfht be this: it is an amusing hypothesis >that the coulomb force my have undetected quantum corrections. So, >what is an ideal experiment to look for such deviations? Dr. Puthoff >probably could come up with something... [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 08:43:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA15066; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 08:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 08:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608231525.IAA17587@nz1.netzone.com> X-Sender: discpub@netzone.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 08:34:04 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Caution to Joe Champion and Dan York Resent-Message-ID: <"xwHf1.0.Ch3.8yS7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/153 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:12 AM 8/23/96 -0700, you wrote: >[snip.....] >It makes sense to me that you are doing what you think you are now that I >have thought about it. Be careful. > >Ross Tessien. > Ross, I totally agree with you. It is for this sole reason (the unknowns) that the reactor is in Dallas and I am in Phoenix. By using this strategy, if something goes astray, I will be able to gather up the pieces, record the data and report the findings to the group. I hope that you realize that this is Champion's levity. Safety studies have been accomplished on the reaction in use now for the past three years. It is impossible to say for sure, but best efforts are utilized to prevent toxicity (chemical and /or nuclear). _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 09:23:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA23328; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:04:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:04:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:04:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199608231604.JAA16764@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: ZPF and Aether, was Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? Resent-Message-ID: <"6bH0j.0.Mi5.JQT7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/154 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Ross, > >Thanks for further clarification on your model. With regard to the thinning >process and the ballooning hypothesis, the "speed of light" would presumably >change, being determined by the density of the medium. If that were the >case, then maybe ballooning could occur, but would never be measured because >the change in "c" would mask the measurements process (which depends on c). > >Just rambling, but thought I'd mention the possibility! > >Hal Puthoff > Yes you are correct here. If there were a change in the density, from inside we would struggle to look for an assymetry in numbers of gravitational lensing events as a function of distance or other obscure cosmological details in order to attempt to detect it. Not a simple matter. But consider this. Schroedinger had modeled matter as a standing wave composed of a series of coincident wave forms. This would be what would happen if you had a material aether, and an essentially rectilinear nodal structure of space (due to the arrival of Planck scale wave energy from all of the rest of the universe) that is rectilinear (it can have, and I think it does, a helical curvature in three dimensions which is extremely difficult to visualize but I think I got it). Also, make one more assumption that the aether can undergo a change in phase to a more dense structure given sufficient energy density (ie pressure and thus plain old density). Actually the only real assumption here is of the phase change, as to me it is simple, plain, and evident that the universe is filled with something which transports waves from here to there. If you have the above conditions, then Lorentz' objection to Schroedinger is invalidated. With a core that undergoes a non linear phase change, you have a mechanism for maintaining a coherent convergent standing wave. Imagine this like the formation of fog that occurs spontaneously over the top of an airplane wing on take off or landing in humid air. The difference being that in this case the pressure near the interior of the standing wave is intense, but the kinetic energy is being traded for potential because each spherical shell has motions that move in and out, cyclicly. All this really does is to set up a condition where the universe has a large number of coupled oscillators. And that sets up a condition where the nodal structure of space has a lot of momentum coupled to it (as that is in essence another oscillator, and since the particle standing waves live in the acoustic nodes, space and matter are coupled. So, if you wish to accelerate, you must alter the resonant frequency of your matter. Enter inertia). But as far as the velocity of light is concerned above, if you have the pressure of space remaining essentially constant throughout time, then you will not observe such a change. The only marked velocity change I have found would occur when the universe could no longer release enough aether in order to maintain the resonance organization of the nodal structure of space. Fusion reactions do this today. but what if the whole of the universe was made of iron (or a large percentage)? Then stars would shut down and release no more aether. The pressure would markedly drop, and matter would no longer be stable. New combinations would be allowed that would again set the evaporation in motion. One change analogous to this has already occured. A kinetic convergence induced by a black hole collapse would impose the same sort of compression as in the core of a particle. So, a black hole would in this model have not a singularity, but rather a large, highly compressed, denser state of aether wanting to explode outward but being confined inertially by the in flow of space itself along with the aether carrying that nodal structure. (see you need to think of space as the acoustic nodal structure that exists in the aether vapor just like sound in air, but where the nodes are at E-35 meters.) So, what happens if the core fills up the interior such that its surface reaches the event horizon at which the aether has the velocity c and enough kinetic energy to condense itself?. Well, it will explode outward and vaporize (normally the polar vortices will be first to breach and jets will be emitted, but if the jets thrust the core out of the convergence then the entire core could breach all at once. (See NGC 4261, suspected black hole 20 light years off center) In any case, if you had that core and it began to expand, the sound speed inside would be tremendous, and the interior would become acoustically connected and shaped during that expansion as the "liquid" was "atomized" into droplets of that condensate. Those droplets would have no choice but to be in the acoustic nodes, because in the nodes they would be the last to vaporize. And so you arrive at the present where the expansive evaporation continues, and a large number of droplets still exist. And the current manner of evaporation is in combining one standing wave form adjacent to another so that they shield each other from the waves of deep space. ************************************************ Hal, consider what gravitation would be like with this model. It is so simple, and proven mathematically identical that I cannot fathom that others have not considered this. Well, some people have considered particle flux and gravitational shielding, but why have people not considered wave interference. Here is a simple example I used last night at dinner with some friends. We were listening to the crickets in the woods. It was clear that there was more sound coming from the crickets in the woods, than from behind us (reflecting off of the walls of the restaurant which you can think of as the wave energy that came all the way through the earth and was not damped). Now, it is obvious that there was energy contained in those sound waves. So our bodies were attenuating some of that energy, and reflecting some of that energy. Both acts result in thrust to our bodies away from the crickets. What would happen if the crickets were all around me? Nothing. no net thrust. What would happen to an oscillator tuned to the pitch of the crickets in that energy structure? It would oscillate at the frequency of the incoming waves and set up local acoustic organization of its own, powered from the outside (underdamped oscillators experience an amplification ratio for their resonance like a kid on a swing). Now what would happen if the incoming wave energy has a spread of frequencies? Well now you are getting into interesting territory. The resonator here would resonate with the most regular arrivals of energy. And those would be the notes sung by the nearest crickets since the power of individual emissions is greately attenuated with distance. But there are a large number of crickets at large distance, so the sum of their power is large. And with that we can add the Hubble expansion, resulting Doppler shift, and you have gravitation as an acoustic interference between coupled oscillators. The shifted energy will be attenuated by all matter to a degree (this is due to the non linear condensation in the cores of the standing waves so you see the one process comes in over and over in black holes, big bang, matter, virtual particles and on and on). The more matter, the more attenuation. So, when we listen to our crickets way out in space (distant matter standing waves in the ocean of aether in which we live), it turns out that they are moving away from us and their pitch is reduced a bit. So, that frequency does not mesh with our resonance and there is beating. That out of frequency energy will be attenuated, and in that process there will be a thrust exerted on the matter that attenuated the waves. But what if you are near another blob of matter? Well, each body will shield the other from the sound coming from deep space by means of their respective attenuations. The derivation of this was first put forward by Le Sage way back when Newton was working on this stuff. And so the sound of the shifted, interfering crickets coming from the direction of our shield, the earth, is reduced as compared to the sound of those same crickets over head. Thus, we are pushed down to a greater degree than we are pushed upward and away from the earth. ergo, differential gravitation. Note that gravitation is still a mechanism that is not attractive and repulsive. It is a repulsive mechanism only. But then, there are no attractive mechanisms in such a universe whatever. All forces are due to the repulsions of the build up in density of aether which is when possible, exchanged for a kinetic motion of the aether. So, I have; 1 aether material filling the universe. 1 force mechanism that gives rise to the others at different scales of acoustic interaction. 1 phase change process for the aether. And, the supposition that I think therefore I, and the univerese, are. The last supposition requires that there be something going on and while a given to most, I thought I would add it because I am really assuming that all of these things I see like this computer actually do exist in this medium. With those three things, you can derive matter, forces including gravitation, inertia, energy, (get rid of dark matter, explain solar coronal heating...). Well, I think that there is no other manner than to have a fully interconnected universe, and I think that this model is at the foundation of that interconnection. The breadth of the qualitative fit and the beauty of the simplicity (once you get comfortable with things like phased array radar couplings in an acoustic environment) is very compelling to me. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 09:45:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA27352; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 23 Aug 1996 09:11:09 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Re: Caution to Joe Champion and Dan York To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/23/96 09:11:46 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"D2TSn3.0.Gh6.9jT7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/155 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/23/96 08:37 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Caution to Joe Champion and Dan York As I understand it, Dan York is bald as a bowling ball, and already has grown children....therefore radiation exposure is not of concern at this time. (He has been complaining that his third arm is giving him trouble.) MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 10:06:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA08081; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 08:58:54 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Caution to Joe Champion and Dan York Resent-Message-ID: <"eDyCZ3.0.B-1.1AU7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/156 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 12:12 AM 8/23/96 -0700, you wrote: > >>[snip.....] >>It makes sense to me that you are doing what you think you are now that I >>have thought about it. Be careful. >> >>Ross Tessien. >> > >Ross, I totally agree with you. It is for this sole reason (the unknowns) >that the reactor is in Dallas and I am in Phoenix. By using this strategy, >if something goes astray, I will be able to gather up the pieces, record the >data and report the findings to the group. > >I hope that you realize that this is Champion's levity. Safety studies have >been accomplished on the reaction in use now for the past three years. It >is impossible to say for sure, but best efforts are utilized to prevent >toxicity (chemical and /or nuclear). > >_______________________________ >Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com >I have measured 350 degrees at the surface of the Hg when it was >violently throwing out the electrolyte. Mostly I stay well back out of the >way when the cell is displaying this aberrant behavior. [snip] >I can promise you that it is impressive when you are the one that has to clean >up the mess when the cell throws the electrolyte and salts 12 feet into the >air. It might have gone higher but the now rusting sheet steel roof is at 12 >feet. [snip] > >Dan York I too have cautioned Dan about radiation and toxicity. It appears at minimum he is creating mercury vapor at toxic levels in a confined space, and at maximum he is having a nuclear reaction of some kind go critical. Notice any hair loss Dan? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 11:03:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA23107; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 13:49:05 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: Re: # 1 Needed: Superconductor Materials Sources (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"GyOU71.0.xe5.izU7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/157 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: # 1 Needed: Superconductor Materials Sources We have a present immediate need of reliable sources for materials known to be superconductors. We have interest in the following; 1) metal stock including but not limited to wire, tubing, plate or other made of niobium-tin and ANY other material which you consider to be effective as superconductor at any temperature. 2) any and all alloy fitting general description above in [1]. 3) powdered material as in [1] and [2] We have extreme an immediate interest in the "HTC", or high temperature superconductor material including but not limited to the 123 perovskite structure type and any and all other material which is considered useful. We are especially interested in already prepared "HTC" of the best quality and ready to be used or ready to be used with minimal time and investment overhead. We ask these questions of you believing you, collectively, to be a useful and knowledgable resource. We ask if you are not, for any reason, the correct parties to ask thet you please help guide us to the correct parties. We are in possession of an unique method for configuring and applying superconductor material and may consider a transfer of technology of present and possibly future developments. We have, at present, been able to use our unique methodology to advantage in several areas of materials' science real world application. Thank you for your valuable time. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 11:49:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA00332; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 11:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 11:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:21:00 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199608231821.OAA03016@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <321CCFCC.794BDF32@math.ucla.edu> (message from Barry Merriman on Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:23:24 -0700) Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... Resent-Message-ID: <"w_bN92.0.x4.tQV7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/158 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Barry Merriman (barry@math.ucla.edu) said: > Akira Kawasaki wrote: > > > > What do you think I suggested when I first heard of the failures back > > in 1995? Get the whole unit. I do not know whether what happened at St. > > Petersburg test failure involved a whole unit or not. > > You are ahead of me. I did not include the Moldavian water. How about > > Moldavian electricity as well? > Actually, thats not a joke. The entire device could be powered > from batteries charged in Moldavia, or from a moldavian generator > driven dy muldavian diesel fuel, for an all Moldavian system > if need be... If it works at 50 Hz but not 60, it may be very far from a joke. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 12:55:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA21324; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 11:43:19 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: # 1 Needed: Superconductor Materials Sources (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"uzMRR3.0.1D5.vZW7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/159 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Subject: Re: # 1 Needed: Superconductor Materials Sources > > We have a present immediate need of reliable sources for >materials known to be superconductors. We have interest in the following; > > 1) metal stock including but not limited to wire, tubing, plate >or other made of niobium-tin and ANY other material which you consider to >be effective as superconductor at any temperature. > 2) any and all alloy fitting general description above in [1]. > 3) powdered material as in [1] and [2] > Following is a dump of a spreadsheet on such. You might be able to cut and paste into your spreadsheet program, or just use by changing "," to tab everywhere in a word processor. The fields are company, state, type of material (C = coatings or film, M = materials or components, W = wire), phone, FAX. Advanced Ceramics Inc.,NJ,M,609-397-2900,609-397-2708 Alfa Aesar Johnson Matthes,MA,M,800-343-0660,508-521-6350 All-Chemie LTD,SC,M,803-884-4400,803-884-0560 Alloys International Inc.,NY,W,516-342-0043,516-342-0051 Angstrom Sciences,PA,M,412-462-2777,412-462-2780 California Fine Wire Co.,CA,W,805-489-5144,805-489-5352 Commercial Crystal Labs Inc.,FL,M,914-643-5959,914-643-6058 ESDI Inc.,NY,C,516-563-8278,516-563-8231 G & J Steel & Tubing Inc.,NJ,W,800-322-8823,908-526-9487 G&S Titanium,OH,W,800-860-0564,330-262-1550 GE Co.,CT,M,800-626-2004, Grove Grundilling Inc.,ME,W,207-743-7051,207-743-7083 Hitachi Cable America,NY,M,800-394-0234,914-993-0990 HITC Superconductors Inc.,NJ,M,609-397-2700,609-397-2708 Hypres Inc.,NY,M,914-592-1190,914-347-2239 IGC Advanced Superconductors Inc.,CT,W,203-753-5215,203-753-2096 Innovare Inc.,PA,M,610-837-8830, Intermagnetics General Corp.,NY,M,518-786-1122, InterWire Group,NY,W,800-799-4978,914-273-6510 MolecuWire Corp.,NJ,W,908-938-9473,908-938-3189 Omega Engiuneering Inc.,CT,W,800-826-6342,203-359-7700 Oxford Superconducting Technology,NJ,W,908-541-1300,908-541-7769 Rea Engineeered Wire Products Inc.,IN,W,219-422-4252,219-422-4246 SAES Getters USA Inc.,CO ,M,719-576-3200,719-576-5025 Satcon Technology Corp.,MA,M,800-663-4916,617-661-3373 SonoTec Corp.,NY,C,917-795-2020,914-795-2720 Superconductive Componenets,OH ,M,800-346-6567,800-292-8654 Superconductor Tech Inc.,CA,M,805-683-8527,805-683-8527 Superconix Inc. ,MN,M,612-222-0046,612-222-0049 "Superconix, Inc.",MN,W,612-222-0046,612-222-0049 Vacuumschmelze (Siemens),NJ,M,908-494-3530,908-603-5994 Watteredge Uniflex Inc.,OH,W,216-871-9215,216-933-8248 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 13:00:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA22579; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:45:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199608231945.MAA19414@smudge.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Help; web cite for earth gravitational data. Resent-Message-ID: <"2Vvg61.0.jW5.9gW7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/160 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Greetings; Does anyone in the group know of a cite where I might find some information of the gravitational field strength of the earth as a function of lattitude? I think it would be a NASA geodetic survey or something but can't seem to find a web cite to get the data. I was just hoping someone had gotten involved in this and had a cite. Thanks, Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 13:05:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA24995; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:52:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199608231952.MAA00710@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... Resent-Message-ID: <"jv2S83.0.S66.LpW7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/161 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > If it works at 50 Hz but not 60, it may be very far from a joke. > > > Robert I. Eachus Yes, resonances pop up all over the place in CF devices. If you run something at 6/5 the frequency you are not replicating the original process. The distances between components if there are time delays etc for the arrivals of wave fronts would be out of synchronization if the power is of a different frequency. That would be like detuning the pendulums on Huygens clocks and then being confused as to why they no longer frequency locked together. The resonances, if they are there at any stage in a device, must be close enough to synchronize and lock. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 14:17:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA10953; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 23 Aug 1996 13:57:13 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Gravitational Info.... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/23/96 13:57:18 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"0FC672.0.zg2.NmX7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/162 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Gravitational Info.... - Try the U.S. G.S. (United States Geological Survey). Lots of data there, including magnetic and graviational isobar maps for the whole U.S. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 14:32:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA15377; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:12:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199608232112.OAA08453@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Help; web cite for earth gravitational data. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"0Fsje3.0.Am3.cxX7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/163 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: You wrote: > >Greetings; > >Does anyone in the group know of a cite where I might find some information >of the gravitational field strength of the earth as a function of lattitude? > >I think it would be a NASA geodetic survey or something but can't seem to >find a web cite to get the data. I was just hoping someone had gotten >involved in this and had a cite. > >Thanks, Ross > > 8/23/96 Check with NOAA. RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 15:26:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA03794; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 15:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 15:08:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199608232200.PAA04033@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: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 15:01:11 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Help; web cite for earth gravitational data. Resent-Message-ID: <"_7QaH2.0.4x.HlY7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/164 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:45 PM 8/23/96 -0700, you wrote: >Greetings; > >Does anyone in the group know of a cite where I might find some information >of the gravitational field strength of the earth as a function of lattitude? > >I think it would be a NASA geodetic survey or something but can't seem to >find a web cite to get the data. I was just hoping someone had gotten >involved in this and had a cite. > >Thanks, Ross > > I am also interested in finding such data. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 16:00:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA14215; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: 23 Aug 96 18:42:12 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Possible answer to Yusmar problem Message-ID: <960823224212_100433.1541_BHG88-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"j8JpT3.0._T3.zGZ7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/165 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Just a thought. If the Yusmar 'sings', then this raises a possibility. Think of a flute or penny-whistle, it makes no noise if you don't blow hard enough. If you blow too hard, it makes no noise. If you slowly increase flow from zero, it starts to work and sets up back-pressure - its impedance goes up. If the pump is a quality product, then it won't be much affected. The flow keeps going up, and eventually the flute stops making any noise - it is over-blown. Now, imagine it is a cheapo pump with plenty of clearance. Do the same thing, and the pump just can't 'over-blow' the flute. 1. We hear that the Yusmar 'sounds' in a certain way when it is doing whatever Yusmars do. 2. We know - I've seen the things - that the pumps used in Moldova are - er, well, they have big clumsy blades and plenty of clearance. 3. The US pumps are much better quality, and maybe give much higher flow rate anyway. Add all that together, substitute Yusmar for flute - and one good-looking possibility is that if the pump has a pressure-control gizmo - a loop around the pump itself which makes it 'leak' like a Moldovan pump - then (maybe with a lower-power pump) it might well work. I chatted about this just now with Norman Horwood, who suggests that a simple flow restrictor (variable) would do the same trick. I'm not at all sure, because I think that a looping-back pressure restrictor might be closer to the poor-quality pump. Maybe it just isn't worth exploring these ideas, but I thought I would chuck it in the pot anyway. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 17:29:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA09402; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:25:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:25:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: 23 Aug 96 20:23:46 EDT From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Help; web cite for earth gravitational data. Message-ID: <960824002346_75110.3417_CHK64-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qNR2c1.0.qI2.Cma7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/166 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Ross, Michael, >> I am also interested in finding such data. Me, too. And I've been looking and asking for more than 2 years (also, I've been trying to find out the temp of the water under the ice on Antarctica -- 2 different news reports have given it as 20 C and 70 F -- a little too warm, wouldn't you think?). Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 17:49:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA12293; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 19:40:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199608240040.TAA27114@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: vacation Resent-Message-ID: <"KVb1e3.0.z_2.Z-a7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/167 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hey gang, I'm going to install my son in college next week. I probably won't respond to anything here until Wed Sep 4th. 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-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 18:13:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA16611; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:02:29 -0700 Message-Id: <199608240102.SAA11626@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Help; web cite for earth gravitational data. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"0vbKz1.0.N34.VJb7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/168 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: snip >8/23/96 > >Check with NOAA. > >RWW > > 8/23/96 I think this information may be archived in Asheville, NC. NOAA has a very large archival division there. It's worth a call. A fellow by the name of Bruce Blankenship will help you if he's still there. RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 20:19:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA08707; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960824031809.007241ec@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:18:09 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Help; web cite for earth gravitational data. Resent-Message-ID: <"jrvJD3.0.z72.VDd7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/169 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:23 PM 8/23/96 EDT, you wrote: >Hi Ross, Michael, > >>> I am also interested in finding such data. > >Me, too. And I've been looking and asking for more than 2 years (also, I've >been trying to find out the temp of the water under the ice on Antarctica -- 2 >different news reports have given it as 20 C and 70 F -- a little too warm, >wouldn't you think?). > > Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) > > > Well, I hope you heard on the news recently about the underground lake found in Antarctica. ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 23 23:19:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA16967; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 23:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 23:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 96 02:06:25 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: RE: Possible answer to Yusmar problem To: Vortex , vortex-l@eskimo.com X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"8_9ud2.0.194.Yuf7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/170 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Chris, I have been working along the same lines. My approach is to use a DC motor with variable speed to drive the pump. I will let you know how it works out. Robert From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 00:06:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA23358; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 00:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 00:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: 24 Aug 96 03:01:30 EDT From: Wolfram Bahmann <100276.261@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Energy from the ZPF Message-ID: <960824070130_100276.261_JHF61-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"zTjEE.0.pi5.eag7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/171 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chris, could you possibly provide a copy of that videotape Fantastic Future. Where it was shown and by which broadcasting corporation. Is it worth looking at ? Regards, Wolfram Bahmann Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. - EURO. SECR. Feyermuehler Str.12 D-53894 MECHERNICH Germany fax: Int+49/ 2443-8221 e-mail: 100276.261@compuserve.com HAVE A LOOK TO OUR NEW HOME PAGE on WWW: http://energie.keng.de/~pace From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 00:14:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA24696; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 00:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 00:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: 24 Aug 96 03:09:51 EDT From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Help; web cite for earth gravitational data. Message-ID: <960824070951_75110.3417_CHK27-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"FpbBe3.0.i16.Rig7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/172 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Gary, >> Well, I hope you heard on the news recently about the underground lake found in Antarctica. << Missed that one. I assume it's 'underice' and not underground. As I recall, water makes a pretty good lubricant for ice. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 01:07:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA29918; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 01:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 01:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 02:04:04 -0600 (MDT) From: -=steve=- X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vacation In-Reply-To: <199608240040.TAA27114@natashya.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"rIJ5g.0.OJ7.HTh7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/173 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 23 Aug 1996, Scott Little wrote: > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 19:40:54 -0500 (CDT) > From: Scott Little > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: vacation > Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:41:08 -0700 (PDT) > Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Hey gang, I'm going to install my son in college next week. I probably > won't respond to anything here until Wed Sep 4th. > > 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) > GO DAD! I have One there and three on the way..(high school now..) I admire your 'PUSH'.. It shouldn't be needed, BUT, I wish I was pushed and guided 'earlier'.. instead of almamater'd! .. Take CARE , Take TIME (brief), & LET GO! (hardest) and LET 'em GROW!! we/YOU Have DONE ALL THAT CAN BEEN DONE at this point.. CROSS Your Fingers & Smile. They tread their path, .. answers follow! -=steve=- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 03:38:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA09866; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 03:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 03:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 03:35:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199608241035.DAA29381@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Possible answer to Yusmar problem To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: 100433.1541@compuserve.com.August.24, 1996.Saturday@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"eJqzT2.0.0Q2.zhj7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/174 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Chris, I see you have used the musical instrument analogy to repeat what I have mentioned in a mouth whistle analogy. That is, the Yusmar has to be "tuned" by a narrow range of fluid pressure for it to effect O/U. It occurred to me also after my earlier post on what Dacha (Robert) said he was testing with a DC motor: To vary the input power to the pump to vary the fluid pressure to the Yusmar --- so Robert has a Yusmar--- Well, at least one person is proceeding to test beside Fznidarsic. How about Earth Tech and 'Gene's group? At this time, are their interest peaked enough to test their Yusmars again --- barring limitations of funding, time, and facilities? Replication of O/U has been one of the objects in the mad scramble to the Yusmars. The other object, need I say it?, is to grasp the economic consequences of establishing O/U and grabbing Control/Fame/Fortune (or pieces of it). Normal human nature I guess. The failure at the St. Petersburg Yusmar test, which you attended, has never been elaborated upon except the failure. It might in retrospect been a victim of circumstances that killed the O/U effect of the 'whole" Yusmar unit. This could have been the water, electrical, mechanical, instrumentation, or deliberate human intervention. I wonder. Sincerely, Akira Kawasaki You wrote: > >Just a thought. If the Yusmar 'sings', then this raises a possibility. >Think of a flute or penny-whistle, it makes no noise if you don't blow >hard enough. If you blow too hard, it makes no noise. If you slowly >increase flow from zero, it starts to work and sets up back-pressure - >its impedance goes up. If the pump is a quality product, then it won't >be much affected. The flow keeps going up, and eventually the flute >stops making any noise - it is over-blown. > >Now, imagine it is a cheapo pump with plenty of clearance. Do the same >thing, and the pump just can't 'over-blow' the flute. > >1. We hear that the Yusmar 'sounds' in a certain way when it is doing >whatever Yusmars do. > >2. We know - I've seen the things - that the pumps used in Moldova are >- er, well, they have big clumsy blades and plenty of clearance. > >3. The US pumps are much better quality, and maybe give much higher >flow rate anyway. > >Add all that together, substitute Yusmar for flute - and one >good-looking possibility is that if the pump has a pressure-control >gizmo - a loop around the pump itself which makes it 'leak' like a >Moldovan pump - then (maybe with a lower-power pump) it might well work. > >I chatted about this just now with Norman Horwood, who suggests that a >simple flow restrictor (variable) would do the same trick. I'm not at >all sure, because I think that a looping-back pressure restrictor might >be closer to the poor-quality pump. > >Maybe it just isn't worth exploring these ideas, but I thought I would >chuck it in the pot anyway. > >Chris > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 04:11:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id EAA12565; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 04:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 04:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: 24 Aug 96 07:07:05 EDT From: Wolfram Bahmann <100276.261@compuserve.com> To: VORTEX-L Subject: Creative Science Message-ID: <960824110705_100276.261_JHF55-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"aiF4Y2.0.F43.KBk7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/175 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vortexians, 1) Do any member of this group know about a company of which it is reported that they are selling kits of GRAY-type recharging devices ? of Albany, Indiana Can you provide your knowledge, address, fax, comm lines, WWW page ?? 2) Is the company in Canada known to anybody ? They are reported to have a product called METGLASS. I'm interested in getting in contact. Regards, Wolfram Bahmann Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. - EURO. SECR. Feyermuehler Str.12 D-53894 MECHERNICH Germany fax: Int+49/ 2443-8221 e-mail: 100276.261@compuserve.com http://energie.keng.de/~pace ------------------------------ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 10:21:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA23773; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:18:16 -0700 Message-Id: <199608241718.KAA02180@smudge.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Possible answer to Yusmar problem Resent-Message-ID: <"f3AbE.0.Mp5.Xbp7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/177 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Now, imagine it is a cheapo pump with plenty of clearance. Do the same >thing, and the pump just can't 'over-blow' the flute. > >1. We hear that the Yusmar 'sounds' in a certain way when it is doing >whatever Yusmars do. > >2. We know - I've seen the things - that the pumps used in Moldova are >- er, well, they have big clumsy blades and plenty of clearance. > >3. The US pumps are much better quality, and maybe give much higher >flow rate anyway. > >Add all that together, substitute Yusmar for flute - and one >good-looking possibility is that if the pump has a pressure-control >gizmo - a loop around the pump itself which makes it 'leak' like a >Moldovan pump - then (maybe with a lower-power pump) it might well work. > >I chatted about this just now with Norman Horwood, who suggests that a >simple flow restrictor (variable) would do the same trick. I'm not at >all sure, because I think that a looping-back pressure restrictor might >be closer to the poor-quality pump. > >Maybe it just isn't worth exploring these ideas, but I thought I would >chuck it in the pot anyway. > >Chris The clearance may be what makes the thing work. "Poor" design of rotor blades leads to (in some cases) cavitation. And cavitation we all know leads to high frequency wave energy. And that leads to ?????? I would set up the device with everything they had in Russia from the noisy power to the noisy pumps. Frankly, I think that the right "noise" is the key. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 10:21:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA23727; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:18:03 -0700 Message-Id: <199608241718.KAA02175@smudge.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Help; web cite for earth gravitational data. Resent-Message-ID: <"3OMQ2.0.eo5.Mbp7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/176 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Hi Ross, Michael, > >>> I am also interested in finding such data. > >Me, too. And I've been looking and asking for more than 2 years (also, I've >been trying to find out the temp of the water under the ice on Antarctica -- 2 >different news reports have given it as 20 C and 70 F -- a little too warm, >wouldn't you think?). > > Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) Sounds like you are missing a negative sign. The temp under the caps I suppose could be above melting, and then the temp of the ice could keep it down. But I have seen some documentaries in the past and the dry suits they use. Definitely not warm water stuff. The salt water in equilibrium with ice should drop the temp to a bit below zero by 10 or 20 degrees or so just like making ice cream. But I seem to recall something about wierd salinity currents under the polar caps. Magnetic fields??? Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 10:48:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA28791; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 96 13:15:34 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: Re: Possible answer to Yusmar problem To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"u6XLo3.0.j17.O-p7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/178 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --- On Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:18:16 -0700 Ross Tessien wrote: >Received: from mail.eskimo.com (smartlst@mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by head.globalcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with ESMTP id NAA15301; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 13:20:59 -0400 >Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA23774; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:18:26 -0700 (PDT) >Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:18:26 -0700 (PDT) >Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:18:16 -0700 >Message-Id: <199608241718.KAA02180@smudge.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com >From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) >Subject: Re: Possible answer to Yusmar problem >Resent-Message-ID: <"f3AbE.0.Mp5.Xbp7o"@mail> >Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/177 >X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Precedence: list >Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com > > > > >>Now, imagine it is a cheapo pump with plenty of clearance. Do the same >>thing, and the pump just can't 'over-blow' the flute. >> >>1. We hear that the Yusmar 'sounds' in a certain way when it is doing >>whatever Yusmars do. >> >>2. We know - I've seen the things - that the pumps used in Moldova are >>- er, well, they have big clumsy blades and plenty of clearance. >> >>3. The US pumps are much better quality, and maybe give much higher >>flow rate anyway. >> >>Add all that together, substitute Yusmar for flute - and one >>good-looking possibility is that if the pump has a pressure-control >>gizmo - a loop around the pump itself which makes it 'leak' like a >>Moldovan pump - then (maybe with a lower-power pump) it might well work. >> >>I chatted about this just now with Norman Horwood, who suggests that a >>simple flow restrictor (variable) would do the same trick. I'm not at >>all sure, because I think that a looping-back pressure restrictor might >>be closer to the poor-quality pump. >> >>Maybe it just isn't worth exploring these ideas, but I thought I would >>chuck it in the pot anyway. >> >>Chris > >The clearance may be what makes the thing work. "Poor" design of rotor >blades leads to (in some cases) cavitation. And cavitation we all know >leads to high frequency wave energy. And that leads to ?????? > >I would set up the device with everything they had in Russia from the noisy >power to the noisy pumps. Frankly, I think that the right "noise" is the key. > >Ross Tessien > > -----------------End of Original Message----------------- We tried very hard to get Potapov to co-operate in the St.Pete test. I sent people to his office on six different days asking for his assistance. I called Him, faxed him, but with no success. I agree with you, with Chris on site in St.Pete and the russian equipment I felt we had our best shot at proving that the Yusmar was an O\U device. I want to see the someone prove, beyond doubt in a repeatable way that an O/U proccess is real. I do not care who gets rich, or who gets famous..I just want to help. ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 8/24/96 Time: 1:15:34 PM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 12:42:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA16733; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 12:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 12:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: 24 Aug 96 15:36:37 EDT From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Help; web cite for earth gravitational data. Message-ID: <960824193637_75110.3417_CHK52-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"-8KNd1.0.N54.Afr7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/179 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Ross, >> Sounds like you are missing a negative sign. The temp under the caps I suppose could be above melting, and then the temp of the ice could keep it down. But I have seen some documentaries in the past and the dry suits they use. Definitely not warm water stuff. << The reason I'm looking for a double-check is that the water _was_ at room temperature, as reported by the news networks (one on CBS, the other 3 months later on ABC). The new articles and one brief WWW Antarctica report tell of high pressure rivers of water under the ice. Also, a more recent article in a science journal (forgot which one) reports the floor of the Mediterranean is 3 C higher than it was 30 years ago. Like many subjects discussed on this newslist, just not enough info to sink your teeth into. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 15:26:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA08939; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 15:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 15:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: 24 Aug 96 18:19:19 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: RE: Possible answer to Yusmar problem Message-ID: <960824221918_100060.173_JHB95-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1YF38.0.bB2.m0u7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/180 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robert: >> I have been working along the same lines. My approach is to use a DC motor with variable speed to drive the pump. << The Yusmars are supposed to be in use in thousands of Muldovian homes, so the sensitivity to pump output must minimal. What may be important is the input to the Yusmar tube, and that can easily be adjusted by a simple hand-operated valve, at least for test purposes. Once the correct setting has been found by manual adjustment, then some simple automatic pressure controller can be set to maintain those conditions for each individual unit. As for the pump cavitating due to poor design - it is far enough upstream of the Yusmar to be disregarded except for the additional heating due to the inefficiency of the rotor. If I remember my hydraulics design, a centrifugal pump is designed to operate at maximum efficiency at the rated flow and pressure, and has a falling efficiency above and below rated conditions. This is due to the shape of the volute around the rotor which is tuned to the periferal velocity at the rim of the rotor and the flow rate to give minimum shock-losses at the outlet pipe. Clearances in the pump primarily affect leakage through the bearings and recirculation within the rotor housing. Wouldn't it be funny if the main effect in the Yusmar was the same as in the Griggs unit, and the tube system was just window dressing? In other words you have to run the Russian lousy pump at the Russian motor speed with the flow tuned the same as Griggs!! This could mean that Chris was being scammed in St Pete as they were running the thing off-tune purposely, or just using the wrong pump-motor set. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 17:37:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA00803; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 17:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 17:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 17:26:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199608250026.RAA26228@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: RE: Possible answer to Yusmar problem Resent-Message-ID: <"j0Pa12.0.PC.p_v7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/181 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >As for the pump cavitating due to poor design - it is far enough upstream of the >Yusmar to be disregarded except for the additional heating due to the >inefficiency of the rotor. The sound speed of water is about 1,500 m/s if I recall. As the pump is much closer than this I highly doubt that the acoustic energy is not communicated, whatever the form of that energy might be. The length of the conduits set up acoustic nodes and in essence, water hammer conditions where multiple reflections could, depending on the design, be amplified to above unity do to resonance build up of an under damped system. To ignore the pump and cavitations is to ignore one important potential source of driving energy for any anomalous performance. Just a thought. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 19:12:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA15518; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 19:09:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 19:09:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960825021424.0071342c@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 19:14:24 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Help; web cite for earth gravitational data. Resent-Message-ID: <"enevh.0.Ko3.bNx7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/182 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:36 PM 8/24/96 EDT, you wrote: ason I'm looking for a double-check is that the water _was_ at room >temperature, as reported by the news networks (one on CBS, the other 3 months >later on ABC). The new articles and one brief WWW Antarctica report tell of >high pressure rivers of water under the ice. There is an article on it: http://aquanet.com/aquanet/news/item6_3.htm ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 20:25:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA24972; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 20:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 20:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 96 23:06:46 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: RE: Possible answer to Yusmar problem To: Vortex Mail , vortex-l@eskimo.com X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"L95RT2.0.566.iNy7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/183 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >This could mean that Chris was being scammed in St Pete as they were running the >thing off-tune purposely, or just using the wrong pump-motor set. > >Norman Yes, I guess it could be a scam or it could be the work of the evil empire! Better yet, this could all just be a bad dream. ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 8/24/96 Time: 11:06:46 PM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 24 23:54:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA22344; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 23:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 23:53:17 -0700 (PDT) From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <321FF8DD.2491@pacbell.net> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 23:55:25 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L Subject: Scientific American Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6HxeF2.0.-S5.SX_7o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/184 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A In the August 1996 issue, on the letters to the editor page(8) there is a letter by James F. Haw from Texas A&M University. In it he refers to the cold-fusion mafia, and scurriously attacts Julian Schwinger, as well as the field of nanotechnology. I have sent the editors a protesting letter and thought some of you mafia members would like to also. Their e-mail is editors@sciam.com or SCALetters@aol.com . The series of letters reported in inform@foresight.com is interesting also. What has happenened here? James F. Haw has a right to his opinion, but his letter in a national journal should have been edited more responsibly. I have subscribed to the Scientific American for about 45 years, and have always respected their impartiality and professionalism, but it sure looks like it has become just another yellow newsrag right now. Maybe your comments would help put them back on the right track. Hank -- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 01:21:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA28613; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 01:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 01:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: 25 Aug 96 04:16:19 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Scientific American Message-ID: <960825081619_100433.1541_BHG49-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"IpOXn3.0._-6.ym08o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/185 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hank comments on SciAm. Well, I'm a great believer in cultural continuity; some of the diary entries of Evelyn (late 1600s) about places in England and Europe - and the character of the people in those places - could have been written yesterday. Don't forget that SciAm famously trashed the Wright brothers and Horgan is on the staff - he wrote the recent book on how science has finsished its job. Maybe letters should be written, but they will hit a stone wall. I think science is developing a schism. This time it is less the Young Turks attacking the Old Guard; often it is now the old guard with nothing to lose - Fleischmann, Bockris, Storms - who are fighting the young ones, to whom physics is pedagogy and scholarship. This happens, the Victorian English were appalled by what they saw as the disgraceful behaviour of their elders. But in science, *provided* that the newer stuff can show some solid (probably 'commercial', certainly dramatic) success then it will overcome. Note that it needs to be dramatic or commercial, mathematical papers do have an impact - but take maybe 20 years or even forever. Sure, letters should be written. But it is essentially pointless, since SciAm have placed themselves firmly on one side of the growing schism. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 05:36:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA13237; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 05:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 05:35:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: edstrojny@postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Scientific American Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 12:34:33 +0000 Message-ID: <19960825123431.AAA18728@LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"v2Osy1.0.kE3._X48o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/186 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:55 AM 8/25/96 +0000, you wrote: >become just another yellow newsrag right now. Maybe your comments would >help put them back on the right track. > >Hank >-- I, too have been a long time subscriber to Scientific American; however, about 15 years ago I noticed a marked change in their choice of articles so I terminated my subscription. I still occasionally buy an individual issue or get a copy of an article of interest, but with their current bias I will not subscribe. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 08:26:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA01293; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 08:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 08:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 07:23:50 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Possible answer to Yusmar problem Resent-Message-ID: <"S8oIz3.0.1K.Ny68o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/187 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hydrolics is not my thing, but what is? So, here are some suggestions regarding the Yusmar problem: 1. The Yusmar appears to be a fluidic oscillator comprised of a vortex triode with feedback. One characteristic of vortex triodes is that, although they amplify in terms of flow, they require a control pressure that is 20 to 75 percent greater than the input pressure. For this reason it seems to me that there is a chicken and the egg problem. The required overpressure can be obtained only once resonance is achieved. Oscillation, and thus amplification, is required to achieve the resonance. This creates tricky start-up requirements that are possibly circumvented only by pressure oscillations from the pump and a matching. to some degree, and in some multiple of frequency, of pump pressure fluctuations to the Yusmar resonant frequency. 2. Without carefullly tuning pump speed to resonant frequncy of the Yusmar the pump/Yusmar system could fade in and out of resonance, or not achieve it at all. One method of controlling the resonant frequency is by making the Yusmar feedback path variable in length, but this is crude at best. The vortex diameter is also a significant determinant of resonant frequency. 3. One method of improving performance and reliability would be to convert the amplified output (flow) into the required higher input control (pressure) necessary for feedback. One method of doing this is to build a pressure amplifier consisting of two cyliders with a (single part) mated piston. The idea would be to use a very lightweight (maybe Mg or Ti) piston to connect a large bore to a smaller bore cyliner in the return tube, i.e. the feedback return tube would change diameters by reducing. A cylinder diameter ratio of about 1.5 should be good. There should be a flow restriction, pressure relief vessel, and flow restriction, in the outlet of the Yousmar following the feedback T. 4. This raises the question of why not use fluidic amplification directly. Use elecrically driven transducers plus hydrolic pumps and fluidic amplification to achieve any desired frequency, pressure, and energy ranges. Then very carefullly and accurately controlled reaction conditions and vessels can be created. The geometry of the rection vessel is no longer tied to the geometry of the fluidic amplifier/oscillator. This should move research along much faster through better controls, but more importantly, by permitting exploration of several orders of magnitude more range of operating charcteristics and geometries. The pump and piping to carry away generated heat is then also a separate design issue. Also, the hydrolic fluid used for sonic amplification need not be the same as that used to generate the o-u effect. For example, the fluidic amplifier can then operate in a gas regime, or using lightweight, lubricating, and non-corrosive hydrolic fluid, while the reactor vessel could contain toxic, abrasive, and corrosive material, and be of any geometry, including the standard spherical geometry. 5. If the o-u performance of the device is dependent on creating sonoluminescence then specific pressure fluctuations may be necessary. Bigger is not necessarily better. A small Yusmar could possibly produce more energy than a large one due to a higher resonant frequency at the right pressure fluctuation. Also, as I have suggested in the past, achieving a large bubble density might be facilitated by suspending powdered Pd or other metal in the water to act as bubble formation sites, and to eliminate some problems/concerns of destruction of the active sites which occurs when a foil or solid target is used. Rust or calcium naturally in the water may serve the same purpose, so water content is a very mportant experimental control. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 08:52:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA04699; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 08:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 08:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 08:43:38 -0700 Message-Id: <199608251543.IAA13471@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Scientific American To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: 100433.1541@compuserve.com Resent-Message-ID: <"-MeT72.0.H91.HJ78o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/188 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: August 25, 1996, Sunday May I make this contribution in light of your remarks: That SciAm be furthur abbreviated to ScAm and that the Young Turks be more correctly identified as Young Turkeys. -AK- ps: been reading Scientific American since 1950. Chris, you remarked: > >Hank comments on SciAm. > >Well, I'm a great believer in cultural continuity; some of the diary >entries of Evelyn (late 1600s) about places in England and Europe - >and the character of the people in those places - could have been >written yesterday. Don't forget that SciAm famously trashed the >Wright brothers and Horgan is on the staff - he wrote the recent book >on how science has finsished its job. Maybe letters should be >written, but they will hit a stone wall. > >I think science is developing a schism. This time it is less the >Young Turks attacking the Old Guard; often it is now the old guard >with nothing to lose - Fleischmann, Bockris, Storms - who are fighting >the young ones, to whom physics is pedagogy and scholarship. This >happens, the Victorian English were appalled by what they saw as the >disgraceful behaviour of their elders. > >But in science, *provided* that the newer stuff can show some solid >(probably 'commercial', certainly dramatic) success then it will >overcome. Note that it needs to be dramatic or commercial, mathematical papers do have an impact - but take maybe 20 years or even >forever. > >Sure, letters should be written. But it is essentially pointless, >since SciAm have placed themselves firmly on one side of the growing >schism. > >Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 09:13:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA08372; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 09:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 09:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 12:10:05 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960825120954.4b57d8ec@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: COLD FUSION TIMES' website updated Resent-Message-ID: <"cTi3q2.0.j22.Wj78o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/189 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: COLD FUSION TIMES' WEB PAGE UPDATED WITH EVEN MORE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND LINKS ========================================== Which website continues to add more detailed scientific information on cold fusion, more links around the world to varied sources of scientific energy, nuclear, and materials information, more links to free software, AND has just expanded to include more access to more information? Answer: The COLD FUSION TIMES' web site located at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html. The website has added on-line cold fusion papers, and additional science and engineering resources. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 10:40:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA20937; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 10:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 10:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: 25 Aug 96 13:35:04 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: COLD FUSION TIMES' website updated Message-ID: <960825173503_76216.2421_HHB60-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Tsced.0.375.9z88o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/190 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > " COLD FUSION TIMES' WEB PAGE UPDATED WITH > EVEN MORE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND LINKS" (http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html.) I'd love to see 'em. Is it just my configuration, or does the swirly background of this page render everything unreadable? Is it a GIF or JPEG gone bad? Using Netscape 2.01, monitor set to any depth and colors up to 1000sands, I can't see a damn thing! I think there's a setting soemwhere under Netscape prefs that tweaks backgrounds, but... Checked the site a few times over different sessions and startups, and it's still the same. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 13:44:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA09246; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 13:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 13:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: 25 Aug 96 16:38:15 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Energy from the ZPF Message-ID: <960825203815_100433.1541_BHG91-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"p6hRk3.0.LG2.reB8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/191 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Wolfram asks, > Chris, > > could you possibly provide a copy of that videotape Fantastic > Future. Where it was shown and by which broadcasting corporation. > Is it worth looking at ? I was in error, the actual series title is 'Future Fantastic', and it is being shown on BBC1 in the UK. I took a (PAL of course) copy before sending the original to Hal Puthoff, who should have his at the beginning of the week. I think that any further copying between my two old machines would reduce the quality further, but if you would like to borrow the copy you are welcome. Please say if you wish to do that. As to whether it is worth watching - well, it is one of those series where they do all kinds of visual distortions of scenes, and the presenter is very poor. However, it does cover some 'over unity' devices as well as having some film of Townsend-Brown stuff. Tell me if you want to see it. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 14:17:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA16736; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:15:10 -0700 Message-Id: <199608252115.OAA31015@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Help with Cavendish timing circuit; Resent-Message-ID: <"Q1F6p.0.L54.p9C8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/192 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Below is a bit of why I want to attempt this experiment. But what I need is a device that can detect the force of gravitation between two objects with; Is there anyone in this group that would be willing and able to construct for me a simple electronic timing device? I think I am going to settle on a pendulum for attempting to measure the variance in G. I have not yet decided on a simple pendulum, or a Cavendish style. but what I intend to do is to measure the period of the pendulum and the variance in that period as a function of secondary masses positioned near the oscillatory masses in the pendulum proper. If I use a pendulum of a quartz fiber with a small mass, the period will be fairly short. If I use a Cavendish pendulum that undergoes small rotational oscillations, the period will be much longer. In both cases I will keep the oscillations small so that they are essentially in a line with the masses positioned to the outside of the apparatus. I will pull a vacuum on the apparatus to remove air and increase the duration of a given test. I can affix a small vane on the pendulum of either type, and force that vane to move through a light source and trip a photodetector. What I need help with is the construction of a circuit that would record the times of ecclipsing of the light to as great a precision as I can afford the components. I expect this means a high frequency counter and some sort of trip circuit and then some means to archive and later retrieve the eclipse timing information. Is anyone in the group an electrical engineer who might be able to build such a circuit for me if I purchase the components? I am hoping to use some fast counters so that the resolution of the period is as great as possible. I hope to determine variances of the 160 minute solar acoustic oscillations if they can be perceived here from earth, so I expect the period of the pendulum (assuming Cavendish type set in cyclic rotational motion of a torsional pendulum) to be as many seconds as possible thus increasing resolution of the period of the torsional oscillation. Would anyone be willing to put together a circuit to help out on this project? Thanks, Ross Tessien Following is a bit more detail of the experiment I hope to produce. ************************************************************** Parameters measured in any experiment; 1) A great degree of repeatability 2) A great degree of resolution (fineness of detection) 3) But without a good "accuracy", which is not important to the differential measurement. (For those confused by the above, there are three things that can be measured in any experiment. Accuracy refers to whether you got the correct number or not. Repeatability refers to the magnitude of the error you get when you measure the value today, vs tomorrow, or next week. And resolution is a measure of how accurately you can resolve a value. One can frequently resolve a value that is more fine than the actual accuracy of that value. I intend to make differential measurements so "accuracy" is not required to be close at all. But I am seeking a second order variance in the value of the gravitational constant. thus, by using a differential measurement I should be able to determine a variance in G that is interjected by specific perturbations to the apparatus). I have considered a number of approaches to the problem of determination of gravitational shielding via some mechanical device. There are a few key things I have noted that might be checked. In addition to simple gravitation, there are additionally experiments currently under way researching the solar acoustic periods. One of these that is predominant is at a 5 minute period and another is at a 160 minute period. This latter period divides almost perfectly into the earths solar day leading to the possibility that this is a frequency locked period. There is an observed slight phase angle drift, however, and frequency locked devices do not drift in phase angle. There is, however, an additional possibility that there is time lost between the sun and the earth. If so, then perhaps there is indeed a locking of the transmission of that acoustic energy to earth via compressions of space which reach out from the sun. In this group, we have discussed periodicities to the radioactive decay of elements that were synchronous across wide distances of thousands of miles. I wish to attempt to measure the mechanism responsible for gravitation, and to try to show that it is a shielding of energy incident from space, rather than an attractive pull from the earth. To detect this I will need a very sensitive device able to measure a second order effect of gravitation. If this is valid, and if I am lucky, then this may be the reason the various experiments last year which attempted to determine G to a great accuracy, failed to agree to within their error bars. If that was due to differences in this second order shielding effect, then I may stand a chance to detect it. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 15:01:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA24352; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:56:39 -0700 Message-Id: <199608252156.OAA32584@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Help with Cavendish timing circuit; Resent-Message-ID: <"cLxoU3.0.Oy5.cmC8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/193 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Is there anyone in this group that would be willing and able to construct >for me a simple electronic timing device? I think I am going to settle on a >pendulum for attempting to measure the variance in G. I have not yet >decided on a simple pendulum, or a Cavendish style. but what I intend to do >is to measure the period of the pendulum and the variance in that period as >a function of secondary masses positioned near the oscillatory masses in the >pendulum proper. I made some calculations and if someone knew how to construct a circuit using a 10 Ghz counter, and I construct a pendulum that has a 10 second period, then I would resolve the period into 100 E9 parts resolution. This is much better than if I used masses to produce a displacement of 1 inch and an interferometer that could resolve 0.1 micro inch. this leads to a resolution of the effect of one part in 10 E6. Any counters with yet higher frequencies that would be reasonably priced would be desireable, but thermal stability is a plus and dollars saved a plus as well. I sort of figure that in the 10 to 20 Ghz range is likely to be the fastest inexpensive counters on the market today, but it this is wrong let me know. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 15:05:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA25810; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 15:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 15:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 15:00:19 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: Vortex-L Subject: Re: Scientific American In-Reply-To: <321FF8DD.2491@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"bhLFY1.0.8J6.3tC8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/194 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 24 Aug 1996 hjscudde@pacbell.net wrote: > In the August 1996 issue, on the letters to the editor page(8) there is a > letter by James F. Haw from Texas A&M University. In it he refers to the > cold-fusion mafia, and scurriously attacts Julian Schwinger, as well as > the field of nanotechnology. I have sent the editors a protesting letter > and thought some of you mafia members would like to also. Their e-mail is > editors@sciam.com or SCALetters@aol.com I unsubscribed from SciAm in disgust around 1986. Unlike the issues from earlier decades, wisdom and creativity had totally fled, politics dominated the articles being published, and rigid Orthodoxy was their highest goal. I've since not regretted this, especially in view of their shameful attack on CF (obviously a field only of interest to Libertarians and royal heroin-pushers!), and recent attacks on Complexity/Chaos research. The journal is irresponsible bordering on incompetant. Definitely complain, but don't expect to see a single pro-CF letter appear. Anyone who still subscribes might wish to complain AND dump their subscription. I suggest taking up with SCIENCE NEWS for current info from all fields, but without the depressing Orthodoxy mindset and nasty attacks on non-mainstream research. .....................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-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 22:43:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA18114; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 22:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 22:40:31 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Bedini Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 05:39:47 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32223831.22979937@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"72LH_.0.xQ4.EZJ8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/195 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Has anyone built a Bedini motor-generator set as outlined at: http://rand.nidlink.com/~john1/foreward.html ? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 23:14:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA23998; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 02:10:54 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960826021043.462f5b7e@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: COLD FUSION TIMES' website updated Resent-Message-ID: <"LCsJT2.0.us5.61K8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/196 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:35 PM 8/25/96 EDT, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > > " COLD FUSION TIMES' WEB PAGE UPDATED WITH > > EVEN MORE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND LINKS" > >(http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html.) > >I'd love to see 'em. Is it just my configuration, or does the swirly background >of this page render everything unreadable? Is it a GIF or JPEG gone bad? Using >Netscape 2.01, monitor set to any depth and colors up to 1000sands, I can't see >a damn thing! I think there's a setting soemwhere under Netscape prefs that >tweaks backgrounds, but... > >Checked the site a few times over different sessions and startups, and it's >still the same. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > hope the change works. altered the background. please let me know if it is ok. thanks Mitchell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 23:23:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA25123; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3220C714.1F3B@loc100.tandem.com> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 22:35:16 +0100 From: Bob Horst Reply-To: bhorst@loc100.tandem.com Organization: Tandem Computers Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Help with Cavendish timing circuit; References: <199608252156.OAA32584@li.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NxNme.0.T86.NAK8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/197 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: > > I made some calculations and if someone knew how to construct a > circuit using a 10 Ghz counter, and I construct a pendulum that has > a 10 second period, then I would resolve the period into 100 E9 parts The main problem with this approach is that the resolution would be bounded by the stability of the oscillator. A standard crystal oscillator is +- 100 ppm. Temperature compensated oscillators give you an accuracy of about +- 1 ppm. With 1 ppm at a GHz, the count over 10 seconds could vary +- 10,000 counts or +- 10 microseconds. You can get some very expensive oven-controlled oscillators down to around .0001 ppm. These have special crystal ovens that keep temperature constant. This would give resoulution down to 10 counts over 10 seconds at a GHz. But even then you might as well just run at 100 Mhz and make the design easier. Anything in the GHz and beyond range requires extremely careful design of the PC board. Everything must be controlled impedance, and a stub of wire over a half inch becomes an unterminated line that can cause reflections and unwanted oscillations of the circuit. You would probably require some help from someone familiar with very high speed electronic design and layout. To do anything approaching the sensitivity you hoped for would be a very difficult (and expensive) project. You might want to think about improving resolution in other ways. For instance, maybe you could come up with a differential design that uses two pendulums with a shared counter. Electronics could null out the initial differences in the periods of the pendulums. Then the nearby mass or orientation of one could be changed to see if it causes a change in the difference of the periods of the two pendulums. This way the stability of the oscillator would not be nearly as critical. -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Aug 25 23:59:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA28820; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:56:28 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: COLD FUSION TIMES' website updated Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 06:55:44 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3221297d.19215085@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960825173503_76216.2421_HHB60-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <960825173503_76216.2421_HHB60-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"RUJ5l.0.A27.SgK8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/198 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 25 Aug 96 13:35:04 EDT, Rick Monteverde wrote: [snip] >I'd love to see 'em. Is it just my configuration, or does the swirly = background >of this page render everything unreadable? Is it a GIF or JPEG gone bad?= =20 [snip] By default, I leave "Auto Load Images" turned off. This is both faster, and avoids the problem mentioned above. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 00:38:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA03055; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 00:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 00:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 00:36:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199608260736.AAA29787@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Cavendish balance construction parameters ?? Resent-Message-ID: <"AwYp13.0.fl.RGL8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/199 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A while back I found a description of Cavendish balances of different forms. The original balance used a static displacement of the dumbell masses. More modern balances I guess use an acceleration of the rotational velocity of the masses. But a third method intrigued me and I would like to construct it but cannot find the reference any longer. This version used the Cavendish balance as a torsional pendulum that oscillated rotationally due to a small rotational displacement of the dumbell. This is a simple torsional pendulum and they had listed the period as a function of the mass, suspension wire properties etc. But then they placed two masses outside of the apparatus and this perturbed the period of resonance slightly due to the gravitational effect of the additional masses. I am trying to figure out what materials to get to build this thing and try it. A friend can put together a timing circuit to measure the period, but I need to figure out how to place the secondary masses (ie in line with the nominal equilibrium axis of the dumbell or at right angles to that?). I was thinking of using a quartz optical fiber for suspension, and some small metal balls for weights. Then secondary masses might be lead. Does anyone have an equation giving the period change as a function of the secondary masses and the physical parameters of the structure? Thanks, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 03:42:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA18167; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 03:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 03:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960826104557.0071789c@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 03:45:57 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Efficiency Resent-Message-ID: <"kzCEr3.0.mR4.6zN8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/200 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:10 AM 8/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 01:35 PM 8/25/96 EDT, Rick Monteverde wrote: >>Mitchell Swartz wrote: >> >> > " COLD FUSION TIMES' WEB PAGE UPDATED WITH >> > EVEN MORE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND LINKS" >> >>(http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html.) Time for a side-trip to cover some fundamentals. This is not to pick on Mr. Swartz. This is to help bring everyone on this list to a higher level than most of the others out there. Many people these days use software setups where a webpage address can just be clicked on to go to the page. For me, that's simply Windows 95 and Eudora, but it could also be Netscape and its mail program, Emissary, or others. I tried clicking on the address above to bring up Internet Explorer, but got -- Not Found. To make it work, it is best to put the URL on a line by itself. The one quoted above does not work, because of the other characters around it. It should be: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html ...although '>' or '>>' in front of it will not mess it up, because it appears to make an assumption that any 'http://' that it finds, plus everything that comes after it, until it sees a line break or space, is a webpage address. Also then, this: www.someplace.com/~login/myfile.htm ...like some people do, does not work, and forces the audience to have to copy and paste to view the precious material. There, now, you're all a cut above, my job is done, and I'm outta here and off your backs. Gary From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 04:08:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id EAA20252; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 04:07:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 04:07:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 03:11:12 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Possible answer to Yusmar problem Resent-Message-ID: <"fdfqh.0.Ly4.TLO8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/201 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here are some more ideas for finding answers to the Yusmar problem: TOP VIEW Pj | | | | --------------- . Pc ------------- . . . . . . O . . . . . . Pc - Control pressure Pj - Main fluid flow O - vertical drain .. - walls of vortex chamber SCHEMATIC ---P-->---------X1-------- | | | | | Pc | Pj | ----V--X2--- Y | | | | ------F--| | | --Heat-Load--<--X4-R--X3-- P is the pump. Valves X1 and X2 are adjusted so pressure Pj*1.2 < Pc < Pj*1.75 but flow to Pj is larger due to bigger supply tubing, less flow overall resistance on leg to Pj. Valve V is a fast pressure activated valve. It does not close fully when activated, but responds by closing in proportion to the pressure (or other signal) applied. Valve V is caused to oscillate by controling V with the feedback line F from the output end of the Yusmar. R is a hammer relief vessel which contains air to stop pressure transients from being delivered to the load. Valve X3 is used to control the pressure drop prior to the hammer relief vessel and X4 controls delivery of outut to load. Feedback line F and valve V could be replaced with an electronicly controlled valve and/or fluidic circuit to control the pressure oscillation frequency in the Yusmar. In addition, piezo transducers could be added at Pc or other places around the vortex cavity to provide a secondary well timed pressure hammer. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 06:18:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA05630; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 06:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 06:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 09:13:49 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960826091336.4f9f2cbc@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Efficiency Resent-Message-ID: <"nfJ6l3.0.pN1.yEQ8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/202 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:45 AM 8/26/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 02:10 AM 8/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >>At 01:35 PM 8/25/96 EDT, Rick Monteverde wrote: >>>Mitchell Swartz wrote: >>> >>> > " COLD FUSION TIMES' WEB PAGE UPDATED WITH >>> > EVEN MORE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND LINKS" >>> >>>(http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html.) > >Time for a side-trip to cover some fundamentals. >This is not to pick on Mr. Swartz. This is to >help bring everyone on this list to a higher >level than most of the others out there. > >Many people these days use software setups where >a webpage address can just be clicked on to go to >the page. For me, that's simply Windows 95 and >Eudora, but it could also be Netscape and its mail >program, Emissary, or others. I tried clicking >on the address above to bring up Internet Explorer, >but got -- Not Found. > >To make it work, it is best to put the >URL on a line by itself. The one quoted above >does not work, because of the other characters >around it. It should be: > >http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html > >...although '>' or '>>' in front of it will not mess it up, >because it appears to make an assumption that any >'http://' that it finds, plus everything that comes >after it, until it sees a line break or space, is a >webpage address. > >Also then, this: > >www.someplace.com/~login/myfile.htm > >...like some people do, does not work, and forces the >audience to have to copy and paste to view the precious >material. > >There, now, you're all a cut above, my job is done, and I'm >outta here and off your backs. > >Gary > > thanks Gary. the period on the sentence was a mistake. your advice is useful to everyone here, and the input is greatly appreciated. best wishes. Mitchell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 07:11:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA15990; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 07:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 07:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 26 Aug 1996 07:08:07 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Re: Scientific American To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/26/96 07:08:56 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"cgf0q2.0.jv3.e0R8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/203 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/25/96 15:04 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Scientific American Koska Tspsis! What does that name have to do with anything? He's a charter member of the "Union of Concerned Idiots", Henry Kendahl's(read: Dripping with the Kendahl oil $$$$, rich playboy) anti nuclear group. During the "nuclear freeze" movement Tspsis and other of his cronies published several totally BOGUS articles in the Sci. America. They were purportedly "analysis" of things like: What if a nuclear plant got hit by a hydrogen bomb, why SDI couldn't possibly work, etc. ALL of these articles had NO references, and were almost total fabrications. That didn't matter! Not when the publisher of Sci. Am. was a avowed left-wing radical! Yes, politics has DOMINATED the publications in Sci. Am. for over a decade, and it's usefulness as a resource is HIGHLY questionable right now. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 08:09:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA26096; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 07:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 07:54:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199608261454.HAA10733@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: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 07:54:21 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Help; web cite for earth gravitational data. Resent-Message-ID: <"HXBNA1.0.aN6.1hR8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/204 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:18 PM 8/23/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 08:23 PM 8/23/96 EDT, you wrote: >>Hi Ross, Michael, >> >>>> I am also interested in finding such data. >> >>Me, too. And I've been looking and asking for more than 2 years (also, I've >>been trying to find out the temp of the water under the ice on Antarctica -- 2 >>different news reports have given it as 20 C and 70 F -- a little too warm, >>wouldn't you think?). >> >> Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) >> >> >> > >Well, I hope you heard on the news recently about the underground >lake found in Antarctica. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today > http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA > > nope, I have not seen anything about an underground lake in Antarctica ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 08:50:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA06827; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 08:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 08:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: 26 Aug 96 11:36:56 EDT From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Re: Scientific American Message-ID: <960826153656_76570.2270_FHU50-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"L_Lp93.0.bg1.oJS8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/205 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed and I have our own Scientific American horror story. Back in 1993 era, Jed and I talked extensively about cold fusion with Sci Am Editor John Horgan, who began to give us the distinct imrpession that he "got it" -- i.e. that there was, indeed, something to cold fusion, based on the Japanese developments, SRI work, tritium at Los Alamos, etc., etc. He was a Wolf in sheep's clothing (like others we will be polite enough not to remind *by name* on this forum!) It turns out that Mr. Horgan published some utter crapola about CF in a newsy article that ended mocking Flesichmann via "guilt by association" in referring to Lyndon LaRouche's 21s Century publication -- not mentioning that magazine's excellent coverage of CF, but referring to LaRouche's crackpot conspiracy theories about the British royals, drug connections, and how LaRouche was in jail for (alleged) mail fraud, etc. This so called science journalist Horgan, now has this contemptible book out "The End of Science" -- with the theme "we pretty much know everything already about physics, ain't that depressing?" How do I know about that without reading the book? Horgan summarized his ignorant thesis in MIT Technology Review magazine a few issues ago. I also read the excellent review in the New York Times. Still, I will not give up my Sci Am subscription, which I have had since 1963 - it's a very useful establishment rag, like Nature and Science, to which I also subscribe. I look forward to the day when SciAm will have to eat crow -- but they better (then) apologize to P&F and not make excuses. Mark, that Nobel laureate Henry Kendall of MIT is of a band-aid dynasty (I think it's "Curad") not an oil dynasty. I have as much -- probably more -- disgust with people like Kendall and the UCS. Kendall is part of the self-satsified ignoramus physics establshment at MIT, including Philip Morrison, whom I *used to* respect, until he left one of our CF meetings at MIT mumbling about the liklihod that the tritium measurements were all wrong, also participating in the whitewash of the confirmed fraudulent data on CF of the MIT PFC. (Mr "Ring of Truth", indeed!) Kendall and Morrison give new meaning to the old MIT student chant of IHTFP (I hate this ------- place!), which means, of course, the Institute Has the Finest Professors. I am a graduate of MIT, '69, '70 in aero/astro, proud of that, proud of MIT's other accomplishments and the virtures of its students (and I'm the Class Secretary of '69), but I'm totally disgusted and fed-up with the MIT Adminstration, many of the professors, and the whole corrupt academia/government/industry complex -- especially that monstrous fraud called tokamak hot fusion. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 09:42:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA18510; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199608261623.JAA21429@big.aa.net> X-Sender: mwm@aa.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 09:22:57 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: COLD FUSION TIMES' website updated Resent-Message-ID: <"z49fM.0.4X4.9_S8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/206 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:35 PM 8/25/96 EDT, you wrote: >Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > > " COLD FUSION TIMES' WEB PAGE UPDATED WITH > > EVEN MORE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND LINKS" > >(http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html.) > >I'd love to see 'em. Is it just my configuration, or does the swirly background >of this page render everything unreadable? Is it a GIF or JPEG gone bad? Using >Netscape 2.01, monitor set to any depth and colors up to 1000sands, I can't see >a damn thing! I think there's a setting soemwhere under Netscape prefs that >tweaks backgrounds, but... > >Checked the site a few times over different sessions and startups, and it's >still the same. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > Rick, when the background stuff first came out I found an awful lot of pages with them which I could not read, especially those that used "negative" colors, ie, white text against dark background. I coulnd't understand why in the hell people where excited about backgrounds and why they were composing such awful pages. Then a bolt of enlightenment struck. I use an expensive, very high resolution monitor set at ~1100x800 resolution. Apparently very few people use resolution set that high. Apparantly most web page designers are using a resolution of 800x600. Reverse images and some of the other graphic effects seem to be designed to display at that resolution, which I infer from the fact that the pages are actually readible at that resolution. So, am I tuning into your problem, here, is your display set higher than 800x600? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 12:15:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA22892; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 26 Aug 1996 11:39:11 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Re: Scientific American To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/26/96 11:39:30 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"x6Nlb2.0.cb5.zzU8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/207 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/26/96 11:01 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Scientific American Gene: Thanks for the info! Particularily on Kendall. I had heard that he was a "silver spoon in mouth" type who hadn't ever had to really work for a living, and I made the conclusion based on the location in the country and the established Kendall motor oil name. (Obviously in error.) I would hasten to point out, however, that Kendall's work in "quarks" from his "bright boy, particle banger days" of the early '70's really doesn't seem to be that significant....HOWEVER, if you are the 'more highly politically correct than ever, left leaning, radical ' (Swedish) Nobel committee, and you are seeking to "elevate" someone not only for their scientific work, but also (for a good percentage of the motivation) because of their political views---what a great vehicle has been given you by Mr. Nobel! Ergo, pop the Nobel Prize in physics on Henry K., and (despite the fact that the Union of Concerned Fakes has NEVER given a "ciricula-vite" to the public) you give 'instant' credibility to what should otherwise be a non-credible entity. - I understand that Henry K. likes movie theater popcorn, and (at least according to another highly credible group, CSPI) H.K. should become a "non-factor" any day now. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 13:07:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA00843; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 12:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 12:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: 26 Aug 96 15:55:35 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: COLD FUSION TIMES' website updated Message-ID: <960826195535_76216.2421_HHB79-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"H4Gua.0.-C.l7W8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/208 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell - Re: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html. Cold Fusion Times web site - >>> " hope the change works. altered the background. >>> please let me know if it is ok." Yes, the background is ok now, thanks. Great site! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 13:10:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA00891; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 12:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 12:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: 26 Aug 96 15:55:37 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: COLD FUSION TIMES' website updated Message-ID: <960826195536_76216.2421_HHB79-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"aNcAW3.0.qD.r7W8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/209 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Re: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html. Michael Mandeville wrote: > "So, am I tuning into your problem, here, is your > display set higher than 800x600?" Yes, it's at 624 x 832. And I thought I'd tried everything! Oh well, he's fixed it now and it works fine. One of the horrors of development nowdays - there's so many configurations for all this cross-platform client/server bloatware we're soaking in, it's almost impossible for a lone programmer to do anything that works right across the spectrum. I gave up trying a few years ago. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 16:44:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA22885; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 16:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 16:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 19:15:43 -0400 Message-Id: <199608262315.TAA17827@lux> From: ron@dvcorp.com (Ron) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Gravity database Resent-Message-ID: <"nCaNQ1.0.Vb5.l5Z8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/210 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Someone was looking for gravity data? Try this: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/fliers/se-0703.html Gravity CD-ROM (1994 Edition) The land gravity data base at the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) has been significantly enhanced and improved by several new and important contributions. The entire collection, jointly developed with the National Ocean Service, is now available on the 1994 edition of the Gravity CD-ROM. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 18:27:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA13557; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 17:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 17:43:06 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:41:38 -0400 Message-ID: <960826204135_510438363@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: Overunity application: Takahashi page MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.27185.emout18.mail.aol.com.841106495" Resent-Message-ID: <"QNGYx.0.kJ3.OIa8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/211 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --PART.BOUNDARY.0.27185.emout18.mail.aol.com.841106495 Content-ID: <0_27185_841106495@emout18.mail.aol.com.199495> Content-type: text/plain --------------------- Forwarded message: From: zap@dnai.com To: atech@ix.netcom.com, alex@frolov.spb.ru, bcarter@igc.apc.org, pywilkes@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu, bobwing@nbn.com, jak@en.net, colin@direct.ca, dakktdo@earthlink.net, Abinadi@sprynet.com, jfoldan@entertain.com, GILLICKM@forbairt.ie, mhare@cswnet.com, Mutchg@Topaz.Cqu.Edu.Au, mj13901@janus.swipnet.se, nbdanser@acs.ucalgary.ca, rickdav@microsoft.com, svakares@age.net, couslin@diamond.nb.net, seraph@eden.com, shellman@softopia.pref.gifu.jp, rondan@iap.net.au, dpy1@ix.netcom.com, phee@tab.com, dewaal@studaff.und.ac.za, t91dh@hh.se, Bravo666@ix.netcom.com, CALLOWAY@nku.edu, Christ@lexis-nexis.com, des@ellijay.com, FZNIDARSIC@AOL.COM, haley@infohwy.com, hansell@rapidramp.com, HLand10203@gnn.com, jbeane@imperium.net, jcomeaux@ptialaska.net, jcunning@clovis.esd171.wednet.edu, jjw001@netgates.co.uk, krohla@ncha.org, mdleb@bnr.ca, mentor@ksu.ksu.edu, michaelt@tminet.com, petersmc@ozemail.com.au, pjezek@nb.vse.cz, sunioj@southwind.net, tstone@nando.net CC: sunny@goodnet.com Date: 96-08-26 15:57:21 EDT Closer and closer.... Visit this page to see one of the applications tht will help to make zero point energy all the rage in the near future. The Sciex Motor Scooter built in England for Takahashi. To: zap Subject: Takahashi page X-URL: http://www.overunity.de/taka.htm http://www.overunity.de/taka.htm <---- End Forwarded Message ----> Z.A.P., Zero Air Pollution, a partnership Berkeley California __ ~/__|o\__ '@----- @'---(= Onward toward The Zero Point. We design and build electric vehicles, including wheelchairs since 1964. http://www.dnai.com/~zap/ ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/z/zap/ (accessible through your browser) --PART.BOUNDARY.0.27185.emout18.mail.aol.com.841106495 Content-ID: <0_27185_841106495@emout18.mail.aol.com.199496> Content-type: text/plain; name="taka.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0D Takahashi page =0D

Welcome to the <= /font>Takahashi page

=0D

=0D

This is the latest news we learned to know via I= nfinite Energy magazine about the Takahashi magnetic wankelmotor, which is instal= led inside a magnetic scooter bike, tested by Chris Tinsley in London, UK.

=0D

My= experience with the Sciex scooter

=0D

Mark Goldes, CEO Mag= netic Power Inc. on the Takahashi motor

=0D

picture 1 of the Scooter=

=0D

picture 2 of the Scooter

=0D

picture 3 of the Scooter

=0D

Specification pic of the = Takahashi motor

=0D

Takahashi Motor Energy bala= nces

=0D

Energy Flow diagram of the = Takahashi motor

=0D

=0D


=0D

=0D

back to the OVERUNITY = ;homepage

=0D

email the WEBmaster: harti@ddd.snafu.de =0D


=0D

copyright 1996 b= y Hartmann Multimedia Service,= last updated 19th April 1996

=0D

!!!!!!!! = This page is still under construction !!!!!

=0D

Keywords: free e= nergy , overunity , testatika , Methernitha , permanent magnet , Energie , powe= r , Leistung , Umweltschutz , environment , pollution , =
machine , pm square , pm_square , Newman , energymachine , CETI , col= d fusion , Takahashi , Sciex , scooter , bulbs , samarium , neodym , =
alnico , coil , commutator , battery , neon bulb , Johnson , Palma , N-machine , Hydrogen , generator ,AC , DC , battery doubler , antigravi= ty , =
levitation , zero point energy , space energy, field , TOMI , TMI , MRA , UFO , magnetic wankle

=0D


<= /p> =0D --PART.BOUNDARY.0.27185.emout18.mail.aol.com.841106495-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 19:58:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA14807; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 19:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 19:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 19:48:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199608270248.TAA16776@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Looking back on U.S. Yusmar tests To: vortex-l@eskimo.com.August.26, 1996.Monday@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"6vPHD1.0.Cd3.O8c8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/212 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The Volume 1 No. 3 issue of Infinite Energy has the reports of Earth Tech's and Mallov group's tests with their Yusmar units. Page 16, Mallove writes of Mr. Robert Smith of Oakton International in Virginia. He saw (and heard) a Yusmar in a cosmonaut training facility near Moscow. The sound level of the unit was deafening. Both Mallove and Little certifies that their units did not make such "deafening" sound. Also some physical features inside the exit tubes were missing on their units. Page 21 of the same issue has Earth Tech reporting on Round 3 test on July 10, 1995 has this table (one of several: Wattmeter Pressure Pressure # Disk rev. Bath Temp time (inlet) (bypass) 1. 0 27.5 9:37:06 64 +5 2. 98 31.8 9:49:50 65 5 3. 217 37.0 10:06:00 25 3 4. 287 39.8 10:19:20 24 3 5. 369 45.2 10:35:20 24 3 6. 595 51.5 11:17:00 25 3 To quote (paraphrasing a little): "Shortly (about 20 seconds before) reading 3 was taken, a SUDDEN change in the pump SOUND was observed (IT BECAME NOISIER). Simultaneously, the feed pressure dropped from about 63 TO about 25 PSI and the ELECTRICAL Consumption of the pump dropped significantly. Apparantly the pump had begun cavitating or had sucked in air. This new operating condition was fairly stable and readings 4,5,6 were taken with the system in this new state." The question that rises here is: Did Smith hear the deafening noise from the pump, the Yusmar cavitation unit, or the whole thing? Also, was the noise in test 3 at Earth Tech heard to come from the pump itself, the Yusmar cavitation unit, or the the unit together? Was the reported anolomous noise tried to be replicated with injection of air into the pump as it was supposed? And if it was, was there the same pressure and electrical demand drop? The report on #3 test continues with stopping the pump, repriming and subsequent readings do not show any noise anolomies. The report states: "We were not able to to measure the flow rate during the period of abnormal operation" Perhaps this was the one test where Earth Tech had the chance to detect Yusmar starting to work. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 20:14:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA01208; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:10:28 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 23:09:44 -0400 Message-ID: <960826204421_269389457@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: exchange Resent-Message-ID: <"yiw-W1.0.kI.ZSc8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/214 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Anyone who can send me an English or Russian version of Potapov's patent I will send you a disk with all of the pictures that I took at lanl. Prefer english version. Frank Znidarsic 481 Boyer St. Johnstown Pa. 15906 please help... you will like the pictures... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 20:32:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA03469; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:23:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199608270323.UAA25275@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re; Lake in Antarctica Resent-Message-ID: <"d5raU2.0.5s.iec8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/215 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >> >>Well, I hope you heard on the news recently about the underground >>lake found in Antarctica. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today >> http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA >> >> > >nope, I have not seen anything about an underground lake in Antarctica >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher I just read about that last night in a back issue of Science News. forgot the name, but it is about the size of lake Ontario if I recall. Quite large and under something like many hundred or a thousand feet of ice. They are drilling now, but intend to stop about a 100 feet short and then figure out how to get down to the lake without contaminating it so they can study the organisms in it which are relics from days long ago. It is in some sort of basin. I don't think the temp could be that high though because the ice above it would melt if it were. Ice is a good insulator, and so that many feet of ice would fall victim of so much heat underneath it. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 20:47:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA07950; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:42:56 -0700 Message-Id: <199608270342.UAA19204@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: exchange To: vortex-l@eskimo.com.August.26, 1996.Monday@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"D1lWK1.0.8y1.exc8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/216 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank, If you have the patent numbers, you can get the papers from a patent search service listed in Logajan's web-site. It costs $50.00 deposit to get started. I think the papers cost $5.00 a sheet --- I forget. Why don't you let Logajan post some of those LANL pictures---if he still has room in his web site. -AK- You wrote: > >Anyone who can send me an English or Russian version of Potapov's patent I >will send you a disk with all of the pictures that I took at lanl. Prefer >english version. > >Frank Znidarsic >481 Boyer St. >Johnstown Pa. 15906 > >please help... you will like the pictures... > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 21:12:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA18008; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: 26 Aug 96 23:00:19 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Fwd: Overunity application: Takahashi pa Message-ID: <960827030019_100433.1541_BHG50-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"wSvGw1.0.IP4.WKc8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/213 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mr Znidarsic, > The Sciex Motor Scooter built in England for Takahashi. That isn't what Takahashi said. Or are the authors of this page also able to see what we poor mortals cannot? > This is the latest news we learned to know via Infinite Energy > magazine about the Takahashi magnetic wankelmotor, which is > installed inside a magnetic scooter bike, tested by Chris > Tinsley in London, UK. I would prefer it if this ungrammatical statement were DELETED. My ride on this scooter was in no sense a test. Any hint or implication that I concluded that the device was over-unity is false. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 21:24:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA17257; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 21:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 21:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3221FBF3.646B@loc100.tandem.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:33:07 +0100 From: Bob Horst Reply-To: bhorst@loc100.tandem.com Organization: Tandem Computers Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Help with Cavendish timing circuit; References: <199608260749.AAA30237@li.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"SFipl1.0.XD4.xTd8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/217 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: > But if I perform one measurement now, and a second measurement > in 5 minutes, and then repeat the first measurement again, and > all I need is a differential measurement, wouldn't the repeatability > over such a small time frame be much better than what you are quoting. You are right that the drift over 5 minutes will probably be much less than the maximum, but how much less? Oscillator drift is affected by temperature, humidity, magnetic fields, vibrations and even acoustic noise. Some of these are not likely to change much in 5 minutes, but others could. If all anomolies in your measurements are within the spec'ed error bounds of the oscillator, it will be hard to claim any new results, especially if you want to use the measurements as evidence for a radical new theory. If you are serious about doing this experiment, I would suggest springing for a very stable oscillator. The ovenized oscillators are not as expensive as I thought -- I saw one on the web for $250 in quantities of 100s (this was from Stanford Research Systems at http://www.srsys.com/srsys/). This was for a 10 Mhz oscillator, which you then could multiply up to the GHz range with a PLL. Or if your budget is even higher, you could buy a precision timer with PC interface for about $7000 and not have to mess with the electronic design at all. Or with some luck, you might be able to borrow or rent one for a short period of time. You might contact some of the manufacturers to see if they could help you locate a loaner or rental. There is quite a bit of other information available on the web -- both product descriptions and technical papers on oscillator stability. You might want to look over some of that. -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 21:32:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA19017; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 21:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 21:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 00:16:50 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: RE: exchange To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"NB00S3.0.ze4.gad8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/218 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Frank, As soon as I have time I will send you my complete file on the Yusmar. This includes patents and other material. The patent that is translated was originally in Moldovian. I want to scan a bit of this material to place one the net first. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 22:55:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA06411; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 22:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 22:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 01:32:45 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: Re: Help with Cavendish timing circuit; To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"3ntOL.0.5a1.tme8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/219 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have a timer/counter with rs-232 out that has a top frequency of around 3Ghz you may borrow.(very small size) and I have a large number of oven oscillators assorted up to 200Mhz.. Also have a few new satellite transmitter/receivers that produce > 1watt from 10-12 Ghz phase locked to a 50Mhz ref., please let me know if any of this will help. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Aug 26 23:49:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA17828; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 23:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 23:46:44 -0700 (PDT) From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <32229A34.14A9@pacbell.net> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 23:48:20 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bhorst@loc100.tandem.com CC: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Help with Cavendish timing circuit; References: <199608260749.AAA30237@li.oro.net> <3221FBF3.646B@loc100.tandem.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8QiQE2.0.UM4.Jdf8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/220 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross, Bob Hewlett Packard had a cesium atomic clock in their catalog for a surprisingly low price, considering its accuracy. There are reports from the National Bureau of Standards (or its present reincarnation) detailing their latest test of "G", which are quite detailed and should be read before you make your own test, to avoid problems that they found and solved. I read some of them in a prevous life. Hank 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 03:00:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA09507; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 02:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 02:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:35:48 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3222cfad.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "'Dieter Britz'" Subject: I have returned. Resent-Message-ID: <"JyiAg1.0.RK2.1Ii8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/221 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexers and other friends, I have the pleasure to announce you that after a very short but unforgetable discussion with Mike Carrell at the New York airport, a very fine travel with the Malev plane to Budapest, a dreadful travel by train to Cluj..(Aug 26, local time 21.00), I am here ready for work. I have to read my 247 messages this afternoon and tomorrow I will report about Yusmar and other problems. I am grateful to my American friends for their help and cooperation. All my best wishes, 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-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 03:17:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA12909; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 03:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 03:15:43 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coulomb Barrier Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:14:51 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3227c9a1.23617213@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"Bmo6P2.0.Z93.Ehi8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/222 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:34:18 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >Your comments to Barry relate to a force between the particles. That = there >is a cohering force there is no doubt - that is what makes the = condensate >form. > >My comment relates to the *size* of the particles, i.e. the size of the = de >Broglie wavelength of the particles with the force between them. This = is a >difficult discussion because the vocabulary is very much model = dependent. >As the force you suggest coheres the particles their relative velocities >should decrease and their de Broglie wavelengths, as seen from each = other's >point of view, should increase in size. It is this increase I am trying= to >address. Such an increase in waveform size almost guarantees no fusion, >even if you assume the particles are totally co-centered, that "they" = (i.e. >their waveforms, again an interpretation dependent use of vocabulary) >completely overlap. For example, Weiman and Cornell's 3000 rubidium = atom >condensate was about 2 thousandths of an inch in size, very large by = atomic >standards. Yet it did not go bang and fuse, even though held together = for >periods of many seconds. I think the reason for this is twofold. 1) The condensate was a condensate of atoms, not ions. 2) Rubidium is too heavy to fuse anyway. I.e. the reaction would be endothermic. According to Charles Cagle's theory, the force between two nuclei is electromagnetic in nature. This means that it can be interfered with by the electrons of normal atoms. It is for this reason, that the Earth doesn't go up in a "flash and a puff of smoke" as it were. This means, that if you wish fusion to take place, it is necessary to meat 2 criteria.=20 First, you must have a condensate.=20 Second, you must have ions. The more heavily ionised the better the chances of fusion will be. Because Hydrogen only has one electron to lose, and is therefore relatively easily ionised, as well as having a low mass deficit (i.e. (almost?) all fusion reactions involving hydrogen isotopes are exothermic), it is an ideal candidate for these reactions. > >I think passage of a high velocity particle through the co-center = generates >the need for an outcome.=20 I think the passage of a high velocity particle through a condensate of atoms, removes electrons here and there, occasionally ionising two adjacent atoms to the point where they meet the criteria above. >It interacts with the condensate and in effect >creates an "observation", will generate a waveform collapse, and then = with >much increased probability fusion can result. I'm afraid that I don't believe in the magic of "waveform collapse", as a physical occurrence. See: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9605002 (I haven't read this yet, but the abstract looks good). I do believe that there can be a "collapse" in the mathematical model of reality that we build. In other words, I believe that after making a measurement it becomes necessary for us to re-cast our equations in light of the newly acquired data. However I do not believe that this has any effect on that which is being measured. It is only a reflection of the change that has occurred in our knowledge of the experiment. This is not to say that measurement doesn't influence reality. It obviously does to some extent. However it does not bring about a "collapse" in any real physical entity. In fact if anything the physical entity brings about our measurement! This doesn't mean that the experiment of its own volition decides to do our measurement for us :). It does however mean that the experiment itself determines what value our equipment will measure. And this is what we expect. It is the very reason that we take measurements in the first place. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 03:20:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA13197; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 03:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 03:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 03:18:15 -0700 Message-Id: <199608271018.DAA15370@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Lanl results replicates previous Yusmar tests here To: vortex-l@eskimo.com.August.27, 1996.Tuesday@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"H4RIv1.0.7E3.Fki8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/223 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The results at LANL, in a perverse way, replicated by Potapov the experiences of Earth Tech and Mallove's group last summer, 1995. Here we have the same thing going for Potapov: his Moldavian cavitation unit hooked up to american parts and no O/U happens. Just like Earth Tech and Mallove's group. And he couldn't understand the failure? As it was currently suggested by Hugo, Horwood and part of LANL's unofficial report, Potapov should have brought along The Whole Thing. Znirdarsic, being there, (nobody was encouraged to attend) seems to have caught on to the discrepancy ("doesn't sound right") and is trying to run with it. The discussion of the failure on the vortex has a bearing on the explanation for the failure. It might be faster, easier and cheaper to ship the WHOLE 'Quantum Generator' (self sustaining) unit over to test as the original LANL invitation intended. There should be plenty of interested (monied) groups scattered around willing to participate. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 07:43:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA22843; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 07:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 07:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 27 Aug 1996 07:35:07 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Yo, wait, hold up! AHA! Cavitation, practical experience! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/27/96 07:35:49 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"Ds3ce2.0.ka5.2Wm8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/224 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Yo, wait, hold up! AHA! Cavitation, practical experience! - Whoops, I missed a BIG one here. Hey vortexians, how many of you have ever actually HEARD an industrial valve CAVITATING? I have! In point of fact I worked with a co-worker 15 years ago to replace a cavitating valve in a room full of control valves at a nuclear plant. Old valve cavitated bad---sound level of 105 to 110 db at valve. Room was problem to work in when valve was in use....New valve dropped operating level to 90 db. - THUS I speculate: If P device is "consistentcavitation device" it should be fairly noisey...Again, cavitation is AIDED by certain components in the water, like dissolved inert gasses. Well water would have more RADON and perhaps helium than other sources of water. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 09:42:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA22940; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:35:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199608271635.JAA08199@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Help with Cavendish timing circuit; Resent-Message-ID: <"PkSTG1.0.Gc5.sFo8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/225 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I have a timer/counter with rs-232 out that has a top >frequency of around 3Ghz you may borrow.(very small size) > >and I have a large number of oven oscillators assorted up >to 200Mhz.. > >Also have a few new satellite transmitter/receivers that >produce > 1watt from 10-12 Ghz phase locked to a 50Mhz >ref., please let me know if any of this will help. Yes, I would very much appreciate borrowing whatever of the above would get me data out that I can read and or accumulate. The RS232 device sounds extremely interesting and like it would do the job at least for the first attempt at building the device I want. If I could borrow that, then I could just hook it up to a computer and wouldn't need to get someone to design a circuit that would show me the numbers it was getting. I could even get a program written to acquire that data. I am going to be acquiring data for a few months, so would it be ok to keep that device for that long? I need to try to track the 160 minute oscillations and to back that data out of the perturbations of the moon and suns and planets other gravitational effects. But, who made this offer????! Thanks, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 10:05:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA25029; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:40:25 -0400 From: uban@world.std.com (Jim Uban) Message-Id: <199608271640.AA19115@world.std.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"uPB0h2.0.z66.zMo8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/226 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: It seems to me that fusion is always considered from the bare nucleus point of view. But, if two atoms are pushed together, there are also the electrons to get in the act. So, as the atoms are pushed together, the electons could simply reconfigure to further shield the core nuclei. Given that electrons can cluster per Ken Shoulders' EV's, then the electrons should be able to reconfigure to shield two nuclei pushed as close together as desired, without significant coulomb forces trying to throw it back apart. At that point, the nuclei could get close enough together for a combined fusion/fission to occur that has little energy difference between the initial and final products. Thus 'cold fusion' without standard nuclear reaction energy/particle products, including Mev level energies. And thus Dan York is un-radiated! Jim From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 11:52:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA22647; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:32:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:36:45 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Looking back on U.S. Yusmar tests Resent-Message-ID: <"v2JFs3.0.kX5.9zp8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/227 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Akira Kawasaki writes: >The Volume 1 No. 3 issue of Infinite Energy has the reports of Earth >Tech's and Mallov group's tests with their Yusmar units. > >Page 16, Mallove writes of Mr. Robert Smith of Oakton International in >Virginia. He saw (and heard) a Yusmar in a cosmonaut training facility >near Moscow. The sound level of the unit was deafening. > >Both Mallove and Little certifies that their units did not make such >"deafening" sound. Also some physical features inside the exit tubes >were missing on their units. > >Page 21 of the same issue has Earth Tech reporting on Round 3 test on >July 10, 1995 has this table (one of several: > Wattmeter Pressure Pressure ># Disk rev. Bath Temp time (inlet) (bypass) > >1. 0 27.5 9:37:06 64 +5 >2. 98 31.8 9:49:50 65 5 >3. 217 37.0 10:06:00 25 3 >4. 287 39.8 10:19:20 24 3 >5. 369 45.2 10:35:20 24 3 >6. 595 51.5 11:17:00 25 3 > This is a prime example of the ineffectiveness of the bypass of the Yusmar as a sonic feedback mechanism. The pressure is far too low for it be effective. It is also placed in the wrong location to be effective in generating a hammering effect. The best location for such feedback is where the Yusmar takes its primary input. i.e. at Pc in "TOP VIEW" below. To utilize amplification of the vortex triode to the maximum the primary flow should be at Pj with the feedback directed to the flow at Pc. The pressure bypass was clearly not designed to operate as a sonic feedback mechanism, but rather as a means of increasing vertical flow by reducing some of the vacuum in the vortex by entering the Yusmar at O. However, regardless of where the bypass enters, *some* sonic feedback should occur, so the bypass should enhance any o-u effect dependent upon sonic cavitation. It is notable that if the only functionality of the bypass were to relieve pressure then the "bypass" could simply be fed by splitting the feed from the pump. TOP VIEW Pj | | | | --------------- . Pc ------------- . . . . . . O . . . . . . Pc - Control pressure Pj - Main fluid flow pressure O - vertical drain .. - walls of vortex chamber The lack of pump cavitation which occurs prior to reading 3 above indicates that the Yusmar, by itself, can not sustain the required sonic feedback to generate cavitation. The pump therefore must play a role in achieving the sonic feedback required for resonant cavitation. Clearly, the Yumar plays a significant role in heating the water to a point where cavitation takes less energy. The water is closer to the boiling point, so steam bubbles form faster and with less sonic energy. As to the o-u heat generation, it is obvious that it would be useful to put thermistors at numerous places in the fluid circuits to see if heat is also being generated in the cavitating pump, the pump outlet, etc. So what can be done to improve efficiency, assuming the o-u performance is due at least in part to sonic cavitation, possibly aided by extreme shear of the vortex? One possibility is to insert a sound generation device, a "whistle" in the feed at Pc. Another is to insert the whistle in the bypass and supply it from the main pressure feed: TOP VIEW --------------- . Pc ------------- . || . . || . . |===W======== O . . . . . . Pc - Control pressure Pj - Main fluid flow pressure O - vertical drain and entrance to vortex tube .. - walls of large vortex chamber W - whistle device This has the effect of meeting pressure relieving the needs of the bypass while providing sonic vibrations transverse to the shear planes of the vortex. The sonic waves travel right down the vortex tube due to their introduction right above O, the entrance to the vortex tube from the large vortex chamber. It could be that the combination of shear and transverse sonic vibrations is a key ingredient to o-u. The sonic contribution of W can be piezoelectrically, mechanically, or fluidicallly generated or controlled, and thus is under much more controlled conditions for experimental purposes. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 13:11:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA08424; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608271933.MAA07379@nz1.netzone.com> X-Sender: discpub@netzone.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:41:52 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Any Questions for Roberto Monti? Resent-Message-ID: <"Zvk6v1.0.U32.Wzq8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/228 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: For the past three years Robert Monti has been applying transmutation techniques to radioactive isotopes. He will be arriving in Phoenix today and staying a couple of days. If anyone has any direct questions for Monti, please address them to me direct, or Vortex, and I respond accordingly. Monti will be presenting a paper at the Bockris conference next month. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 14:31:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA29576; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 27 Aug 1996 13:42:13 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Any Questions for Roberto Monti? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/27/96 13:42:27 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"v8Zxa1.0.1E7.ZDs8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/229 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/27/96 13:00 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Any Questions for Roberto Monti? Yes Joe---has Mr. Monti "transmuted" any gama emitters and reduced their activity significantly? (Colbalt and Radium samples I believe can be obtained in small quantities with the right license.) MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 14:45:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA02826; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Joe Champion Cc: Vortex-L Subject: RE: Any Questions for Roberto Monti? Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:21:00 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0US4e1.0._h.KSs8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/230 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Joe Where and when is the Bockris conference? Is information about it posted anywhere on the internet? Has Roberto worked with Brown's gas at all? with Pt Pd electrolosis? I hope to have a small computer controlled calorimeter operational towards the end of next month, or early in October, and plan to replicate Mark Hugo's experiment at that time with his help. I need all the ideas I can get for future work with it. Hank ---------- From: Joe Champion To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Any Questions for Roberto Monti? Date: Tuesday, August 27, 1996 12:41PM For the past three years Robert Monti has been applying transmutation techniques to radioactive isotopes. He will be arriving in Phoenix today and staying a couple of days. If anyone has any direct questions for Monti, please address them to me direct, or Vortex, and I respond accordingly. Monti will be presenting a paper at the Bockris conference next month. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 15:03:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA06815; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:39:39 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 17:38:55 -0400 Message-ID: <960827173854_270516610@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: noise Resent-Message-ID: <"80Ngq.0.Og1.Qis8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/231 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The Yusmar at Lanl L made a loud noise. We had to use ear plugs. I estamate the sound level to be a loud as chain saw. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 15:47:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA02828; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Aug 96 18:20:18 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Yo, wait, hold up! AHA! Cavitation, practical experience! Message-ID: <960827222018_100060.173_JHB121-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"P9keV1.0.0i.AMt8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/232 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mark: >> Hey vortexians, how many of you have ever actually HEARD an industrial valve CAVITATING? << I've heard many things cavitating. I suggest that what you heard with that valve was hammer or/and resonant vibration causing the valve to rattle in its seating. Depending on the pressure amplitude change, so the noise level would be greater or less. The effect of that vibration may well have caused cavitation in the space between the vibrating surfaces, depending on the frequency and amplitude, and disintegrated the valve, but the noise was not necessarily caused by the cavitation on its own. I suspect that the noise generated by Griggs when on song is the amplified sound of the organ-piping with sub-harmonics resonating with the casing and possibly the rotor. The cavitation itself is almost certainly ultra-sonic and will be heard by pussy and fido. As for the Yusmar - the high frequency of the cavitation at the core of the vortex would probably have sub-harmonics resonating with the pipe, but as I posted earlier, there may be just another Griggs type of mechanism at work here with a crude pump design looking (and acting) somewhat like the Griggs rotor, and the tubing having very little to do with the heating effect. Which could be why it doesn't work in the West with a good non-cavitating pump. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 15:53:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA05139; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Aug 96 18:31:06 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: noise Message-ID: <960827223105_100060.173_JHB154-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"TJbop.0.AG1.SUt8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/233 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank: >> The Yusmar at Lanl L made a loud noise. We had to use ear plugs. I estamate the sound level to be a loud as chain saw. << Can you please remind me of the pressure at the inlet to the Yusmar tube, because from what I understand about the set-up with a single stage pump of "ordinary" design and manufacture, it is unlikely that more than about 150 psi (that's pounds per square inch in old money) will be available at the revs (say 2700 rpm) I assume from the motor. I feel that the noise must be generated by the pump and amplified by the tube and/or the casing at the critical revs. It must be asked - how can such a noisy unit be acceptable in a domestic environment, as it is supposed to be in its thousands? Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 17:03:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA11186; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 16:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 16:49:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199608272346.QAA17815@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, 27 Aug 1996 16:48:51 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Any Questions for Roberto Monti? Resent-Message-ID: <"Ai-51.0.dk2.Acu8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/234 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:41 PM 8/27/96 -0700, you wrote: >For the past three years Robert Monti has been applying transmutation >techniques to radioactive isotopes. He will be arriving in Phoenix today >and staying a couple of days. If anyone has any direct questions for Monti, >please address them to me direct, or Vortex, and I respond accordingly. > >Monti will be presenting a paper at the Bockris conference next month. > >_______________________________ >Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com >http://www.netzone.com/~discpub > > Ask Roberto if he would like to have the dissertation on fusion/fissions, the long one with the diagrams on it, posted onto the InterNet as a series of web pages. I can scan it in. It ought to enliven this whole little neck of the woods full of us pointy hat guys. By the way, Keller is doing silver these days. He enriches silver from a local photo reclaimer, buys and sells it back with gold and platinum values. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 17:24:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA06815; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:39:39 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 17:38:55 -0400 Message-ID: <960827173854_270516610@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: noise Resent-Message-ID: <"80Ngq.0.Og1.Qis8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/231 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The Yusmar at Lanl L made a loud noise. We had to use ear plugs. I estamate the sound level to be a loud as chain saw. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Aug 27 19:19:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA12108; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 19:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 19:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Aug 96 22:01:55 EDT From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: noise Message-ID: <960828020155_76570.2270_FHU50-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"SOLlf1.0.6z2.8aw8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/235 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank says of the Yusmar tests at LANL: >The Yusmar at Lanl L made a loud noise. We had to use ear plugs. I estamate >the sound level to be a loud as chain saw. During our tests in Bow, NH -- submerged or not submerged, there was never noise that would even come close to that description. Clearly, the hexagonal plug in the exhaust, and perhaps other changes in the device at LANL were making it much louder -- like the one observed in Moscow in (late?) 1994 by several Americans. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 00:35:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA01408; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 00:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 00:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: 28 Aug 96 03:08:47 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Distorted formatting of text Message-ID: <960828070847_100060.173_JHB48-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"zyedj.0.uL.dN_8o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/236 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have been receiving my own messages with lines truncated randomly. My text editor is set at 79 chars per line with auto roll over, and, until recently, was received back unaltered. Is there anything which has been altered in the handling of our text to cause this change, cos my set-up is still the same? Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 01:50:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA13060; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 01:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 01:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 09:24:29 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3223f441.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "'Harold Fox'" , "'Dieter Britz'" Subject: The test that wasn't. Resent-Message-ID: <"eO1uN.0.-B3.FU09o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/237 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The tests that wasn't...or my LANL report. NOTE: before starting my report, I want to inform you about two very important issues. a) Measuring instrument for power-at LANL the following was used; 3030 POWER PROFILER, manufacturer Basic Measuring Instruments, 355 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 94404, Phone 415 570 535 FAx 415-574-2170. Precision 0.2 %. It is perfectly adequate, gives all the instantaneous data re. voltage amperage, wattage on the three phases, integrates watts etc. I recommend it for such tests. b) I have spent 4 working days at the Fusion Information Center, Salt Lake City and I think it is both my duty and pleasure to express my sincere and unlimited admiration regarding the formidable activity of Dr. Hal Fox in the field of new energy including cold fusion. Hal is at work before 6 a.m., the volume of correspondence is impressive, the phones are continuously ringing and the work, the support of different working groups is GREAT.. The publications (Fusion Facts, New Energy News, Journal of New Energy) are fine..and Hal is collaborating with his colleagues and highly appreciating their work..on his turn he is admiring Gene and Mitch. The same do I and I had the pleasure to speak with both at phone. The SLC visit was the most pleasant part of my travel to America. Re. the LANL test, many of my friends have tried to warn me re. the adequacy of the governmental labs for such tests but it seems that I am sometimes not too clever (quite often). My friend Yuri has erred too- he was convinced that the Lab has everything what is necessary for work, good workshops, people with technological experience and much enthusiasm for the NEW interesting subjects. And funds. Actually, we had to make the set-up outside the lab at a private workshop--and they placed the Yusmar in the position specific for the Pisa tower. An out-lab consultant, Dr. Jon Sollid was hired to do the work. We have lost two days because the pump was not well fixed and has torn the electrical wires two times. Ron McFee had tried hard to help us, Tom Claytor organized perfect measurements (see the first point) but the management was not helpful at all. We got an ultimatum to be ready Friday at 5 p.m and the time lost for repairments was not taken in account. We (Ron included) have lost time for getting our RED badges, for getting a 'nachalnik' who is our 'daddy', for solving the great problem of taking photographies and videotapes in an area which is not more classified, the answer being not 'no' but not 'yes'. The formal concern for safety is enormous at LANL but is not backed by technical facts. And the bureaucracy... Yuri has bought a pump, has paid the workshop, and all the other expenses. I think everybody knows that any mechanical device needs to be "broken-in", the pump is no exception. The so-called tests or measurements have been performed during this period when the pump is consuming much more than normally and, do not forget, we got two short-circuits which are not exactly adequate for the performances of the motor; the pump rated at 5.5 kW has consumed 7.5 kW in the second part of the break in and we couldn't wait..go, go, go! And to measure when the system is not yet working. And when it started, the cover raised..we need welding but we cannot get it inside LANL..better go in a place where you can get the basic conditions of work. Frank has explained you the rest. Yoy can tell what you want, friends, but de facto Yuri has wasted money and time and the test has not started yet. Just wait and see what will happen. Overunity is achieved by the contribution of two factors: - the production of thermal energy has to increase; - cosumption of electrical energy has to decrease. Both need a break-in/tuning period. And they need even if the author is performing the test. This was not available at LANL and we didn't know it in advance. Mea maxima culpa i.e. my fault and not little. The great problem was that the people were almost all fine, the system is the evil. We (the Potapovs and I) know this from our countries. Will give you details if you want. And will explain why Yuri has not brought a whole set-up. BTW, at SLC I have seen the third American Yusmar set-up. A very fine one at ENECO. It has everything necessary to measure all the parameters including an orifice plate for measuring the flow. For the sake of measuring, it kills the effect. However, do not worry, no effect is ab ovo possible if you use a 7.6 kW pump for a Yusmar-1 which needs some 2.8 KW. Our friend Scott, when you speak about Yusmar testing please do not forget that Yuri has given you some advices you never followed! Will continue my report tomorrow. 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-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 02:20:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA15457; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 02:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 02:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:59:23 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3224187e.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Subject: Report, cont. Resent-Message-ID: <"n2O3A3.0.Nn3.mu09o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/238 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vortexers, This is the second part of my report re. the test that wasn't yet. It is no fiasco, no success just a case of an interrupted experiment. Not more, not less. My first advice to anybody who wants to understand such a device is to not try to reduce the functioning of it to a single principle e.g. cavitation...such an attitude is highly unprofessional. You will see soon in Infinite Energy an excellent report of Mike Carrell for the Correa device based on the really technological, comprehensive vision of the phenomena which take place there. Amazingly complex. It is an example of what we have to do...if we want to contribute to the progress in field. In the Yusmars, four basic phenomena generate heat- friction, hydraulic braking, elongation of the water molecule, and cavitation. However it is also sonoluminescence and separation of electrical charges (used technologically in the next generation of thermal- electric generators, which are manufactured at a great scale now) as well as nuclear and quantic phenomena, not well understood yet. I am not against amateurism, but I hate lack of professionality, it is dangerous. The pump bought by Yuri is a an immersion type, GRUNDFOS model 75S-12, flow range 45-95 gpm, 7.5 HP (5.6 kW), head 350 to 250 feet. Is made of stainless steel and has 12 stages. It is a fine pump and I hope it was not electrically damaged due to the two wire breaking episodes plus one phase to phase connection which all have blowed the fuses. In any case, it has not attained yet the expected performances. In my experience, a week of continuous running gives the necessary break-in for such a pump. The pump was placed in a 6" tube with a cover used for working in wells, and this cover has interrupted the experiment, at some 200 psi. Having no hope for making a welded cover, we have decided to leave LANL. I have used this time for working at FIC Salt Lake City, a great opportunity for me. At Los Alamos, both Yuri and I have spent much time in the library. He got some very good books and papers re. hydraulics and cavitation, I have succeeded to up-to-date my Cold Fusion and Sonoluminescence literature. A bright part of my US visit, the LANL library is a marvel. This action was continued by Hal Fox and me in the library of the SLC University. We entered all the available databases. It was fine to discuss with so many colleagues and I have tried to get in touch with all my friends by phone or by e-mail, and I tried to explain the LANL non-test to some of them. Two great ladies, Joyce, the wife of Hal Fox and Carol, the wife of Ed Storms have impressed me very much and I am grateful for their help, understanding and kindness, they have learned me the historical and cultural values of America. We have had difficulties with the transport of the Yusmar, which is somewhat similar to a 'kalashnikov' but when we explained that we are going to Los Alamos, we could pass. LANL is a bureaucratic organization and so is Moldova, therefore the idea of bringing a whole Yusmar set to LANL was not considered. The customs laws are dreadfully difficult. The Yusmar brought by us was tested with a Moldovian pump and gave COP of 1.57, however it has to be tuned to work with the Grundfos pump. This will happen before the actual tests, in a friendly environment. I hope that everybody who has met Yuri Potapov, could get the right opinion about his personality and character. He is what the Americans call a 'great guy' and I am repelling all the accusations against him. He was naive regarding governamental labs and so was I, but this is forgivable given our circumstances. And as I always had, I think that the concept of "inventors syndrome" is basically flawed and damaging for our discussion group. A painful impression was the general hostility against cold fusion I have experienced in many discussions with John or Jane Doe. A difficult task to Hal Fox, Gene and Mitch..and for the Vortexians. I am very tired now due to the jet-lag, will continue tomorrow. 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-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 05:22:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA15524; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 05:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 05:19:16 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:18:30 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <322618ff.37782589@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199608271640.AA19115@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <199608271640.AA19115@world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"pQKqV.0.Po3.2b39o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/239 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:40:25 -0400, Jim Uban wrote: > It seems to me that fusion is always considered >from the bare nucleus point of view. But, if two atoms >are pushed together, there are also the electrons to >get in the act. So, as the atoms are pushed together, >the electons could simply reconfigure to further shield >the core nuclei. Given that electrons can cluster per >Ken Shoulders' EV's, then the electrons should be able >to reconfigure to shield two nuclei pushed as close >together as desired, without significant coulomb forces >trying to throw it back apart. I posted a similar theory, involving electron clusters on Vortex, some time back. > At that point, the nuclei could get close >enough together for a combined fusion/fission to occur >that has little energy difference between the initial >and final products. =20 Please explain why this should be so. What happens to the mass deficit, during fusion? >Thus 'cold fusion' without standard >nuclear reaction energy/particle products, including =20 >Mev level energies. And thus Dan York is un-radiated! > Jim > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 05:22:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA15562; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 05:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 05:19:23 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Liquid metals Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:18:47 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <322b1e06.39069303@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"wg1D43.0.1p3.Ab39o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/240 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Do liquid metals show any structure when x-rayed? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 07:10:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA01858; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 07:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 07:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 06:11:14 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"jLqQH.0.xS.9A59o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/241 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > It seems to me that fusion is always considered >from the bare nucleus point of view. But, if two atoms >are pushed together, there are also the electrons to >get in the act. So, as the atoms are pushed together, >the electons could simply reconfigure to further shield >the core nuclei. Given that electrons can cluster per >Ken Shoulders' EV's, then the electrons should be able >to reconfigure to shield two nuclei pushed as close >together as desired, without significant coulomb forces >trying to throw it back apart. One problem with this theory is that nucleii are disruptive to EV's. EV's typically contain 10^11 electrons and *at most* 1 nucleus. EV's explosively discharge upon contact with a conductor. Another difficulty is that, to form, EV's require very high voltages and voltage gradients and seem to require a near vacuum or a heavy noble gas at low pressure to form with any regularity. They also seem to require macro level volumes in which to form. They come in large lumps. The critical mass seems to be in the billions. > At that point, the nuclei could get close >enough together for a combined fusion/fission to occur >that has little energy difference between the initial >and final products. Thus 'cold fusion' without standard >nuclear reaction energy/particle products, including >Mev level energies. And thus Dan York is un-radiated! > Jim The conditions to achieve this must be very special, otherwise the earth would collapse, and/or there would be lots of unexplained isotopes in nature, many radiactive. One problem is that as two atoms approach the electron shells in the vicinity directly between the nuclei "thin out" due to repulsion of the nuclei positive charges. This causes a net repulsion to exist, and can result in a perfectly elastic collision, or even an inelastic collision in which light is emitted. Taken to extremes, such a collision can result in partial or complete ionization, which sooner or later results in photon emission when the atom eventually deionizes. In either case, shell thinning, or ionization, the coulomb barrier is still there. Some very new mechanism must be invoked to explain defeating the coulomb barrier, but that is what makes all this so interresting. EV's are a very new mechanism, but they seem to be a mechanism excluded from most of the o-u environments other than low pressure gas discharge devices. It would be very useful to have an experiment that clearly demonstrated otherwise. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 08:02:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA12203; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 07:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 07:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 10:51:16 -0400 From: uban@world.std.com (Jim Uban) Message-Id: <199608281451.AA26360@world.std.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier References: <199608271640.AA19115@world.std.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"IoZoI2.0.X-2.nr59o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/242 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >> At that point, the nuclei could get close >>enough together for a combined fusion/fission to occur >>that has little energy difference between the initial >>and final products. =20 > >Please explain why this should be so. What happens to the mass >deficit, during fusion? [the last question from Robin van Spaandonk] If one takes a model where the interaction is really a reconfiguration, which could be thought of as a fusion followed by a fission (but maybe it would happen in a more fluid manner than that), then there are plenty of final products which match the Z and N of the initial products and restrict the energy difference to any range one likes, down to almost zero. As a hypothesis for 'cold fusion', perhaps it uses this sort of mechanism; and further that nature prefers to minimize the released energy, and thus picks final products which do that. Jim From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 08:11:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA13964; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:02:57 -0400 From: uban@world.std.com (Jim Uban) Message-Id: <199608281502.AA04304@world.std.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"StCEi3.0.6Q3._-59o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/243 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >[from Horace Heffner] >One problem is that as two atoms approach the >electron shells in the vicinity directly between the nuclei "thin out" due >to repulsion of the nuclei positive charges. This causes a net repulsion >to exist, ... I'm not versed on the experimental evidence you refer to, Horace, but certainly all that positive charge getting closer together would attract all the electrons, not repulse them. Then perhaps the electrons could form an EV. In this environment is a perfect vacuum and large electric field gradients. Apologies to Robin van Spaandonk for missing your earlier EV theory and repeating it! Jim From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 08:40:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA22100; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 28 Aug 1996 06:54:06 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Liquid metals To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/28/96 06:54:17 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"xgdC43.0.CP5.gT69o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/246 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/28/96 05:22 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Liquid metals No structure when Xrayed. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 08:46:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA21279; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:33:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199608281533.IAA14643@smudge.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"ycK_q2.0.IC5.eR69o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/244 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: What is an EV, how many electrons are involved, how do they form and what is around them or near to them when they do? Are they like a BEC of sorts? Thanks, Ross Tessien >On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:40:25 -0400, Jim Uban wrote: >> It seems to me that fusion is always considered >>from the bare nucleus point of view. But, if two atoms >>are pushed together, there are also the electrons to >>get in the act. So, as the atoms are pushed together, >>the electons could simply reconfigure to further shield >>the core nuclei. Given that electrons can cluster per >>Ken Shoulders' EV's, then the electrons should be able >>to reconfigure to shield two nuclei pushed as close >>together as desired, without significant coulomb forces >>trying to throw it back apart. > >I posted a similar theory, involving electron clusters on Vortex, some >time back. > >> At that point, the nuclei could get close >>enough together for a combined fusion/fission to occur >>that has little energy difference between the initial >>and final products. > >Please explain why this should be so. What happens to the mass >deficit, during fusion? > >>Thus 'cold fusion' without standard >>nuclear reaction energy/particle products, including >>Mev level energies. And thus Dan York is un-radiated! >> Jim >> >> > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* >Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa >Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, >Learns all his life, >And leaves knowing nothing. >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 08:53:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA21967; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 28 Aug 1996 07:03:07 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Yo, wait, hold up! AHA! Cavitation, practical experience! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/28/96 07:03:20 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"-yRzi1.0.8N5.ET69o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/245 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/27/96 15:40 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Yo, wait, hold up! AHA! Cavitation, practical experience! Norman: Sorry to get in a arguement with you, but in power plants--- cavitating valves are LOUD! Secondly, we know that they are cavitating, because invariably we have to REPAIR the damage where the cavitation "collapses". Mild cavitation has been refered to as causing a sound like "gravel" being run through the pipes. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 13:03:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA06316; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:09:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199608281738.KAA00784@shell.skylink.net> Subject: BMI and Dranetz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 10:38:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3223f441.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> from "Peter Glueck" at Aug 28, 96 09:24:29 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7pJTx1.0.bY1.Hj89o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/247 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Peter Glueck writes: > a) Measuring instrument for power-at LANL the following was used; > 3030 POWER PROFILER, manufacturer Basic Measuring Instruments, 355 > Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 94404, Phone 415 570 535 > FAx 415-574-2170. Precision 0.2 %. BMI is Dranetz' primary, and sole strong competitor, in the power line monitoring instrument market. About 4 years ago BMI introduced a slightly better mid-range performance instrument at a much lower price than Dranetz. Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 13:30:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA13154; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 13:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 13:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 28 Aug 1996 13:07:13 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Peter, your help please! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/28/96 13:07:49 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"-tsia1.0.OD3.DUA9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/248 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Peter, your help please! Peter G. Could you send me an e-mail at MHUGO@EPRI.EPRI.COM? Thanks, I want to write you directly. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 14:48:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA06017; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:40:37 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 17:31:36 -0400 Message-ID: <960828173134_511841452@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Johnstown tests Resent-Message-ID: <"Ukoor2.0.xT1.KpB9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/250 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: We will be ready in a few weeks. I want to try heavy water in the device. Does anyone know the address of at Ontario Hydro where the 40% heavy water is avaliable? Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 15:02:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA02085; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: 28 Aug 96 17:18:30 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Yo, wait, hold up! AHA! Cavitation, practical experience! Message-ID: <960828211830_100060.173_JHB95-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1P0Oh.0.TW.AXB9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/249 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mark, >> Sorry to get in a arguement with you, but in power plants--- cavitating valves are LOUD! Secondly, we know that they are cavitating, because invariably we have to REPAIR the damage where the cavitation "collapses". << I don't disagree that there is cavitation in your noisy valves, what I was querying was the intensity of the noise. In my experience with ultra-high-pressure systems (up to 2000 bar), the acoustics of the containment structure determined the type and amplitude of the audible noise, and at very high loadings the vibration of the components can cause the cavitation, especially where there is relative movement between close clearance parts, such as valves and their seats or guides. I've seen heavy cavitation damage on the interface between two clamped blocks of tungsten carbide where the clamping was forced to give under the load allowing the blocks to separate and close in water at high frequency. The surfaces looked like Gruyere cheese. (this was 1um W in cobalt matrix). The noise level was not excessive, but the whole thing was housed in a heavy StSt body. All I'm trying to say is that you can't judge the intensity of cavitation by the audible sound alone. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 15:56:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA17640; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 15:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 15:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 15:24:39 -0700 Message-Id: <199608282224.PAA01786@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Peter, your help please! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com Resent-Message-ID: <"FFDhz2.0.XJ4.NUC9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/251 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: August 28, 1996 Wednesday Mark, No fear not, this is not (St.) Peter. His private e-mail address is the same as the one he uses to post on the vortex. That is: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro check his posts. Its early AM over there. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 16:07:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA24029; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 15:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 15:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 15:48:07 -0700 Message-Id: <199608282248.PAA26409@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Johnstown tests To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"h7SMj3.0.Dt5.RqC9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/252 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: August 28. 1996 Wednesday Frank. Ontario Hydro is on a web page: http://www.hydro.on.ca/ You could get all the information links on your supply needs (40% D2O) there. There is also ISOTEC that handles heavy water. (513) 859-1808 they are in OHIO. -AK- You wrote: > >We will be ready in a few weeks. I want to try heavy water in the device. > Does anyone know the address of at Ontario Hydro where the 40% heavy water >is avaliable? > > >Frank Z > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 20:53:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA13368; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:47:49 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 03:47:01 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32271264.14126593@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199608281533.IAA14643@smudge.oro.net> In-Reply-To: <199608281533.IAA14643@smudge.oro.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"bRjiD2.0.gG3.aBH9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/254 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:33:42 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: >What is an EV, how many electrons are involved, how do they form and = what is >around them or near to them when they do? Are they like a BEC of sorts? > >Thanks, Ross Tessien [snip] See patent #5018180. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 20:59:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA11980; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:44:09 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 03:43:15 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32250eaf.13177960@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199608271640.AA19115@world.std.com> <199608281451.AA26360@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <199608281451.AA26360@world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"hxqRk.0.2x2.78H9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/253 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 10:51:16 -0400, Jim Uban wrote: [snip] > If one takes a model where the interaction >is really a reconfiguration, which could be thought >of as a fusion followed by a fission (but maybe it >would happen in a more fluid manner than that), >then there are plenty of final products which match >the Z and N of the initial products and restrict >the energy difference to any range one likes, down >to almost zero. As a hypothesis for 'cold fusion', >perhaps it uses this sort of mechanism; and further >that nature prefers to minimize the released energy, >and thus picks final products which do that. > > Jim The only real problem I have with this is that it doesn't appear to happen when Uranium fissions. In other words, the fissioning of U236 is accompanied by the release of considerable energy. As has graphically been demonstrated time and again. Then again, perhaps nature only has an opportunity to make such a choice, when the end products are stable, and no free neutrons are produced. This of course means that the fissioning nucleus must be "light" in neutrons. Which in turn requires that the trigger particle can't be a neutron, or at least not for heavy nuclei such as U. Can anyone shed some light on this? I.e. on the sorts of products resulting from fission, especially from lighter nuclei (I realise that there may not have been much research done in this area). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 21:05:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA13669; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:48:35 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 03:47:40 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3226120b.14037895@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199608281502.AA04304@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <199608281502.AA04304@world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"rmUM41.0.TL3.ICH9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/255 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:02:57 -0400, Jim Uban wrote: [snip] >I'm not versed on the experimental evidence you >refer to, Horace, but certainly all that positive >charge getting closer together would attract all >the electrons, not repulse them. Then perhaps >the electrons could form an EV. In this environment >is a perfect vacuum and large electric field >gradients. > >Apologies to Robin van Spaandonk for missing >your earlier EV theory and repeating it! > > Jim You didn't repeat it exactly Jim, so no apology is required. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Aug 28 22:36:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA08659; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 22:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 22:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 21:32:00 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"Aoagq2.0.D72.TgI9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/256 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >What is an EV, how many electrons are involved, how do they form and what is >around them or near to them when they do? Are they like a BEC of sorts? > >Thanks, Ross Tessien > See US patent 5,123,039 which is a continuation of 5,018,180, both by Ken Shoulders. The term electrum validum (EV), was the term used by Ken Shoulders in his patents. More recently the phenomenon is often referred to as condensed charge. EV refers to a small "ball lightning", or EV beads, ranging in size from 0.1 micrometer to over 1 micrometer, and having an upper limit of one ion per 100,000 electrons. Typical EV's have 10^11 electrons, but a 1 micron bead can have as few as 10^8 electrons. EV's tend to cling to each other and can form rings up to 20 microns in diameter. Rings typically contain 10 EV's. A 1 micron diameter 10 bead ring can contain up to 10^12 electrons. EV's are typically generated by 1KV to 10KV at the tip of a pointed electrode in a low presssure noble gas, e.g. xenon, or in a vacuum. EV's look like sparks. That is Ken Shoulders' basic discovery - that small sparks sometimes have a very detailed structure which can be manipulated. Ken's most basic formula is a pointed cathode wrapped in xenon gas inside a 1 mm dia. dielectric tube with a flat grounded electrode at the opposite end, with a ground wire running up the side of the tube as a kind of RC waveguide. His very lengthy patent extends the use to a kind of printed circuit EV logic board arrangement and various other things like energy generation, a video display, and an ultra fast oscilloscope. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 00:01:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA14834; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 23:59:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 23:59:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:02:34 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32254093.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: BMI and Dranetz Resent-Message-ID: <"muqr_.0.cd3.V_J9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/258 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:09:32 -0700 (PDT), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Peter Glueck writes: > > > a) Measuring instrument for power-at LANL the following was used; > > 3030 POWER PROFILER, manufacturer Basic Measuring Instruments, 355 > > Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 94404, Phone 415 570 535 > > FAx 415-574-2170. Precision 0.2 %. > > BMI is Dranetz' primary, and sole strong competitor, in the power > line monitoring instrument market. About 4 years ago BMI introduced > a slightly better mid-range performance instrument at a much lower > price than Dranetz. > > Robert Stirniman > Thanks, Robert! I have seen a good Dranetz too, but this BMI instrument was impeccable..shows everything necessary. 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-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 00:01:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA14792; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 23:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 23:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:37:30 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <322548bf.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Johnstown tests Resent-Message-ID: <"nP2lY2.0.2d3.F_J9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/257 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:40:37 -0700 (PDT), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > We will be ready in a few weeks. I want to try heavy water in the device. > Does anyone know the address of at Ontario Hydro where the 40% heavy water > is avaliable? > > > Frank Z > Adding of heavy water to the light water circulated in the device has to be done step-by-step. It's potentially dangerous due to formation of tritium and rapid increase of temperature. Ask Yuri, please. 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-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 00:26:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA19309; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:24:47 -0700 Message-Id: <199608290724.AAA23167@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"F8d7q1.0.bj4.ANK9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/259 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: snip EV's >tend to cling to each other and can form rings up to 20 microns in >diameter. Rings typically contain 10 EV's. A 1 micron diameter 10 bead >ring can contain up to 10^12 electrons. EV's are typically generated by 1KV >to 10KV at the tip of a pointed electrode in a low presssure noble gas, >e.g. xenon, or in a vacuum. EV's look like sparks. snip >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Thanks. How are they viewed to know that they look like sparks and that they tend to contain 10 EV's in a ring? High speed photography, or are they static and stationary and stable? Do they know for certain that there are no atomic nuclei in the core, and if so how? Do they take on a life of their own and float away from the electron beam or field, or do they rigidly remain in the electric field? Thanks, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 00:43:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA22102; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:40:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Edmund Sevior Message-Id: <199608290739.RAA08921@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Subject: Re: Johnstown tests To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 17:39:42 +1000 (EST) Cc: msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU (Martin Edmund Sevior) In-Reply-To: <322548bf.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> from "Peter Glueck" at Aug 29, 96 09:37:30 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nb-yF3.0.GP5.mbK9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/260 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Peter Gluck wrote> > Adding of heavy water to the light water circulated in the device has > to be done step-by-step. It's potentially dangerous due to formation > of tritium and rapid increase of temperature. Ask Yuri, please. > Peter Why didn't you run in this mode in your tests? If this produces lots of tritium plus a huge temperature increase why not demonstrate this? Since the whole purpose of the LANL tests was to convince the world of interesting new Physics surely a demo that showed Tritium PLUS heat would be very convincing? Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 00:50:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA23360; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: 29 Aug 96 03:47:39 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: testing text formation Message-ID: <960829074739_100060.173_JHB69-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"WybSY.0.wi5.kjK9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/261 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is to test the effect of changing my font to try to stop the line break-up after transmission and then receipt from the list. If it works then the glitch in CIS when trying to process the output from my OzWIN2.01 editor will be overcome. All I have done is to reduce the size of the text characters by a couple of notches, but to do this I have also had to change the font style to New Courier (TT) to get the smaller size. We'll see what happens when I get this lot back. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 06:18:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA09953; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Johnstown tests Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:15:22 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <322813a8.14450374@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960828173134_511841452@emout07.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <960828173134_511841452@emout07.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"PiJ8h1.0.LR2.GWP9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/262 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 17:31:36 -0400, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: >We will be ready in a few weeks. I want to try heavy water in the = device. > Does anyone know the address of at Ontario Hydro where the 40% heavy = water >is avaliable? > > >Frank Z > > Frank, It might pay to only increase the heavy water content slowly. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 07:16:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA21166; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 07:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 07:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 16:29:46 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3225a960.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: Johnstown tests Resent-Message-ID: <"t1OO51.0.dA5.dMQ9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/263 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:40:33 -0700 (PDT), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Peter Gluck wrote> > > Adding of heavy water to the light water circulated in the device has > > to be done step-by-step. It's potentially dangerous due to formation > > of tritium and rapid increase of temperature. Ask Yuri, please. > > Peter > > Why didn't you run in this mode in your tests? If this produces lots > of tritium plus a huge temperature increase why not demonstrate this? Since > the whole purpose of the LANL tests was to convince the world of interesting > new Physics surely a demo that showed Tritium PLUS heat would be > very convincing? > > Martin Sevior > Answer: it was planned to make a test with heavy water added after the first one with tap water but we had to leave at Friday 5 p.m. To start with heavy water directly is risky and the running in is not accomplished yet. I hope the new test will show what the first one has prematurely (oxymoron!) aborted. Will you assist at the pure heavy water test and should we by-pass the intermediate steps? I wouldn't-- have family, problems, plans, want to see cold fusion accepted, used in our homes, see it comprehended and see America 'yusmarized'. 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-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 07:42:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA26772; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 07:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 07:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 06:44:31 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"oBAyg1.0.6Y6.KlQ9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/264 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >snip > EV's >>tend to cling to each other and can form rings up to 20 microns in >>diameter. Rings typically contain 10 EV's. A 1 micron diameter 10 bead >>ring can contain up to 10^12 electrons. EV's are typically generated by 1KV >>to 10KV at the tip of a pointed electrode in a low presssure noble gas, >>e.g. xenon, or in a vacuum. EV's look like sparks. > >snip >>Regards, >> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >>Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > >Thanks. How are they viewed to know that they look like sparks and that >they tend to contain 10 EV's in a ring? > >High speed photography, or are they static and stationary and stable? Do >they know for certain that there are no atomic nuclei in the core, and if so >how? > >Do they take on a life of their own and float away from the electron beam or >field, or do they rigidly remain in the electric field? > >Thanks, Ross Tessien There is no "they", this is all from Ken Shoulders in the patent. However, he may have been associated with Hal Puthoff via Jupiter Technologies, I don't recall for sure. Please order the patent, it is well worth the $3. The patent includes 97 drawings and much detailed information. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 09:38:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA23435; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:28:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199608291628.JAA17174@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"OgIR43.0.4k5.8LS9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/265 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >There is no "they", this is all from Ken Shoulders in the patent. However, >he may have been associated with Hal Puthoff via Jupiter Technologies, I >don't recall for sure. Please order the patent, it is well worth the $3. >The patent includes 97 drawings and much detailed information. >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 OK, that is what I was trying to get at. Are these experimentally observed and verified phenomena or are they things someone supposes or supposes to have seen without verification. I don't mind the latter, but always like to load in my pea brain which catagory a given phenomena fits into for weighting purposes. I have read about a verified phenomena that gave rise to a string of pearls type of glowing discharge that was static and stable. I conversed for a while with the people who had built the device and I was wondering if this was related. Actually, it seems like it is. I'll see if I can get permission to post those letters, but meanwhile am I about on track with the weighting that this is a supposed, and not a verified, phenomena? Ross Tessien. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 13:02:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA09235; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:46:36 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Penetrating the Coloumb Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"mAZOn1.0.CG2.dAV9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/266 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>There is no "they", this is all from Ken Shoulders in the patent. However, >>he may have been associated with Hal Puthoff via Jupiter Technologies, I >>don't recall for sure. Please order the patent, it is well worth the $3. >>The patent includes 97 drawings and much detailed information. > >>Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > >OK, that is what I was trying to get at. Are these experimentally observed >and verified phenomena or are they things someone supposes or supposes to >have seen without verification. I don't mind the latter, but always like to >load in my pea brain which catagory a given phenomena fits into for >weighting purposes. > >I have read about a verified phenomena that gave rise to a string of pearls >type of glowing discharge that was static and stable. I conversed for a >while with the people who had built the device and I was wondering if this >was related. Actually, it seems like it is. I'll see if I can get >permission to post those letters, but meanwhile am I about on track with the >weighting that this is a supposed, and not a verified, phenomena? > >Ross Tessien. It may be related if the pearls are about a micron in diameter. It sounds like what you are talking about is a HF plasma discharge and a continuous process though. Some of Shoulders' gadgets used DC to create stings of EV's that ran in groves and through various kinds of switching junctions. About veracity, I have serious doubts about the o-u stuff, and it appears certain much of the stuff in the patent is vaporware. However, some experiments were done and some conclusions reached that appear to me to be factual. I have been through a couple rounds of experimentation and still have not come to any firm conclusion, but I am continuing to investigate as time and limited resources permits. No sign of o-u or any looping capability, but my experiments are very limited, so that is meaningless. I believe there is something to it though, or would not waste my time and money on it as I have very little of either lately, and many ideas in my queue. This Vortex is just too darn stimulating! :) If you have any serious interest I can't overstate the importance of reading the patent. If you get the patent and read it and want help experimenting maybe I can help you if you would like. In case it might be of use, here is a USPTO order form. You can mail with $3 money order or check, or you can email if you want to pay $6 for it plus FEDX delivery cost. 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 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 18:23:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA00131; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 18:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 18:16:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199608300107.SAA11933@big.aa.net> X-Sender: mwm@aa.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 18:15:43 +0900 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Very Rare Technology $ Opportunity Resent-Message-ID: <"abUvL2.0.x1.u3a9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/267 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexians: I beg your indulgance in sending you this post regarding a request for capital. This is not a spam. I hope you realize that with this post I am offering you sincerely an opportunity to help me to complete the startup of a company which is going to field a radically new oil/water separation technology which has the ability to eat up a sizable portion of the U.S. petroleum industry by taking oil out of water or vice verse down to less than 10 ppm, actually usually down to less than 5 ppm. With the acquistion of one machine (the building of which must be commissioned) our company will generate large amounts of cash within 120 days and grow exponentially, doubling in size every three weeks, all because of the huge amounts of hitherto uneconomic petroleum which has been stockpiled and/or capped in Texas. This is a very rare case of being in the right place at the right time. The inventor of this technology, a distinguised engineer who ate out of garbage cans as a small child, is willing to allow "small guys" to make a lot of money with this for re-investment in new technology. I personally have been looking for an opportunity like this for the past twenty years. I have been looking on Vortex and the InterNet for this opportunity, but this one came in through the back door. I have been looking in the Transmutation field, cold fusion field and in the over-unity magnetic motor field for this type of opportunity. As some of you will recall, I have been helping Muller promote his dynamo concept through Vortex and by other means, however that has been a frustrating catch 22 situation wrestling with the combo of inventor's disease and the highly justified skepticism of even the people who WANT to find IT. Suffice it to say, this technology is real, has a six year track record, provides RADICAL capability which will RADICALLY change the economics and practices of the oil industry in North America (everywhere else for that matter). For short term profit potentials, this beats all else I've seen or heard about, and the cashflow will support any other type of major technology startup in the overunity field, in fact, many of them. There is a certain poetry to such a notion. Below is the vision summary. For a complete EMAIL copy of our Strategy Plan, please email me at mwm@aa.net Strategic Development Plan One August 1996 Environmental Tune-Up Programs: * Oil Water Rescue (SM) * Oil Reserve Recovery * Oil Waste Remediation Program VISIT OUR WEBSITE FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PROGRAMS: url to this site is on the bottom; data will be available after Labor Day Weekend. Confidential: This document is private, proprietary property and may not be copied except with the express permission of Michael W. Mandeville.. Strategic Plan Outline The Vision The petroleum industry is generating a lot of "waste" oil, oil which cannot be economically extracted using the best of today's techology. Tens of millions of dollars of oil/water mixtures in Texas constitute a major disposal problem in the U.S. And, thousands of oil wells are becoming depleted, which means that too much water is pumped with the oil. We can recover most of that oil and leave clean water for normal discharge, cheaply (using no chemicals or heat, only a pump), using a radical but proven technology (six year track record with 300 installations for pollution abatement by one of Dow Chemical's ex top chemical engineers - this technology definitely works and the small company behind it definitely works!). With one machine, costing $160,000, we can generate net profits (before taxes) in the range of $80,000 per week. How many machines per month can we pay for? What is $80,000 per week times 52? Would you like your money returned in six months? A millionaire in one year? Would you also like $20,000 per month remitted directly into your bank account to tide you by for as long as the company exists? We are not selling the machines. We have some working capital. We have lots of skills to handle everything. Everything we've got has been thrown into this. We have spent four months on the due diligence. We have located sites in Texas which will work with us and give us their oil/water mixtures as soon as we can haul in a machine. WE WANT HELP PURCHASING THE FIRST MACHINE. The inventor/manufacturer will give us North America exclusively for the application of the machines. Why? The inventor is a top scientist in his field and does not want to market nor administer things. He wants to collect a royalty on the recovery of economic oil. He wants someone he trusts to administer the promotion, installations, and collection of royalties. He is very wary of large corporations. He does not want to sell this technology to the petroleum industry. He wants someone to start taking over the waste oil before the industry realizes that it is not waste oil, because that way we can get the oil at no cost and use the windfall profits to capitalize a big operation. To start with, he would rather rise to the top with some other small guys that have the gumption and the skills. That's us. If you can visit Texas and have the ability to help us finance the first machine, let's talk. Environmental Tune-Up 308695 Highway 101, Brinnon, WA 98320: fax: 868-8626 Phillip Stevens: 360-796-4457 or Michael Mandeville: 206-836-2683 http://www.aa.net/~mwm/enviro/tuneup.html - email: mwm@aa.net ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 21:32:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA02071; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 21:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 21:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 00:27:31 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex cc: John Schnurer Subject: Question Cooper Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ACBeJ.0.HW.ktc9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/269 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear VO, Looking for a set of description, on any level, the more the merrier, starting with lay treatment of: Cooper pairs in "high temperature superconductors" and "pinning centers" Thanks. JHS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 21:45:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA22461; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <322656E2.446B9B3D@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:50:10 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Very Rare Technology $ Opportunity References: <199608300107.SAA11933@big.aa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nxEcc3.0.pU5.pRb9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/268 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael Mandeville wrote: > > Dear Vortexians: > > I beg your indulgance in sending you this post regarding a request for > capital. This sounds like a textbook case of what small business loans are for. I can't see why you would need to pursue unorthodox funding. If not that, then it also seems well suited to a venture capital firm. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Aug 29 23:22:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA10667; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 23:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 23:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 22:23:36 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Very Rare Technology $ Opportunity Resent-Message-ID: <"qH5OF1.0.bc2.EWe9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/270 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Michael Mandeville wrote: >> >> Dear Vortexians: >> >> I beg your indulgance in sending you this post regarding a request for >> capital. Somehow his post did not make it to me. I wonder how many others I'm missing? Or was this a private correspondence? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 01:43:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA05842; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 01:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 01:40:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199608300840.BAA20396@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: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 01:39:43 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Very Rare Technology $ Opportunity Resent-Message-ID: <"NwNoO1.0.AR1.mZg9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/271 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:50 PM 8/29/96 -0700, you wrote: >Michael Mandeville wrote: >> >> Dear Vortexians: >> >> I beg your indulgance in sending you this post regarding a request for >> capital. > >This sounds like a textbook case of what small business loans >are for. I can't see why you would need to pursue unorthodox >funding. If not that, then it also seems well suited to >a venture capital firm. > > >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu >web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > > I do not understand how to get venture capital companies to understand the value of ethics and the value of personal assets. They think that money is the universal solvent and relativizes everything. They believe that control of money and procedure is more important than creative effort. They do not know how to value "opportunity", consequently, they do not. They are wrong. I never gamble. They always gamble, hence want their bets heavily hedged. Consequently I am unable to strike a reasonable relationship with such outfits and I no longer approach them. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 08:23:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA26010; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 30 Aug 1996 08:10:08 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Frank Baby! Speak to me! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 08/30/96 08:10:06 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"raphW1.0.EM6.7Im9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/272 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Frank Baby! Speak to me! - Sorry to have to use the "open" venue here, but since we are among friends.... (And I know you don't want EPRInet mail.) I have dug up my Ontario Hydro contact. Will get to speak to him next week. I think (conditioned on returning the bulk of the sample supplied) we will probably be able to aquire several barrels of 40% D2O, probably for shipping. (No assurance of this right now, I'm just speculating... I need to talk to Bob M. at Ont. Hydro on Tues.) Anyway, give me a call---ON SUNDAY! (I'm in-line skating the "Gateway" tonight with the overall female champion, class 3 skating from our "Olympic" track this summer (Bridgette H.) and with Harvey G., the "Native American Sports Council" 1998 Winter Olypic speed skating hopeful. Ergo, I will be DEAD (tired) tonight, have to move a friend tomorrow and get my parents sent back to Phx tomorrow afternoon/evening. So call SUNDAY! Thanks.) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 09:13:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA06489; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:50:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199608301550.IAA20727@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: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:50:12 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Very Rare Technology $ Opportunity Resent-Message-ID: <"xEGFC3.0.Gb1.Utm9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/273 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:23 PM 8/29/96 -0800, you wrote: >>Michael Mandeville wrote: >>> >>> Dear Vortexians: >>> >>> I beg your indulgance in sending you this post regarding a request for >>> capital. > >Somehow his post did not make it to me. I wonder how many others I'm >missing? Or was this a private correspondence? > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > did you get the entire message, Horace, do you want me to post the entire thing to you? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 09:21:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA12043; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 09:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 09:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 09:11:27 -0700 Message-Id: <199608301611.JAA17857@smudge.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Question Cooper Resent-Message-ID: <"MHGky3.0.1y2.KBn9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/274 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > > Dear VO, > > Looking for a set of description, on any level, the more the merrier, >starting with lay treatment of: > > Cooper pairs in "high temperature superconductors" > and > > "pinning centers" > > Thanks. > > JHS > > You know, this is an interesting question and I would like to hear some justification too if anyone in the group is up on this concept. I have never understood the need to suppose this construct. To me, if the electrons are a standing wave. and if the nuclei are standing waves, then if you cool the material down all you are doing is reducing the thermal motions of the solid lattice of the conductor (metal or ceramic). When you do this, then the kinetic energy of the translating electrons becomes a greater percentage of the kinetic energy of the nuclei, despite the greater mass. Remember that KE is proportional to mass, and to velocity squared. So, the temperature reduction (which is just a reduction in the mean velocity of the nuclei and the electron gas around them) of the conductor is allowing a second order effect to manifest allowing the electrons to **push** the nuclei around due to the electric thrust keeping them moving faster. It seems to me that just like pendulums frequency lock due to small puffs of air, or small vibrations transmitted through the common wall to which they are attached, that the super conductor is allowing the conducting electrons to set up a group oscillation in the nuclei. Once the nuclei become phase and frequency locked, then the structure of the "fields" throughout the conductor should be sort of like three dimensional waves, and the electrons like surfers following the wave down through the tube without running into the walls because the waves guide them. So, I have never seen any reason for the necessity of assuming that the electrons must form into Cooper pairs. All I see is the necessity to reduce the thermal motions of the nuclei sufficiently that the electrons can force them to frequency lock into an organized motion very similar to the overlapping of the wave function which is the description of a BEC. I don't imagine "wave functions", but rather just the shape of the standing waves around the particles and the interaction of one standing wave with another standing wave. I don't know if I am delusional, but when I consider things like this I am not surprised by the behavior, only by our descriptions of that behavior. Does someone know what it was that forced people to consider that there must be pairs of electrons involved rather than just a link between the shapes of the fields of the nuclei? Perhaps in the current view, the nuclei do not link up their motions like a BEC, and so that is why they think in terms of the pairs. Is that it? Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 11:29:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA08241; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 11:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 11:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 10:11:36 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Very Rare Technology $ Opportunity Resent-Message-ID: <"F-ibZ.0.h02.kto9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/275 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 10:23 PM 8/29/96 -0800, you wrote: >>>Michael Mandeville wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Vortexians: >>>> >>>> I beg your indulgance in sending you this post regarding a request for >>>> capital. >> >>Somehow his post did not make it to me. I wonder how many others I'm >>missing? Or was this a private correspondence? >> >> >>Regards, >> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >>Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 >> >> >> > >did you get the entire message, Horace, do you want me to post the entire >thing to you? >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher >mwm@aa.net >http://www.aa.net/~mwm Sorry to bother you. The original post finally showed up, but only after over 8 hours delay. My reply and your last post showed up from vortex before the original message. It was hung up somewhere in the net I guess. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 12:00:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA15595; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 11:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 11:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960830184733.006eb084@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 11:47:33 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Question Cooper Resent-Message-ID: <"3N-1u3.0.bp3.YNp9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/276 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:27 AM 8/30/96 -0400, you wrote: > > Dear VO, > > Looking for a set of description, on any level, the more the merrier, >starting with lay treatment of: > > Cooper pairs in "high temperature superconductors" > and > > "pinning centers" > > Thanks. > > JHS > > > Pet theory, brace yourself please: Electrons are shaped like donuts, with ether flowing through the hole in the middle and back around again. Hence, they can act like small ether-vacuums, pulling ether from one side, through their center, and out the other side. A la: http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/gif/electron.gif Under the right temperature and material conditions, pairs of electrons can glomm together with their vacuum sides facing each other. Keep in mind that electrostatics are simply conditions where a preponderance of electrons are crammed into a space beyond what is normal for them, or a deficit, in the case of positive high-voltage. They do not necessarily have a charge, per se, on their own. Their attraction to a nucleus could be a result of magnetic orientation. That is, as an electron (basically an ether "ripple") moves closer to the nucleus, it could be being forced to turn to an orientation that causes the exhaust side to face that center (nucleus), driving it back out again. "The truth of today was the heresy of yesterday. Therefore, dare." -- Immanuel Velikovsky. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 15:06:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA22130; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 17:34:31 -0400 Message-ID: <960830173116_513155380@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Frank Baby! Speak to me Resent-Message-ID: <"XquOS.0.hP5.kwr9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/277 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes, I want to try this heavy water. Let me know how much it will cost. I'll let you know what happens when we put it in. If it works we all win. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 17:13:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA25221; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 17:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 17:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 17:09:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199608310009.RAA05353@li.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Question Cooper Resent-Message-ID: <"WPNDd.0.v96.jAu9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/278 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Pet theory, brace yourself please: > >Electrons are shaped like donuts, with ether flowing >through the hole in the middle and back around again. >Hence, they can act like small ether-vacuums, pulling >ether from one side, through their center, and out >the other side. > >A la: http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/gif/electron.gif > >Under the right temperature and material conditions, >pairs of electrons can glomm together with their >vacuum sides facing each other. > >Keep in mind that electrostatics are simply conditions >where a preponderance of electrons are crammed into a >space beyond what is normal for them, or a deficit, in >the case of positive high-voltage. They do not >necessarily have a charge, per se, on their own. > >Their attraction to a nucleus could be a result of >magnetic orientation. That is, as an electron (basically >an ether "ripple") moves closer to the nucleus, it could >be being forced to turn to an orientation that causes >the exhaust side to face that center (nucleus), driving >it back out again. > > >"The truth of today was the heresy of yesterday. Therefore, dare." >-- Immanuel Velikovsky. > > >Gary Hawkins Well, as far as I am concerned, you are very close (though I think you found out about photons here rather than electrons but their structure I think is similar). Think about this for a minute. Suppose that aether exists and permeates all of the universe. Is it then more of a fluid, or a solid? In my opinion, a fluid is more characteristic of the actions we notice with relative motions etc., and there are many reasons for my conclusion this is so I will skip here. Fluids, do not exhibit "attraction". So why not try again with your model without trying to invoke attractions that we seem to be in love with despite no evidence for their existence any where in the universe. (Oh yeah, I know we call things attractive forces, but then when I ask you what is responsible for communicating the action of your attractive force you will be forced to tell me you don't know, or I should not be asking such a question). OK, so on with it. Your electron looks in air like a smoke ring, great. but lets contemplate how smoke rings really work. (we are back to the airfoil suction I am afraid, so lets stick to the electron and the smoke ring). The smoke ring is created by emitting a puff of air in the rough shape of a cylinder out of your mouth with the axis heading forward. this burst of air is under higher pressure than the surrounding environment, and so it tries to expand and spread out at the leading edge of the cylinder emitted axially from your mouth. That expansion compresses the adjoining air molecules exterior to the smoke. As the vortex passes through, the interior high pressure is abated and the air molecules that were compressed expand back into the rarefaction behind the rear of the smoke ring. That circularly convergent smoke motion and air motion throws the smoke back into and through the center of the vortex and out through it into the front of the vortex where it again compresses air that is just now meeting with the vortices kinetic anamolies and pressure anamolies. So, if you work on the kinetics, and you treat things as compressive or expansive without "attraction" or "repulsion" per se, then I think you will find you have come up with things similar in good measure to the theories that were being studied in detail by Kelvin, Maxwell, Helmholtz and many others before the turn of the century. And if you add one thing to your model, condensation in the center due to high pressure as your aether passes through the center, then you will have the non linearity that I consider to take place. You will also find that the electron thus modeled is pulsating and that the surrounding standing wave, will be spherically convergent. And if that electron shoots out of its mouth a puff of aether, then that aether will be in the form of your vortex. And if your vortex were to find another pulsating electron, that electron would swallow your photon and be more full with condensed aether than it likes. So it too would emit a burst of aether in time when the confinement of its standing wave broke down for an instant and could not hold onto that extra aether in its belly. Well, that is my pet theory. But it leads to some interesting things when you consider black holes, fusion energy and aether releases (coronal heating and acceleration of solar wind to name two, dark matter to name three). Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 19:30:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA21107; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 19:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 19:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 19:06:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199608310206.TAA27241@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Very Rare Technology $ Opportunity To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"kWde53.0.h95.Gwv9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/279 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: August 30, 1996 Friday Mike, Watch out! the U.S. is strict about funding solicitations to the public however "one chance in a lifetime" it may be. If time is of the essence, do it very privately. If it is done in the open, even on the Vortex, you may be exposing yourself to unexpected damage down the line. Perhaps more so if the suggested enterprise is successful and definitely so if it is not. I do not mean to discourage your effort, and it sounds optimistic and grand and sincere, BUT. There are too many opportunities that metamorphosize to a scam that the U.S. has laws to protect both sides of an opportunity. Sincerely, -AK- You wrote: > >Dear Vortexians: > >I beg your indulgance in sending you this post regarding a request for >capital. This is not a spam. I hope you realize that with this post I am >offering you sincerely an opportunity to help me to complete the startup of >a company which is going to field a radically new oil/water separation >technology which has the ability to eat up a sizable portion of the U.S. >petroleum industry by taking oil out of water or vice verse down to less >than 10 ppm, actually usually down to less than 5 ppm. With the acquistion >of one machine (the building of which must be commissioned) our company will >generate large amounts of cash within 120 days and grow exponentially, >doubling in size every three weeks, all because of the huge amounts of >hitherto uneconomic petroleum which has been stockpiled and/or capped in Texas. > >This is a very rare case of being in the right place at the right time. The >inventor of this technology, a distinguised engineer who ate out of garbage >cans as a small child, is willing to allow "small guys" to make a lot of >money with this for re-investment in new technology. I personally have been >looking for an opportunity like this for the past twenty years. I have been >looking on Vortex and the InterNet for this opportunity, but this one came >in through the back door. I have been looking in the Transmutation field, >cold fusion field and in the over-unity magnetic motor field for this type >of opportunity. As some of you will recall, I have been helping Muller >promote his dynamo concept through Vortex and by other means, however that >has been a frustrating catch 22 situation wrestling with the combo of >inventor's disease and the highly justified skepticism of even the people >who WANT to find IT. > >Suffice it to say, this technology is real, has a six year track record, >provides RADICAL capability which will RADICALLY change the economics and >practices of the oil industry in North America (everywhere else for that >matter). For short term profit potentials, this beats all else I've seen or >heard about, and the cashflow will support any other type of major >technology startup in the overunity field, in fact, many of them. There is >a certain poetry to such a notion. > >Below is the vision summary. For a complete EMAIL copy of our Strategy >Plan, please email me at mwm@aa.net > > >Strategic Development Plan One > >August 1996 > > > > > > >Environmental Tune-Up Programs: > >* Oil Water Rescue (SM) >* Oil Reserve Recovery >* Oil Waste Remediation Program > > > >VISIT OUR WEBSITE FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PROGRAMS: >url to this site is on the bottom; data will be available after Labor Day >Weekend. > > >Confidential: This document is private, proprietary property and may not be >copied except with the express permission of Michael W. Mandeville.. > > > > >Strategic Plan Outline > > > >The Vision > >The petroleum industry is generating a lot of "waste" oil, oil which cannot >be economically extracted using the best of today's techology. Tens of >millions of dollars of oil/water mixtures in Texas constitute a major >disposal problem in the U.S. And, thousands of oil wells are becoming >depleted, which means that too much water is pumped with the oil. We can >recover most of that oil and leave clean water for normal discharge, cheaply >(using no chemicals or heat, only a pump), using a radical but proven >technology (six year track record with 300 installations for pollution >abatement by one of Dow Chemical's ex top chemical engineers - this >technology definitely works and the small company behind it definitely >works!). With one machine, costing $160,000, we can generate net profits >(before taxes) in the range of $80,000 per week. How many machines per >month can we pay for? What is $80,000 per week times 52? Would you like >your money returned in six months? A millionaire in one year? Would you >also like $20,000 per month remitted directly into your bank account to tide >you by for as long as the company exists? > >We are not selling the machines. We have some working capital. We have >lots of skills to handle everything. Everything we've got has been thrown >into this. We have spent four months on the due diligence. We have located >sites in Texas which will work with us and give us their oil/water mixtures >as soon as we can haul in a machine. WE WANT HELP PURCHASING THE FIRST >MACHINE. The inventor/manufacturer will give us North America exclusively >for the application of the machines. Why? The inventor is a top scientist >in his field and does not want to market nor administer things. He wants to >collect a royalty on the recovery of economic oil. He wants someone he >trusts to administer the promotion, installations, and collection of >royalties. He is very wary of large corporations. He does not want to sell >this technology to the petroleum industry. He wants someone to start taking >over the waste oil before the industry realizes that it is not waste oil, >because that way we can get the oil at no cost and use the windfall profits >to capitalize a big operation. To start with, he would rather rise to the >top with some other small guys that have the gumption and the skills. That's us. > >If you can visit Texas and have the ability to help us finance the first >machine, let's talk. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 21:07:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA18030; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 21:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 21:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 21:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608310405.VAA18014@hungary.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Oxygen Resent-Message-ID: <"-mkcf1.0.eP4.Vex9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/280 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > What is the phone# and location of the ITS bookstore. Need website URL, > too. ITS (International Tesla Society) bookstore tel: (800)397-0137. Brown's Gas Book 1, is in stock and Book 2 is on backorder. > I've got this big engined Mustang that doesn't pass smog at idle :( Still in experimental stages at this time. Several researchers working on converting a car to run on water. Currently scaling up the electrolyzer design to a prototype device. Once the design works for idling then the next step is to drive the car under load. When all this works then we can build units for other people. Until then the info is out on "how to do" and build an experimental unit in the Brown's Gas books. I'll inform the vortex-l & energ-l group when we get a car powered up for load conditions. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 22:31:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA01487; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 22:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 22:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960831053326.006e4170@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 22:33:26 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Question Cooper Resent-Message-ID: <"xSl8K3.0.7N.Asy9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/281 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >> >>Their attraction to a nucleus could be a result of >>magnetic orientation. That is, as an electron (basically >>an ether "ripple") moves closer to the nucleus, it could >>be being forced to turn to an orientation that causes >>the exhaust side to face that center (nucleus), driving >>it back out again. > >Fluids, do not exhibit "attraction". So why not try again with your model >without trying to invoke attractions that we seem to be in love with despite >no evidence for their existence any where in the universe. (Oh yeah, I know >we call things attractive forces, but then when I ask you what is >responsible for communicating the action of your attractive force you will >be forced to tell me you don't know, or I should not be asking such a >question). OK, so on with it. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. When I referred to "Their attraction to a nucleus", I meant, their presumed attraction to a nucleus, under prevalent views of "modern" science. Your criticism falls inapplicable due to a misunderstanding. Otherwise, I agree. > >So, if you work on the kinetics, and you treat things as compressive or >expansive without "attraction" or "repulsion" per se, then I think you will >find you have come up with things similar in good measure to the theories >that were being studied in detail by Kelvin, Maxwell, Helmholtz and many >others before the turn of the century. Interesting. An "attraction" or "repulsion" of course would imply some sort of completely non-understood phenomena, even mystical, as in perhaps, the mind of God or something. Compressive and expansive, easily explaining high voltage, strikes a much more solid chord. >And if you add one thing to your model, condensation in the center due to >high pressure as your aether passes through the center, then you will have >the non linearity that I consider to take place. You will also find that >the electron thus modeled is pulsating and that the surrounding standing >wave, will be spherically convergent. And if that electron shoots out of >its mouth a puff of aether, then that aether will be in the form of your >vortex. And if your vortex were to find another pulsating electron, that >electron would swallow your photon and be more full with condensed aether >than it likes. So it too would emit a burst of aether in time when the >confinement of its standing wave broke down for an instant and could not >hold onto that extra aether in its belly. > >Well, that is my pet theory. Well done. Condensation of ether, hmmm. Suppose we take a look at the normal condensation of water out of the air. Water molecules in the air, on striking a cool surface (read "cool" as -- "lower vibration" or "less movement") the lack of movement allows them to slow their own vibration enough to cling together, and to cling to that cool surface. The center of a vortex at infinitesimal levels could provide that stillness to provide a semblence of solidity due to a condensation, in effect that you refer to, although I sense I am being somewhat reckless with this speculation, as if there were an element of truth, although imperfect. The electron "donut", could of course be also rotating about its own axis. A valid question might be how the order could maintain itself, instead of falling apart into a soup of confused, random ether ebbs and flows. >But it leads to some interesting things when you consider black holes, >fusion energy and aether releases (coronal heating and acceleration of solar >wind to name two, dark matter to name three). > >Later, Ross Tessien > Please feel free to elaborate if you would like to, on those. And, if the model can explain what in the world, exactly, a magnetic field is, by all means... Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 22:51:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA03967; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 22:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 22:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 21:52:30 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Very Rare Technology $ Opportunity Resent-Message-ID: <"APLxQ3.0.rz.T8z9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/282 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >Confidential: This document is private, proprietary property and may not be >copied except with the express permission of Michael W. Mandeville.. > [snip] >Michael Mandeville, publisher Was this included by accident? Since the vortex list has numerous subscribers, is public, i.e. "Any interested parties are welcome to subscribe", plus archived so anyone in the world with www access can see it, posting here is a clearly a form of publishing. Anything posted here is no longer "private", true? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 30 23:41:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA11951; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 23:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 23:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32277837.440E@introtech.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 23:24:39 +0000 From: Henry Reply-To: henry@introtech.com Organization: introtech X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Very Rare Technology $ Opportunity References: <199608310206.TAA27241@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"S9k4K3.0.fw2.4vz9o"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/283 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I cannot let this pass. There are several oil-water separation technologies that are reasonably cost-effective. One particularly effective system derives from Israel, and was just licensed to a U.S. organization headquartered back east. If anyone here would like more information on that (in the interest of due diligence, of course) call me at my office -- M-F, 9-5 PDT -- and I'll try to find the details. Henry Henry Eisenson INTROTECH 6336 Greenwich Drive San Diego, CA 92122 (619) 453-7600, fax 552-9050 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 02:35:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA02418; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 02:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 02:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 11:30:22 +0200 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.1 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: jlagarde@cyberaccess.fr (Jean_de_Lagarde) Subject: Transmutations Resent-Message-ID: <"MnhO_2.0.hb.IR0Ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/284 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Has anybody of the Vortex group, heard about the Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference to be held on September 13-14 (in Salt Lake City ?) and co-chaired by George Miley and John Bockris ? If I am well informed, in addition to George Miley's results, a paper (of which I have a pre-print by Hal Fox), should be presented by Robert Bass, Rod Neal, Stan Gleeson and Hal Fox, on fission of radioactive thorium by electrolyse of thorium nitrate with specially prepared electodes, leading to disappearence of more than half of the thorium present in the electrolyte, production of mercury and neon and drastic reduction of gamma rays. Similarly tungsten could be fissioned into cadmium and iron. It seems so extraordinary that it requires confirmation. See Fusion Information center, P.O. Box 58639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158 Jean de Lagarde From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 02:45:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA03179; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 02:42:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 02:42:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 02:41:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199608310941.CAA30091@smudge.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: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Question Cooper Resent-Message-ID: <"rLm7X3.0.dn.eZ0Ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/285 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >>So, if you work on the kinetics, and you treat things as compressive or >>expansive without "attraction" or "repulsion" per se, then I think you will >>find you have come up with things similar in good measure to the theories >>that were being studied in detail by Kelvin, Maxwell, Helmholtz and many >>others before the turn of the century. > >Interesting. An "attraction" or "repulsion" of course would imply >some sort of completely non-understood phenomena, even mystical, >as in perhaps, the mind of God or something. Compressive and >expansive, easily explaining high voltage, strikes a much more >solid chord. Not at all. Just treat a fluid mechanical system of a spherical object in a fluid, where that object pulsates radially, and you will get those effects due to the interaction with the fluid. but if the "spheres" are made of the fluid itself, then you get the same effects, but this time applied to the standing wave in the fluid, and you don't even need a "sphere". the convergent core of the standing wave will be forced to precess through the nodes of the acoustic energy structure in the aether. > >>And if you add one thing to your model, condensation in the center due to >>high pressure as your aether passes through the center, then you will have >>the non linearity that I consider to take place. You will also find that >>the electron thus modeled is pulsating and that the surrounding standing >>wave, will be spherically convergent. And if that electron shoots out of >>its mouth a puff of aether, then that aether will be in the form of your >>vortex. And if your vortex were to find another pulsating electron, that >>electron would swallow your photon and be more full with condensed aether >>than it likes. So it too would emit a burst of aether in time when the >>confinement of its standing wave broke down for an instant and could not >>hold onto that extra aether in its belly. >> >>Well, that is my pet theory. > >Well done. Condensation of ether, hmmm. Suppose we take a look at >the normal condensation of water out of the air. Water molecules >in the air, on striking a cool surface (read "cool" as -- "lower >vibration" or "less movement") the lack of movement allows them to >slow their own vibration enough to cling together, and to cling >to that cool surface. Let the "surface" be other water molecules and then you will have "fog". Yes, that is another set of particles with water molecules adsorbing and vaporizing constantly. Those, I am confident, are as well, standing waves in the air. The center of a vortex at infinitesimal >levels could provide that stillness to provide a semblence of >solidity due to a condensation, in effect that you refer to, >although I sense I am being somewhat reckless with this >speculation, as if there were an element of truth, although >imperfect. The electron "donut", could of course be also >rotating about its own axis. A valid question might be >how the order could maintain itself, instead of falling >apart into a soup of confused, random ether ebbs and flows. If aether can condense in a particle due to the potential energy (ie pressure) build up due to the kinetic convergence, then in any situation that there is a large convergence of kinetic energy that exceeds the state change pressure, you will get the aether to compact into a more dense form. So, if a star collapses and exceeds that kinetic energy density at some radius, then somewhere inside of that radius, the aether will condense. Lets call that radius the event horizon of some condensation effect. Now, there will be a rarefaction of the space around that collapsing star. And that rarefaction will induce the space (aka aether or the universe), around that rarefaction to accelerate inward. but it finds itself converging toward itself and thus we wind up with a stable convergence that condenses, ergo, black hole. but this black hole has a condensate for a core, not a singularity (notice I got rid of one more undefined thing?). And such a highly pressurized core one would expect to sooner or later breach confinment and explode, and I don't mean Hawking stuff. Now when that happens, then the aether will want to vaporize. And that boiling will send acoustic waves through the aether condensate, and later through the aether vapor. The remaining condensate will be forced into those acoustic nodes, and they will then be surrounded by standing waves naturally, since that is what an acoustic node is. So, the mere process of vaporizing the aether is going to trap droplets of aetehr in two kinds of nodes, those at 0 degree phase angle, and those at 180 degree phase angle since those two phase angles will mesh with each others pulsations. And voila, you have the big bang as the source for the nodal structure of space, and the acoustic nodes as the reason for the matter existing inside of the standing waves. And as a bonus, you get two phase angles that should manifest, and these match our observation of behavior of positive and negative charge when you consider the attractions and repulsions of the pulsating spheres above. > >>But it leads to some interesting things when you consider black holes, >>fusion energy and aether releases (coronal heating and acceleration of solar >>wind to name two, dark matter to name three). >> >>Later, Ross Tessien >> > >Please feel free to elaborate if you would like to, on those. And, >if the model can explain what in the world, exactly, a magnetic >field is, by all means... > >Gary Hawkins Well, a magnetic field is both extremely simple, and very hard to properly visualize. It is nothing more than a rotation of the electric "field" pulsations within the aether. but that rotation is not like a tornado, or like a hurricane or a merry go round. It is like the constructive interference of a phased array radar beam. So, the emission of the rotations sort of have more of a helical nature to them than a simple rotation. If you think of two bar magnets as though they have a spiral corridor through them, then you will find that if you align two like spirals up, the energy can freely flow. There is an interference in getting the energy into that organization, and so the energy arriving from space applies a thrust to the outsides of two bar magnets making us think they "pull" toward each other. And when you put two bar magnets with like poles facing each other, then you wind up with the energy entering the ends of the magnets again pushing them together. but now at the meeting point of the two magnets, the energy leaving one magnet has the opposite helix of the energy flowing freely through the other magnet. So that energy is reflected. but now that reflected energy as well interferes with the original magnet due to the inversion of the helix during reflection (this is just like the inversion of a sinusoid at a short circuit in a transmission cable with high f signal). So, the multiple reflections provide a greater than one repulsion, and overcomes the thrust pushing them together from the outside like in the attraction case. In short, if you think something is tensile by nature, you are relieving some of the compression energy. Nothing pulls on anything, period. There exist in nature, no attractive forces. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 04:40:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id EAA17268; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: 31 Aug 96 07:37:12 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Transmutations Message-ID: <960831113712_100433.1541_BHG97-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"JQhd33.0.lD4.GH2Ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/286 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jean de Lagarde asks: > Has anybody of the Vortex group, heard about the Low-Energy > Nuclear Reactions Conference to be held on September 13-14 (in > Salt Lake City ?) and co-chaired by George Miley and John Bockris? Of course. > If I am well informed, in addition to George Miley's results, a > paper (of which I have a pre-print by Hal Fox), should be > presented by Robert Bass, Rod Neal, Stan Gleeson and Hal Fox, on > fission of radioactive thorium by electrolyse of thorium nitrate > with specially prepared electodes, leading to disappearence of > more than half of the thorium present in the electrolyte, > production of mercury and neon and drastic reduction of gamma > rays. Similarly tungsten could be fissioned into cadmium and iron. This would be no great surprise (the claim, that is, clearly the result would require replications). This is the "Cincinnati Group" whose work I mentioned here some months ago. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 09:15:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA15386; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199608311613.JAA26889@switzerland.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: car, groups Resent-Message-ID: <"cO70k.0.Mm3.5J6Ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/287 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:59:59 -0400 you wrote: > what is enrg-l? are there other subscriber groups? Sorry, typo, its "freenrg-l" discussion group. > good luck with your car. My next unit will power a 5 hp Briggs & Straton gas engine/4kw electric generator set. If it runs in standalone mode over unity (300%) fueled only by water then I would like to build more for the electric utility markets i.e. residential, commercial, institutional buildings. It is easier at first to power a constant rpm engine verses a car engine with variable rpms. > is more info available? Yes, this new technolgy has been called Brown's gas, water gas, and hyper-gas. The "how to build a unit" (small gas device output for welding uses) is available at ITS (Int'l Tesla Society) bookstore, 'Brown's Gas, Book 1' by George Wiseman. 'Book 2' with info for a larger welder design is on backorder. George's ITS 1996 Symposium Workshop on Brown's Gas is available on video also, that shows a van fueled on water. > is it the myer way? No. Myer uses pulsed high voltage and low amperage. Water gas uses pulsed low voltage (1.23v) and high amperage. > how are you making the hydrogen? Complete details are in the books and video, but briefly as follows: A standard electrolyzer with pulsed dc input (full-wave bridge rectified power input 120 pulses per sec. dc). creates water gas of mono-atomic hydrogen and oxygen that is in a high energy state (442.4 Kcal per gram-mole compared to 57.85 Kcal per gram mole for H2). This means that a leaner mixture, when mixed with air, can be used to power an engine. This gas has uniques features not found "in the textbooks" due to few researchers in this field. See my my earlier posts on vortex-l on Brown's gas 6/15/95, 6/18, 6/19, 6/23, 6/24, 6/25, 6/26, 6/27, 6/28, and 7/5/95. Commercial welding units, made in China, are available for $5000 for the BN-2000. > best wishes. > Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 10:03:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA24123 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:03:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net Sat Aug 31 10:03:13 1996 Received: from denmark.it.earthlink.net (denmark-c.it.earthlink.net [204.119.177.22]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA24104 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roshi.corp (roshi.corp.earthlink.net [206.43.129.31]) by denmark.it.earthlink.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA28951 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Old-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Amiga SMTPpost 0.88 Feb 28, 1994) id AA01; Sat, 31 Aug 96 08:58:09 Received: by roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Amiga SMTPpost 0.88 Feb 28, 1994) id AA01; Sat, 31 Aug 96 08:57:29 From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Chuck Davis) Message-Id: <231bbf74.u8t20e.2dd61-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Additional Information (fwd) X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: I'm kicked off vortex-l. How come???? In-Reply-To: (from William Beaty ) (at Fri, 23 Aug 1996 07:32:20 -0700 (PDT)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 31 Aug 96 08:57:29 -- =20 .-. = =20.-. =20 / \ .-. .-. = / \ =20 / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ /= =20 \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/---= ----\-- =20 roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net `-' \ / \ / =20 \ / `-' `-' \ / =20 `-' `-' From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 10:48:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA03056; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960831175209.006e3f18@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:52:09 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: car, groups Resent-Message-ID: <"Hbi-p3.0.el.Wg7Ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/288 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:13 AM 8/31/96 -0700, you wrote: >At Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:59:59 -0400 you wrote: >> good luck with your car. >My next unit will power a 5 hp Briggs & Straton gas engine/4kw electric >generator set. If it runs in standalone mode over unity (300%) fueled only >by water then I would like to build more for the electric utility markets >i.e. residential, commercial, institutional buildings. It is easier at first >to power a constant rpm engine verses a car engine with variable rpms. If you succeed, the urban legend may be vindicated, where a guy pulls into a gas station, asks for a garden hose, fills his gas tank up with water, and drives down the road, only to be stopped by some sort of officials several miles down the road, and never heard from again. That story is years or decades old. >> is it the myer way? >No. Myer uses pulsed high voltage and low amperage. Water gas uses pulsed >low voltage (1.23v) and high amperage. If anyone has one of Yull Brown's units, would like to know what feeds the plates on his, possibly pulses, no large transformer inside. (Scope to the plate terminals). >compared to 57.85 Kcal per gram mole for H2). This means that a leaner >mixture, when mixed with air, can be used to power an engine. If you run into a valve-overheating problem, due to the hot burning of hydrogen, try adding some water vapor to absorb the heat. An ultrasonic humidifier, available at garage sales sometimes for around $5, could provide an ultrafine mist, that could just be placed near the air intake. The units make what looks like fog, and remains cool as the fog is generated. H2O is also supposed to dissociate at around 950 degrees fahrenheit, which can possibly explain the turbo effect of water injection. >Commercial welding units, made in China, are available for $5000 for the >BN-2000. George Wiseman said an associate of his is building units, and have comparable units to Brown's $10,000 unit, for $500. >> best wishes. >> Mitchell Swartz > > > Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 17:01:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA29722; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 16:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 16:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 16:56:06 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: FORBIDDEN SCIENCE, R. Milton Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"I4AjL3.0.MG7.g4DAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/289 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I finally encountered a copy of R. Milton's FORBIDDEN SCIENCE (1994, Fourth Estate Ltd, London, ISBN 1-85702-302-1) Absolutely wonderful! The main part of the book takes a detailed look at what makes Pathological Skeptics tick. He has a chapter on CF and on the Wrights, but his large collection of other instances of closeminded "blacklisting" of certain fields of science is a wonder to behold. His chapter on "The Research Game" gives an interesting list of rules which amazed me, because it turns out to be a perfect summary of why I personally did NOT make science a career. All chapters are heavily referenced, big bibliography too. The blurb on the back cover says it better than I can: Today mountains of experimental data are being ignored and rejected by orthodox science: subjects as controversial as cold fusion; psychokinesis; ESP; alternative medicine and many others. In exposing these taboo areas of scientific experimentation, Richard Milton shows how findings that threaten scientific orthodoxy are systematically misrepresented, ridiculed and starved of funding. Milton's perceptive and revealing voyage around the exotic world of anomalous research addresses the forbidden question: is there something fundamentally wrong with the way science is currently practiced? This book is now out under a US publisher in paperback as "Alternative Science." The UW bookstore had both, and they seemed identical, so I bought the original. *Definitely* a must-have for your collection. Milton turns out to be a net user. He's at richard@milton.win-uk.net, and Dejanews shows that he hangs out at alt.psychology.synchronicity newsgroup. (I haven't tried contacting him as yet.) .....................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-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 19:02:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA15708; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 18:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 18:55:43 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Transmutations Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 01:54:21 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3228dcc4.1798312@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"xSaIW3.0.Or3.UqEAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/291 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 31 Aug 1996 11:30:22 +0200, Jean_de_Lagarde wrote: >Has anybody of the Vortex group, heard about the Low-Energy Nuclear >Reactions Conference to be held on September 13-14 (in Salt Lake City ?) >and co-chaired by George Miley and John Bockris ? > >If I am well informed, in addition to George Miley's results, a paper = (of >which I have a pre-print by Hal Fox), should be presented by Robert = Bass, I don't suppose the pre-print is available on one of the pre-print servers is it, and if so would you know the number? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 19:02:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA15530; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 18:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 18:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 18:54:42 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Quote collection Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"l3uqJ.0.Yo3.kpEAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/290 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The group might enjoy my current collection of quotes. I just found several more good ones which were on the Science Jokes site. Know of any others in this same vein? .....................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 It is not uncommon for engineers to accept the reality of phenomena that are not yet understood, as it is very common for physicists to disbelieve the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary beliefs of physics - H. Bauer "Round about the accredited and orderly facts of every science there ever floats a sort of dust-cloud of exceptional observations, of occurrences minute and irregular and seldom met with, which it always proves more easy to ignore than to attend to... Anyone will renovate his science who will steadily look after the irregular phenomena, and when science is renewed, its new formulas often have more of the voice of the exceptions in them than of what were supposed to be the rules." - William James "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to collegues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy "If a man is in too big a hurry to give up an error he is liable to give up some truth with it." - Wilbur Wright, 1902 "It's like religion. Heresy is though of as a bad thing, whereas in science it should be just the opposite." -T. Gold "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth." -G. Goebbles "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." - Albert. A. Michelson, speech at the dedication of Ryerson Physics Lab, U. of Chicago, 1894 If it happens, it must be possible. - Unnamed Law What I don't understand I despise, what I despise I reject. - the Referee's Creed There is no natural phenomenon that is comparable with the sudden and apparently accidentally timed development of science, except perhaps the condensation of a super-saturated gas or the explosion of some unpredictable explosives. - Eugene P. Wigner When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. - Arthur C. Clarke's First Law It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover. - H. Poincare One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid. - J. D. Watson _The Double Helix_ Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature. - Michael Faraday A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. -M. Planck A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds. - Mark Twain Who never walks save where he sees men's tracks makes no discoveries. -J.G. Holland From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 20:31:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA27166; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 20:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 20:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609010317.UAA03207@nz1.netzone.com> X-Sender: discpub@netzone.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 20:25:22 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Transmutations Resent-Message-ID: <"Lsupv.0.Ne6.A7GAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/292 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:54 AM 9/1/96 GMT, you wrote: >On Sat, 31 Aug 1996 11:30:22 +0200, Jean_de_Lagarde wrote: >>Has anybody of the Vortex group, heard about the Low-Energy Nuclear >>Reactions Conference to be held on September 13-14 (in Salt Lake City ?) >>and co-chaired by George Miley and John Bockris ? >> >>If I am well informed, in addition to George Miley's results, a paper (of >>which I have a pre-print by Hal Fox), should be presented by Robert Bass, > The conference is being held in College Station, Texas just off of Texas A&M's campus. The organizer are Bockris and Lin. I am not sure if one can get an invite to the conference at this late date, but you might try by telephoning Guang Lin at 409-845-3661. Miley's results on the PAterson Cell transmutation will be presented along with serval other papers........ _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 21:49:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA10208; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 21:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 21:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 00:45:40 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: Power Turns (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"uc1xS3.0.SV2.oKHAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/293 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To any, Engineering Department. For users of bearings. Two local scientists have developed a proprietary method for processing any roller bearing to make it have less friction. The process also will allow the bearing to operate, and make it have less friction if the lubricant, such as oil, has dried, become gummy or becomes otherwise contaminated. This process can allow a dry bearing to operate for a period in an unlubricated condition, thereby allowing a degree of a safety margin not enjoyed by any standard bearing. We would like to demonstrate this to you. At no charge. This is not an expensive process. Please send us a few unused bearings, enough to fit out any given motor or the like and we will process them and send them back. We ask only that you let us know the result to help us guide our work and improve the process. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. John Schnurer PEMS Physics Engineering Materials Sciences PO Box CN 446 Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Aug 31 22:04:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA12680; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 22:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 22:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 22:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609010501.WAA28409@iberia.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: car, groups Resent-Message-ID: <"lFVTa1.0._53.qYHAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/294 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:52:09 -0700, you wrote: >If you succeed, the urban legend may be vindicated, (snip) The info is out in public domain for anyone to build a unit. >If you run into a valve-overheating problem, due to the hot >burning of hydrogen, try adding some water vapor to absorb >the heat. No problem in this area as reported todate. >H2O is also supposed to dissociate at around 950 degrees fahrenheit, >which can possibly explain the turbo effect of water injection. Thanks for the tip for a regular gaseoline fueled car. I'm always looking for ways to increase my fuel mileage. Some are reporting an opposite effect when using the water gas. That the sparkplugs are fouling/corroding due to the Brown's gas condensing to liquid after spark ignition in the cylinders. Any ideas? Current line of thought is looking at adding an air drying device that the gas goes through before entering the carborator to remove any water vapors that could (most likely) come from the water bubbler/backfire unit. >George Wiseman said an associate of his is building units, and have >comparable units to Brown's $10,000 unit, for $500. The best way to go for user/researchers who don't have the time to build their own unit by trial and error and only want to experiment with the gas. >Gary Hawkins > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today > http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA Thanks for the info! Michael Randall